Best way to use Biofuel?

[Milaha]

I think you just don't really understand the sort of playstyle that we're talking about.

When I say "I build the farms before I build the boilers", I mean I'm building a 2x2 chunk steve's carts farm with a full RP2 or BC pipe system feeding barrels that feed a fermenter that feeds stills, e.t.c. And when I'm talking about a power system, I don't just mean 5 or so combustion engines. I mean the kind of infrastructure required to produce 300 to 400MJs, including fuel input, on-off switches, power storage, e.t.c. If it doesn't take you 5 hours to design, plan out, gather materials, craft, and build that system, well you just click buttons faster than I do.

That playstyle wasn't decided by any decision to use boilers. That's just how I play the game normally. I like to build large systems and I like to automate stuff.

Look, here's the real reason why I'm still here arguing. In my SSP world I used to use engines for power. They had a large footprint and I was constantly running out of fuel to produce the power I needed. I already had a pretty large tree farm, and didn't really want to build another one. Then I switched to a boiler, ripped out the engines and got more power out of the same fuel production setup. Plus I had more room to put machines and didn't have a cramped basement any more. That's efficiency to me. I just don't want someone else to take your words at their face value, think boilers suck and have to build that extra farm for no good reason.

I get that different playstyles have different needs. The problem is that you seem to keep implying that only a very specialized playstyle would benefit from boilers and everyone else should go for engines. And that's just not true. Not even close.

If you want to talk footprint you are using the wrong farm and biofuel production methods. (At least on Ultimate). I can get several thousand MJ worth of fuel out of 2 chunks of farms (not stacked) and support equipment. (requiring about 300 MJ to keep everything running). Sure using all that fuel either requires a large footprint or a lot of stacking, but the fuel production footprint is nice and small. I also wonder at the space efficiency of your engine setup if you saved so much by going to boilers. A 36 HP still requires 45 blocks just for the boiler, plus room for either a power-converter (you will need to swarm the liquiducts a bit since there is a cap on the steam one face can accept) or 18 engines. This produces the same power as 30 engines. You might get some savings, but it wont be all that much assuming you organize your engines well.

Your argument has now been made as "I like big complicated things and boilers are big and complicated. So, I do not care if they are the optimal solution." That is A-ok, fun is WAY more important than optimal use of resources, but it is not the discussion we are engaged in. Your argument keeps coming back to why you do not care that they are not optimal for one reason or another. That is FINE. It is ok to not take the perfectly optimal route every time. Fk, half the time we do things the hard/non-optimal way on purpose to have more fun (or at least I do). That does not change the fact that "by the numbers" they are the wrong choice almost every time in SSP.

 

[PonyKuu]

That does not change the fact that "by the numbers" they are the wrong choice almost every time in SSP.

You didn't answer the question. Are you planning to produce energy less than 15 hours in total?

 

[Milaha]

You didn't answer the question. Are you planning to produce energy less than 15 hours in total?

This discussion is not about what I am doing. It is about the optimal solution for SSP. I am not disagreeing with "your" assessment, you just re-stated the math I already did. 5 hours before production starts and 15 hours to payoff is a very long time in SSP.

 

[Mash]

5 hours?

Don't boilers start making steam at like 101 C?

What am I missing, here?

 

[snooder]

Your argument has now been made as "I like big complicated things and boilers are big and complicated. So, I do not care if they are the optimal solution."

No, my point is that the optimal use of my resources was the boiler. End of story. I got more power out of the same fuel production. That is optimal.

You can't argue that fully heated boilers aren't more efficient than combustion engines on a minute-by-minute fuel-to-power basis. Because they are. That's the hard numbers. What you are continually ignoring is that for a large number of people that minute-by-minute comparison is more important; therefore the more optimal choice for them is one that optimizes that efficiency.

 

[Milaha]

5 hours?

Don't boilers start making steam at like 101 C?

What am I missing, here?

You are missing the fact that if you are using all the biofuel you are producing (if not, why not just do combustion engines anyway, you are over-producing enough that efficiency does not matter) you need the full amount to get through heatup before you ever start the boiler. Heatup takes 5.5 hours, that means about 5 hours of sitting on your bum waiting for a stockpile.

