Starfleet Commander Forum

Starfleet Commander => Strategy => Topic started by: samielb on January 06, 2010, 04:34:44 PM

Title: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: samielb on January 06, 2010, 04:34:44 PM
I have seen several threads complaining that Nuclear Power Plants(NPP) simply do not compare to the production of the Solar Arrays (SA). Additionally, they complain that the cost of nuclear isn’t fair given its limited usability. From a cursory glance I can see why some come to this conclusion; however, careful analysis is necessary to get to the truth.

In an effort to make this easy to read, and avoid a long boring post that no one will read, I will be posting several chapters over the next few days analyzing the costs, production and efficiency of the solar array and nuclear power plant.  

And while I am sure there will still those that I will never reach nuclear enlightenment, I simply feel the need to at least give everyone a opportunity. Bottomline, if you need more fields on your colony, and don't want to spend the credits to get them, nuclear will is the way to go.  Today, we will look at the Solar Array (SA) and begin our journey to nuclear nirvana.

Analysis: Solar Arrays
Solar Arrays (SA) are a cheap source of power.  The formulas for their construction and production are very straight forward, and easy to understand.  In fact, they are such a simply formula that a simple easy to read table can be found on the Solar_Array (http://http://wiki.playstarfleet.com/index.php/Solar_Array) wiki page.  For all intents and purposes, this information could have been hard-coded into the game assuming space considerations were not an issue and BFG didn’t see the simplicity of using a formula.

Construction Costs
I will spare you the details of explaining the formulas; just refer to the chart if you have any questions.  Keep in mind that these values are cumulative so building a level 2 array is actually going to cost a total 187 ore, and a level 20 array has a total cost of 498,629 ore. Same with crystal level 2 costs 75 crystal and level 20 costs 132,939 crystal. A SA is a very inexpensive energy production facility; its limitation is the total amount of energy it produces compared to the number of fields it requires.

Energy Production
Once again the formulas for the SA are very cut-and-dry and the aforementioned table demonstrates it very easily. A level 2 SA produces 48 energy, and a level 20 SA produces 2,690 energy. There are no external factors that affect these numbers.  No matter what slot you are in or what maximum temperature you planet may have you will never have a change in energy production from a SA.

Efficiency
Because a SA requires no resources to operate its efficiency is affectively 1 or 100%, meaning that for every resource in you get 1 energy out, and at the moment this does not change.

Stay tuned tomorrow when we explore the costs of Nuclear Power Plants.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Optimus Octavius on January 06, 2010, 05:11:25 PM
Quote from: "samielb"
 .....No matter what slot you are in or what maximum temperature you planet may have you will never have a change in energy production from a SA.

Not gonna lie, at first I didn't believe you b/c on the wiki, it talks about the energy vs. hdryo otput, depending on where your planet lies within the system........

But, I have a slot 1, and a slot 15 planet, both with lvl 10 SA, and much to my dismay, you're right- they have the same enery output....

This makes me want to defenstrate many things...
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Atuin on January 06, 2010, 05:47:11 PM
the difference in temperature and power output is for solar satalites not the array
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Optimus Octavius on January 06, 2010, 05:48:26 PM
ah ok, thanks!!
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Matt on January 06, 2010, 09:25:08 PM
The Solar Satellite should be mentioned too. At some point you will probably use it for all further energy needs, including totally replacing your Nuclear Plant. But it requires much defense to be built.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Vienneau on January 07, 2010, 02:01:19 AM
I can't wait for Chapter 2 of this page-turner!  How will I sleep tonight!?!?!

 :D

Looking forward to the analysis.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Llewelyn on January 11, 2010, 09:05:38 PM
Agree about the satellite, especially on low-slot planets - once you get to fairly high levels of solar or nuke, the cost of adding a bit more energy gets high, whereas solar sats still cost the same, provided you don't end up buying them every day 'cos they get destroyed.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: poeticmotion on January 31, 2010, 06:55:49 PM
My energy strategy:

Solar arrays and nukes can't be destroyed, solar sats can.

Nukes are undesirable due to their hydro consumption, but still useful for certain applications.

