Best way to use Biofuel?

[Hoff]

Personally, I'd hate to build, much less keep supplied, the one hundred forty four sterling engines that would be the equivalent of my solid fueled boiler.

Especially when I have four of them. The conduit costs alone of wiring up 574 engines would be prohibitive.

If you're in it for teh lulz take a look at www.twitch.tv/lanceypooh when he's casting(Everyday except wednesday ~2PM -5 GMT). He has somewhere over 300 magmatic's that he built in roughly two days. All wired and fed fairly easily. He plans to have somewhere around 3000 though. I'd love to see how much harder it is to do that much power with boilers.

He might or might not play on the world you'll just have to stick around to see

I'd imagine doing combustions would be even easier with xycraft water blocks + tanks and using biofuel for HUGE energy output and they're more efficient than max boilers for several irl days.

 

[Milaha]

Way to not go into arguments but insult someone instead. If you can't have a civil discussion I don't see why you hang around on these forums.

I already responded to that argument. Twice. In this thread. My point is that you are just fleeing into the statement that the entire question is silly now that you have been proven wrong. If you need to see my response to that flight, go ahead and read my two existing responses. My responses to you thus far have been "I already explained that three times" and "I already explained that twice" How many times do you want me to repeat myself before I assume that you are incapable of reading/remembering?

 

[Hydra]

One; See Omicron's thread. A max size boiler does not actually beat out MANY other uses for it for quite a long time IRL. Something you will not reach for probably a month or more of playing every day for ~2 hours.
Two; Argue what's at hand. It doesn't matter if we're talking about biofuel or coal or anything else; if the thread is about being efficient that's what it's about.

The "total" efficiency is only relevant in situations where fuel is finite. Boiler fuel isn't. After 5.5 hours the boiler is at maxx eff, how much fuel it consumed in that time is only relevant in the sense that you need to have stockpiled enough of it. The "total" efficiency is completely irrelevant because the fuel you use isn't finite.

That topic is discussing a topic no one should care about. The only efficiency that matters is how much energy you get per fuel unit once the boiler is at max temp.[DOUBLEPOST=1366046419][/DOUBLEPOST]

I already responded to that argument. Twice. In this thread. My point is that you are just fleeing into the statement that the entire question is silly now that you have been proven wrong. If you need to see my response to that flight, go ahead and read my two existing responses. My responses to you thus far have been "I already explained that three times" and "I already explained that twice" How many times do you want me to repeat myself before I assume that you are incapable of reading/remembering?

Like I said: your explanation did not statisfy and I explained why. If you simply refuse to respond to what I said I'll just assume I'm right and your wrong.

 

[snooder]

I do not know if you can only read every other line, are trolling me, or have a memory that can not make it through reading a 2 page thread. In any case, yay you, you are special! EDIT: Seriously, who comes into a discussion about efficiency and tells people they are wrong, only to later go "yeah, well, efficiency does not matter!" If efficiency does not matter, why did you bother engaging the discussion in the first place. Kindly pick your stance and stick with it, don't just flip flop as soon as you realize you were wrong.

1) The thread isn't about efficiency. It's about "best use".

2) Honestly, I really have to disagree with you about your definition of efficiency. It's interesting and informative to include the cost of heating up the boiler in it's fuel->power efficiency ratio, but most people don't care about that. What we care about, and what's important to us from an efficiency standpoint is "how many farms do I need to supply X amount of boilers for Y amount of power." And in that respect, once the boiler is heated up, it's more efficient. I.E. requires less farms or can get more power out of the same number of farms.

The reason people are so vocal about it is that if you tell a new player to use combustion engines because they are "more efficient" without clearly defining the terms, you'll end up with people who don't actually understand the math parroting your words and then doing stupid things. Like building hundreds of combustion engines instead of 4 or 5 36HP boilers.

 

[Hydra]

If you're in it for teh lulz take a look at www.twitch.tv/lanceypooh when he's casting(Everyday except wednesday ~2PM -5 GMT). He has somewhere over 300 magmatic's that he built in roughly two days. All wired and fed fairly easily. He plans to have somewhere around 3000 though. I'd love to see how much harder it is to do that much power with boilers.

That's 4x300=1200MJ/t. I'm assuming he's pumping lava from the nether? I personally don't favor these systems because I consider them rather 'sploity.