No, my point is that the optimal use of my resources was the boiler. End of story. I got more power out of the same fuel production. That is optimal.

You can't argue that fully heated boilers aren't more efficient than combustion engines on a minute-by-minute fuel-to-power basis. Because they are. That's the hard numbers. What you are continually ignoring is that for a large number of people that minute-by-minute comparison is more important; therefore the more optimal choice for them is one that optimizes that efficiency.

Again your response is that the boiler is the wrong choice when you evaluate everything, but you feel that most people do not care about everything. I feel like assuming what other people care about is the wrong choice. Rather, you should present all information and if people chose to ignore parts of it due to it being unimportant to them, great, that is their call.

 

[snooder]

Again your response is that the boiler is the wrong choice when you evaluate everything, but you feel that most people do not care about everything. I feel like assuming what other people care about is the wrong choice. Rather, you should present all information and if people chose to ignore parts of it due to it being unimportant to them, great, that is their call.

No, my point is that simply including the heatup cost in a raw calculation, claiming that's "everything", and then claiming that the boiler is the "wrong choice" based on that is misleading.

I wouldn't have a problem if you just stuck to saying that boilers have a significant heatup cost that affects their overall efficiency, so people should keep in mind that the minute-to-minute efficiency is counterbalanced by that initial heatup cost. What I have a problem with is labelling them as a "wrong choice" because you personally care far more about total lifetime efficiency than minute-to-minute efficiency. Not everyone has the same values you do, and more importantly, not everyone's playstyle would benefit from those values. There are lots of people, even in SSP, for whom caring about the minute-to-minute efficiency is more beneficial.

 

[Milaha]

No, my point is that simply including the heatup cost in a raw calculation, claiming that's "everything", and then claiming that the boiler is the "wrong choice" based on that is misleading.

I wouldn't have a problem if you just stuck to saying that boilers have a significant heatup cost that affects their overall efficiency, so people should keep in mind that the minute-to-minute efficiency is counterbalanced by that initial heatup cost. What I have a problem with is labelling them as a "wrong choice" because you personally care far more about total lifetime efficiency than minute-to-minute efficiency. Not everyone has the same values you do, and more importantly, not everyone's playstyle would benefit from those values. There are lots of people, even in SSP, for whom caring about the minute-to-minute efficiency is more beneficial.

What is "everything" if lifetime performance is not it? How do you define considering "everything"?

 

[snooder]

What is "everything" if lifetime performance is not it? How do you define considering "everything"?

First, by not trying to consider "everything." There's no such thing. If there were, it would most certainly have to include things like material cost, space, aesthetics, time to build, complexity of recipe and a whole host of other factors.

You have the correct phrase for what you are measuring. "overall lifetime efficiency." It's accurate and non-misleading. Just use that instead.

 

[Milaha]

First, by not trying to consider "everything." There's no such thing. If there were, it would most certainly have to include things like material cost, space, aesthetics, time to build, complexity of recipe and a whole host of other factors.

You have the correct phrase for what you are measuring. "overall lifetime efficiency." It's accurate and non-misleading. Just use that instead.

Ok, so "overall lifetime" is meaningless there. Efficiency is not exclusionary by default. You need qualifiers if you want to exclude things. So, when considering efficiency very large boilers are the wrong choice in SSP. We clear?

 

[Whovian]

Simple. Store it in multitanks until the 1.5 updates of Forestry and Redpower, and when that happens, drain an ocean and fill it with Biofuel via Redpower's pool-filling system that I can't seem to figure out.

 

[snooder]

Ok, so "overall lifetime" is meaningless there. Efficiency is not exclusionary by default. You need qualifiers if you want to exclude things. So, when considering efficiency very large boilers are the wrong choice in SSP. We clear?

No, we are not.

"When considering overall lifetime efficiency boilers are the wrong choice in SSP" is correct. Your sentence ignores the simple fact that boilers are more efficient minute-to-minute, which misleads people into thinking that they aren't.

 

[DoctorOr]

You are missing the fact that if you are using all the biofuel you are producing (if not, why not just do combustion engines anyway, you are over-producing enough that efficiency does not matter) .

Waitwhat?

Did you really ask "why not just do combustion engines anyway"?
Seriously?