I don't build solar arrays past level 22. Up until 22, they're my preferred energy source. They can't be destroyed and they use no hydro. A lvl 23 costs 561k ore and 224k crystal, though; at that point, I'd rather spend my resources elsewhere.

At that point, I switch to solar sats and defenses to cover them. I put hard turtle shells around my main mining worlds. I use Laggynate's defense ratio of:

50 missile, 50 laser, 5 pulse, 5 particle, 4 gauss, 1 plasma, 10 ABM.

I continue to double this as needed.

Then I switch to solar sats as my new source of energy.

However, I build nuke plants as a back-up. I set them to 0% so they don't use hydro, and build them up to level 8 or 9. This provides partial backup for my solar satellites; If I get attacked and lose them, I can switch my nukes on and get some of that power back so I don't kill my mine production. A level 9 nuke replaces 22 solar sats; right now, I have 25-30 around my major worlds. So it helps, but after lvl 9, I don't want to spend more resources than that on essentially  a backup system.

I've never lost a solar sat; I fleetsave, so there's never enough at one of my worlds to be profitable. However, if someone's an idiot and attacks me anyway, or if my alliance is at war and someone hits me to take down my sats, I like being able to flip my nukes on and replace that power. Obviously, this is only viable with high-field planets.

It's probably overkill since my defenses are heavy enough that the debris from an attack would allow me to replace my sats pretty quickly, but nuke plants as backup works for me.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: ThatOneGuy on January 31, 2010, 08:01:00 PM
If you add up the cost of your Defenses, ignoring Hyrdrogen:
100K Ore
75K Ore 25K Crystal
30K Ore 10K Crystal
10K Ore 30K Crystal
80K Ore 60K Crystal
50K Ore 50K Crystal
60K Ore 60K Crystal
80K Ore

With all those resources, couldn't you INSTEAD just build one more level of Hydrogen Synthesizer and run your Nuke plant at full out?!

What am I missing?
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: poeticmotion on January 31, 2010, 08:06:59 PM
My defenses are more than that, that's just the ratio that I use.

My defenses also protect my mine production. And, in case of emergency, help protect my ships.

I always fleetsave. No defenses will protect your ships. But if I have an internet outage or miss a fleetsave, my hope is that my defenses will deter some attackers and slow down an attack by forcing prospective attackers to group attack or gather more ship. I would never let my fleet sit on a regular basis, but if I miss a fleetsave once, it *might* help deter an attack long enough for me to get back and save them. There's plenty of people who can punch right through my defenses and take out my ships. There's a lot of people, though, who might be able to take my ships, but can't take them AND my defenses. It's limited protection, but it might help.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: ThatOneGuy on February 01, 2010, 12:06:43 AM
So your defenses have nothing to do with your Energy production, and thus your whole first post was... pointless? You said you used Helios with Nuke backup, and this was possible because of your great defenses. Now you say your great defenses are only a backup system in case fleet saving fails.

It seems you have an explanation for everything, but it ignores what you are explaining.

Bottom Line: Building Nuke plants to back up your Helios is a really stupid idea, even more stupid than building Helios in the first place.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: poeticmotion on February 01, 2010, 12:44:50 AM
ThatOneGuy = my defenses are also there to protect my Helios. They perform more than one function. My nukes are there in case someone throws a massive attack in and takes them out anyway, so that I can save my mine production and rebuild faster. After a certain level, I no longer find solar arrays to be worth the money. It's cheaper to do Helios with defenses, and a nuke backup, and my defenses also protect my overnight production and give my fleet a limited screen.

Once you build your solar array 12, come talk to me. I make enough in one raid to pay for a nuke 8 and it's worth it to have a backup. Solar array 23 costs the same as 5 proms and 6 Athena. No longer cost-efficient. Once you get past your Poseidons and play with the big boys, you'll understand more how the game works.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: emailkanji on February 10, 2010, 11:17:44 PM
I am very curious to see what you have written about the usage of Nuclear power. I am always unsure about when to use it.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: azzaron on February 11, 2010, 10:28:53 PM
Long story short:
Solar Arrays are way better than Nuke Plants when your Energy tech is low.
Nuke Plants are better than Solar Arrays once you get your Energy tech really high. For example, at Energy level 15, Nuke Plants outperform Solar Arrays (even taking into account the hydrogen consumption).
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Perseus on February 12, 2010, 02:35:40 AM
Quote from: "azzaron"
Long story short:
Solar Arrays are way better than Nuke Plants when your Energy tech is low.
Nuke Plants are better than Solar Arrays once you get your Energy tech really high. For example, at Energy level 15, Nuke Plants outperform Solar Arrays (even taking into account the hydrogen consumption).