 

[Milaha]

The "total" efficiency is only relevant in situations where fuel is finite. Boiler fuel isn't. After 5.5 hours the boiler is at maxx eff, how much fuel it consumed in that time is only relevant in the sense that you need to have stockpiled enough of it. The "total" efficiency is completely irrelevant because the fuel you use isn't finite.

That topic is discussing a topic no one should care about. The only efficiency that matters is how much energy you get per fuel unit once the boiler is at max temp.[DOUBLEPOST=1366046419][/DOUBLEPOST]

Like I said: your explanation did not statisfy and I explained why. If you simply refuse to respond to what I said I'll just assume I'm right and your wrong.

Ok here goes a 3rd explanation. If you have infinte biofuel it does not matter what you do. If you have finite biofuel (the situation posed here), then efficiency matters. If you wish to engage in a discussion of how to "best" use an infinite resource, feel free. The rate at which you consume the fuel, or the rate at which you generate power relative to fuel used is NOT the metric that will be used. The metric that would be used is space efficiency, aesthetics, startup cost in finite resources, etc. This is not the discussion that was posed by the OP, and is not the topic at hand. IF you wish to engage in this alternate debate, feel free, I do not.

 

[Poppycocks]

Yeah, I like your analogy but I'm not building boilers for a trek from london to dublin, I'm building mine for transsiberian transportation.

So I'm kinda with Hydra on this one, the fuel I lost setting up my boilers, surely paid of in spades after the two months of non-stop running. In this light, only top efficiency is relevant.

Then again you know that, said so yourself.

Why did I make this comment again?

 

[Milaha]

1) The thread isn't about efficiency. It's about "best use".

2) Honestly, I really have to disagree with you about your definition of efficiency. It's interesting and informative to include the cost of heating up the boiler in it's fuel->power efficiency ratio, but most people don't care about that. What we care about, and what's important to us from an efficiency standpoint is "how many farms do I need to supply X amount of boilers for Y amount of power." And in that respect, once the boiler is heated up, it's more efficient. I.E. requires less farms or can get more power out of the same number of farms.

The reason people are so vocal about it is that if you tell a new player to use combustion engines because they are "more efficient" without clearly defining the terms, you'll end up with people who don't actually understand the math parroting your words and then doing stupid things. Like building hundreds of combustion engines instead of 4 or 5 36HP boilers.

Ok, here goes the fuel efficency explanation again. For every 10 MJ/t that I get to produce the instant my fuel chain is setup with combustion engines, you will eventually get to produce around 15 MJ/t. However, my engines are producing for hours while you wait for a sufficient supply to be filled up. I am doing things with my fuel and getting stuff done. Eventually you start your boiler, and start catching up, you do more things per tick from that point forward. But! I have already done a lot of things with my smaller power supply. Over time you will catch up, but in a SP environment you will likely never hit that time.

Total explanations: 3 and 4 for each respectively. The math is there, address that, something you have not done. All you have done is say "I dont care"

 

[Hydra]

I do not know if you can only read every other line, are trolling me, or have a memory that can not make it through reading a 2 page thread. In any case, yay you, you are special! EDIT: Seriously, who comes into a discussion about efficiency and tells people they are wrong, only to later go "yeah, well, efficiency does not matter!" If efficiency does not matter, why did you bother engaging the discussion in the first place. Kindly pick your stance and stick with it, don't just flip flop as soon as you realize you were wrong.

I haven't responded to your edit yet since it came after I replied to your post.

I'm saying that no one cares about the efficiency during startup, NOT that no one cares about the efficiency while running. The latter is important since you can only sustain a certain number of fuel units per second in production. What you want is the best 'bang for the buck' for those fuel units, so what people DO care about is the efficiency at full temp.

The reason people tend not to care about startup efficiency is because people tend to build the fuel supply first and then the boiler. This means you'll easily have a stock of fuel to heat up the boiler. So in theory you might argu that the heatup consumption is relevant. In practice it hardly is. In theory you might go for a 4 LP boiler, in practise most people build (multiple) 36 HP boilers.

 

[Poppycocks]

oh man, "multiple" doesn't even begin to cover it...