Yeah, why not have 80 individual entities that need not one, but two different kinds of liquid pumped in, conduit placed, and on a bad day with the chunk loading order can still explode.

Or...

(These are actually solid fueled, but you get the idea)

 

[Milaha]

No, we are not.

"When considering overall lifetime efficiency boilers are the wrong choice in SSP" is correct. Your sentence ignores the simple fact that boilers are more efficient minute-to-minute, which misleads people into thinking that they aren't.

But efficiency by default means overall lifetime. Your sentence means the exact same thing as mine. You just seem to not want to admit that. When you want to consider only a part of the efficiency equation you add qualifiers (in your case minute-to minute, once heated). I do not need any qualifiers because I am not limiting my definition. I mean the ratio of fuel in to energy out, efficiency is as simple as that.

 

[Hoff]

No, we are not.

"When considering overall lifetime efficiency boilers are the wrong choice in SSP" is correct. Your sentence ignores the simple fact that boilers are more efficient minute-to-minute, which misleads people into thinking that they aren't.

If you'd like to go by what's true it takes 19 hours for the 27LP boiler and 36 HP boiler to meet the Combustion engine in efficiency. The 36HP boiler spends 400 buckets of fuel to do so. That's 1200 buckets of biofuel just to produce the same total amount of MJ over that 19 hours. average MJ/t.


E: Actually this is probably more like 16-17 9 hours since the combustion would be running on biofuel.

 

[snooder]

If you'd like to go by what's true it takes 19 hours for the 27LP boiler and 36 HP boiler to meet the Combustion engine in efficiency. The 36HP boiler spends 400 buckets of fuel to do so. That's 1200 buckets of biofuel just to produce the same total amount of MJ over that 19 hours.

It does not take the 36HP boiler 19 hours to get to maximum heat. You will agree that a 36HP boiler has a better fuel-to-power ratio at max heat than an equivalent number of combustion engines.

Efficiency in the current context means "better fuel-to-power ratio". However, you need to qualify whether you are talking about the lifetime efficiency or the current, immediate, minute-to-minute efficiency. You haven't, thus to someone who does not know any better, your statement implies that the 36 HP boilers takes 19 hours to have the same minute-to-minute efficiency as a combustion engine. And that isn't true.

In addition, you also forgot to mention that the combustion engines also consume at the same time. You need to use the numbers for how much *more* fuel the boiler is using rather than just how much it used. Otherwise the comparison becomes lopsided and, once again, misleading.

 

[Milaha]

It does not take the 36HP boiler 19 hours to get to maximum heat. You will agree that a 36HP boiler has a better fuel-to-power ratio at max heat than an equivalent number of combustion engines.

Efficiency in the current context means "better fuel-to-power ratio". However, you need to qualify whether you are talking about the lifetime efficiency or the current, immediate, minute-to-minute efficiency. You haven't, thus to someone who does not know any better, your statement implies that the 36 HP boilers takes 19 hours to have the same minute-to-minute efficiency as a combustion engine. And that isn't true.

In addition, you also forgot to mention that the combustion engines also consume at the same time. You need to use the numbers for how much *more* fuel the boiler is using rather than just how much it used. Otherwise the comparison becomes lopsided and, once again, misleading.

You seem to have problems with the definition of efficiency. Unqualified the word efficiency means simply fuel in to power out. If you wish to limit the time you are applying this equation to, *you* need qualifiers, he does not wish to limit this beyond what he did by saying it takes 19 hours for one to beat the other. His statement was correct.

 

[DoctorOr]

E: Actually this is probably more like 16-17 9 hours since the combustion would be running on biofuel.

Good point... 115 combustion engines to generate the same MJ/t as 4 boilers with attached engines. Not merely 80.

 

[Mash]

Biofuel is just as infinite as space is.

That being said, efficiency simply doesn't matter, nor does space. For all intents and purposes, Boilers = Combustion engines because you can infinitely expand your fuel production to suit your needs.

We need to restrict our parameters before we can decide which is better.

 

[Hoff]

Good point... 115 combustion engines to generate the same MJ/t as 4 boilers with attached engines. Not merely 80.

A single combustion engine has better average MJ/t than one 36 HP boiler for 9 solid hours. If running on fuel it has better for 19.