Energy tech 15 costs over 13 million crystal, and I doubt anyone even has energy tech level 12. The players who could afford that just built another solar array on every planet.


I'll answer the solar vs. nuclear question for you guys:


1. You need both.
2. If your reactor produces more energy than your solar array, you did it wrong, and probably have a HUGE hydrogen shortage and find yourself unable to get enough for techs that require it.
3. Use sats to keep your reactor turned down. If you're afraid of your sats being wiped, build defenses.
4. Yes, high level solar arrays are expensive, but you need production power.
5. Using a reactor to power a hydro synth is a waste of resources unless you build sats later to relieve the reactor.
6. Use the reactor to power ore and crystal mine upgrades at first so that they can produce more OC for the solar upgrades.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Perseus on February 12, 2010, 02:37:52 AM
Oh, and Nuke plants are never better than solar arrays. A nuke plant is an emergency source of power, or should only be used if you already have a high level solar array that can power the hydro synth needed to power the reactor.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Ziggyny on February 12, 2010, 04:15:52 PM
At a reasonable energy level (say, 8, so you can get plasma) the higher the level of the nuke plant, the better the hydrogen->energy conversion, but you're going to get up over 4 pretty quickly.

At a reasonble hydrogen plant level and temperature you're getting about 3 hydrogen for every 4 energy.

So, you can turn 4 energy into 3 hydrogen into 12 energy.

How exactly is it a mistake to power hydrogen synths with nuclear plants when it's a strict profit?
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: samielb on February 12, 2010, 08:27:46 PM
If you find the rest of the chapters .  There are 4, you will find that I explain it becomes extremely expensive to make Nuclear Power Plants worth while.  They really don't save you much of anything until you reach Energy Tech Level 15, and they cannot be used as your only power source until like Energy Tech (ET) level 22.

Which to get to ET 15 it requires a total of 26,213,600 Crystal and 13,106,800 Hydrogen.  ET 20 costs 838,860,000 Crystal and 419,430,000 Hydrogen.  

When you break it down the Nuclear Power Plant simply isn't a viable option unless you are willing to devote an immense amount of resources into it.  And ET 22 costs over a 1.6 Billion crystal, which makes upgrading it excessively costly.

Now, if you do decide to spend such an exorbinant amount of resources the benefits are major; though you will get left behind by those that spend those resources on ships and other more useful endeavors.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Perseus on February 12, 2010, 11:01:32 PM
Quote from: "Ziggyny"
How exactly is it a mistake to power hydrogen synths with nuclear plants when it's a strict profit?


I've tried it before. If you power a synth upgrade with a reactor, turning up the reactor costs enough hydrogen for the upgrade to be not worth it. That's only with a high level synth though.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Ziggyny on February 14, 2010, 02:11:36 AM
Please post your math showing that to be the case. The Wiki is pretty clear on the facts I used to generate the numbers above which showed it is worthwhile. I just double checked and the level of the synth has practically nothing to do with the energy to hydrogen conversion of he plant.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Perseus on February 14, 2010, 05:26:50 AM
Quote from: "Ziggyny"
Please post your math showing that to be the case. The Wiki is pretty clear on the facts I used to generate the numbers above which showed it is worthwhile. I just double checked and the level of the synth has practically nothing to do with the energy to hydrogen conversion of he plant.


The energy tech is what changes the output. I think it leaves the same hydro consumption though.

It must only not work very well for a certain level of synth, because I just did it and didn't lose that much hydro over it. I tried it once and it didn't work very good though.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Ziggyny on February 15, 2010, 05:41:52 AM
Possibly with a very low energy level and a really hot planet that could be the case, but I'd still like to see the exact numbers showing it can be a bad idea.