 

[Hydra]

Ok, here goes the fuel efficency explanation again. For every 10 MJ/t that I get to produce the instant my fuel chain is setup with combustion engines, you will eventually get to produce around 15 MJ/t. However, my engines are producing for hours while you wait for a sufficient supply to be filled up. I am doing things with my fuel and getting stuff done. Eventually you start your boiler, and start catching up, you do more things per tick from that point forward. But! I have already done a lot of things with my smaller power supply. Over time you will catch up, but in a SP environment you will likely never hit that time.

Yes. You're completely right. But it simply doesn't matter. All that matter is what a fully heated boiler gets you. The 5.5 hours of warmup consumption don't matter since you tend to have stockpiled fuel from a renewable source.[DOUBLEPOST=1366046958][/DOUBLEPOST]

oh man, "multiple" doesn't even begin to cover it...

Oil bees are overpowered aren't they?

 

[Milaha]

Yes. You're completely right. But it simply doesn't matter. All that matter is what a fully heated boiler gets you. The 5.5 hours of warmup consumption don't matter since you tend to have stockpiled fuel from a renewable source.[DOUBLEPOST=1366046958][/DOUBLEPOST]

Oil bees are overpowered aren't they?

How does 5 hours of play time where you sit on your bum and do not use power "not matter' this is the time to make the stockpile, not to use it. I am getting things done. I am smelting, I am running quarrys, etc. You are not. If you are running combustion engines there is no need to build up a stockpile, that is the time that matters.

 

[Poppycocks]

Oil bees are overpowered aren't they?

Neah, mostly solid and bio.

Did I mention that my treefarm is ridiculously huge?

 

[DoctorOr]

If you're in it for teh lulz take a look at www.twitch.tv/lanceypooh when he's casting(Everyday except wednesday ~2PM -5 GMT). He has somewhere over 300 magmatic's that he built in roughly two days. All wired and fed fairly easily. He plans to have somewhere around 3000 though. I'd love to see how much harder it is to do that much power with boilers.

Burning lava is for newbs.

300 magmatics is only 9 boilers, and you'd have to actually go out and get the fuel, either netherrack or lava.

Thanks, but no.

 

[Hydra]

How does 5 hours of play time where you sit on your bum and do not use power "not matter' this is the time to make the stockpile, not to use it. I am getting things done. I am smelting, I am running quarrys, etc. You are not. If you are running combustion engines there is no need to build up a stockpile, that is the time that matters.

So you're going straight from "nothing" to combustion engines? These are the first engines you build? Grats, you're a unique little snowflake.[DOUBLEPOST=1366047289][/DOUBLEPOST]

Neah, mostly solid and bio.

Did I mention that my treefarm is ridiculously huge?

2 bio, 2 solid, 2 fuel. I don't have any more space in my powerplant (and also can't really be arsed). The only reason I build this many is to one-up the guy on our server that had 4

 

[snooder]

Ok here goes a 3rd explanation. If you have infinte biofuel it does not matter what you do. If you have finite biofuel (the situation posed here), then efficiency matters. If you wish to engage in a discussion of how to "best" use an infinite resource, feel free. The rate at which you consume the fuel, or the rate at which you generate power relative to fuel used is NOT the metric that will be used. The metric that would be used is space efficiency, aesthetics, startup cost in finite resources, etc. This is not the discussion that was posed by the OP, and is not the topic at hand. IF you wish to engage in this alternate debate, feel free, I do not.

It's an issue of throughput. When most people are talking about biofuel, they are talking about the output from a farm (or multiple farms). That's infinite in the sense that it will never be going away. Nobody just has a tank of biofuel that they need to convert and no way to get more. They also don't usually have infinite size storage tanks, so generally the output from the farm *at this moment* is all they need to care about. Anything from the past doesn't matter.

 

[DoctorOr]

Ok here goes a 3rd explanation. If you have infinte biofuel it does not matter what you do. If you have finite biofuel (the situation posed here), then efficiency matters.

Nobody has finite biofuel, that's the point.

What they have is biofuel per time unit. Except, time units exist before the creation of the boiler, and during those time units all created biofuel or supplies to create biofuel is excess. In a non boiler, that excess is simply, excess. Never to be used, so the efficiency of such a setup during those time units is zero. A boiler uses that excess as part of its heat up cycle, and so has effective efficiency for time units before it was even turned on.[DOUBLEPOST=1366047795][/DOUBLEPOST]

So you're going straight from "nothing" to combustion engines? These are the first engines you build? Grats, you're a unique little snowflake.

To be fair, I've powered a fermenter with a redstone engine long enough to startup a biogas. It only takes a bucket full. There's little reason to fob around with smaller engines.

In the future, the MFR reactor doesn't require power, so one could legitimately build their first MJ generation as a boiler running biofuel.

 

[Hoff]

The "total" efficiency is only relevant in situations where fuel is finite. Boiler fuel isn't. After 5.5 hours the boiler is at maxx eff, how much fuel it consumed in that time is only relevant in the sense that you need to have stockpiled enough of it. The "total" efficiency is completely irrelevant because the fuel you use isn't finite.

That topic is discussing a topic no one should care about. The only efficiency that matters is how much energy you get per fuel unit once the boiler is at max temp.

Not true at all imo. I don't care if it's finite or not; the best use for my fuel is being efficient about it. I don't really care if you feel infinite fuel voids efficiency.

1) The thread isn't about efficiency. It's about "best use".

2) Honestly, I really have to disagree with you about your definition of efficiency. It's interesting and informative to include the cost of heating up the boiler in it's fuel->power efficiency ratio, but most people don't care about that. What we care about, and what's important to us from an efficiency standpoint is "how many farms do I need to supply X amount of boilers for Y amount of power." And in that respect, once the boiler is heated up, it's more efficient. I.E. requires less farms or can get more power out of the same number of farms.

The reason people are so vocal about it is that if you tell a new player to use combustion engines because they are "more efficient" without clearly defining the terms, you'll end up with people who don't actually understand the math parroting your words and then doing stupid things. Like building hundreds of combustion engines instead of 4 or 5 36HP boilers.

1) If "best use" doesn't imply efficiency I question how you employ the english language.

2) Don't assume what you care about is what everyone cares about. The only thing that matters to me is exactly how efficiently I'm using my fuel.

Nothing really wrong with building that many combustions either considering how common iron is. Not to mention I'd rather just straight spend 120 iron on 10 Combustions than build 1 HP boiler. I'll get more bang for my buck for a LONG time and I don't have to cook my iron.

That's 4x300=1200MJ/t. I'm assuming he's pumping lava from the nether? I personally don't favor these systems because I consider them rather 'sploity.

Up to you. Personally I don't see easy as an exploit.

 

[snooder]

Ok, here goes the fuel efficency explanation again. For every 10 MJ/t that I get to produce the instant my fuel chain is setup with combustion engines, you will eventually get to produce around 15 MJ/t. However, my engines are producing for hours while you wait for a sufficient supply to be filled up. I am doing things with my fuel and getting stuff done. Eventually you start your boiler, and start catching up, you do more things per tick from that point forward. But! I have already done a lot of things with my smaller power supply. Over time you will catch up, but in a SP environment you will likely never hit that time.

The point is that let's say we both build the farm on day one. Then I grind for material to build the boiler power system while you also grind for material to build the combustion engine power system. Meanwhile I build a sufficient reserve of fuel to heat up the boiler. On day two we both build our power systems. As of that point, I am producing more MJ/t than you are with the same farm.

 

[Hoff]

So you're going straight from "nothing" to combustion engines? These are the first engines you build? Grats, you're a unique little snowflake.

I tend to do so as well.

Burning lava is for newbs.

300 magmatics is only 9 boilers, and you'd have to actually go out and get the fuel, either netherrack or lava.

Thanks, but no.

So much harder to set a hell pump or myst pump than make biofuel. Oh wait it's not opposite day? just ignore that first sentence then.

Nobody has finite biofuel, that's the point.

What they have is biofuel per time unit. Except, time units exist before the creation of the boiler, and during those time units all created biofuel or supplies to create biofuel is excess. In a non boiler, that excess is simply, excess. Never to be used, so the efficiency of such a setup during those time units is zero. A boiler uses that excess as part of its heat up cycle, and so has effective efficiency for time units before it was even turned on.

Not everyone has the ability, or desire, to produce it automatically or on demand. You seem to have played for so long at end game anything under automation seems to be a moot point to you.