Building the plant is debatable but once you have it, you should be using it to power all 3 types of mines as far as I can tell.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Perseus on February 15, 2010, 06:44:31 AM
Quote from: "Ziggyny"
Possibly with a very low energy level and a really hot planet that could be the case, but I'd still like to see the exact numbers showing it can be a bad idea.

Building the plant is debatable but once you have it, you should be using it to power all 3 types of mines as far as I can tell.

I tried it once, and it didn't seem to be worth it. Then I just did it on my new homeworld and it worked fine. It was probably a long time ago when I thought that the hydro synth I was building was actually expensive. I'm sure if you really want to know the math you could look it up using info from the wiki. I'm actually going to start using reactors more often now, but I'll relieve them with sats when my defenses are good enough to protect those.

The bottom line is hydro. If you can get more hydro by powering a synth with a reactor, go for it. If you can build sats to turn down that reactor and get more hydro, go for that as well.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Xela on February 16, 2010, 11:44:11 PM
I have solar 27, nuke 7, 1 satellight on my home planet. Not one defense even though i wake up with 20 espionages detected I usualy won't be hit for my nights production. Also Esp. 12 helps to break peoples probes and usually gets my some decent crystal ;)
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Laggynate on February 17, 2010, 01:29:44 PM
Quote from: "Xela"
I have solar 27, nuke 7, 1 satellight on my home planet. Not one defense even though i wake up with 20 espionages detected I usualy won't be hit for my nights production. Also Esp. 12 helps to break peoples probes and usually gets my some decent crystal ;)
Where are you located?
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Bobomaster on February 17, 2010, 11:53:36 PM
Quote from: "Laggynate"
Quote from: "Xela"
I have solar 27, nuke 7, 1 satellight on my home planet. Not one defense even though i wake up with 20 espionages detected I usualy won't be hit for my nights production. Also Esp. 12 helps to break peoples probes and usually gets my some decent crystal ;)
Where are you located?

lol  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: ThatOneGuy on February 18, 2010, 10:21:40 AM
Your Nuke Plant should be about 1/3 the level of your Solar Array. It will sip truly microscopic amounts of hydrogen and allow a couple of extra levels for your mines. This is regardless of your mine levels, including your Hydrogen Synthesizer.

Someone up above actually typed that it is okay to power your Crystal and Ore mines with Nuke Plant, but not your Hydrogen Synthesizer. I am very eager to learn how I can divert my power from specific sources into specific mines.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Aaria.moon on February 18, 2010, 10:39:47 AM
You can't and the idea is hogwash. If you can find a use for the resource than it doesn't mater where the power comes from.

The nuclear plant cost more meaning it takes longer to pay for itself. If you want a true value of you NPP then you need to consider how long it would take for the extra hydrogen usage of one NPP upgrade to pay for a solar array upgrade instead.

If it takes a week, then hold back on upgrading it. If it takes a month go wild.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: J.L. Picard on February 18, 2010, 12:27:26 PM
Excuse me, but you all are fighting a war, which isn't winnable.

1. It's your own opinion  if you will build NPP or not.
2. If someone don't want to build it --> what's the problem?
3. Sooner or later you will have more Hydro (and also more Ore and Crystal) without NPP (but it can take months)
4. If everyone would have the same strategy, wouldn't it be boring?

I'm not in the situation you all are, 'cause my SA is still payable. In my opinion you are all right on your way. Those without NPP will have to pay more for SA (or will have to risk there Energy with Sats) and will have more fields on theire planets. Those with NPP will pay less or at a special point nothing more for SA, but instead a bit for NPP, will have less fields but theire energy is safe and can't be "destroyed".

Go your own way. It's nonesense to dispute about something like that. On planets with 190 fields it may be better to play without NPP, on planets with 300 fields it doesn't matter. There are several options to get energy so you can use your own right but not to use the one your neighbore thinks which is right.

Have fun
Greets J.L. P.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: ThatOneGuy on February 18, 2010, 12:57:47 PM
Let me condense your thoughts: We should not debate because all paths are equal and no opinions will be changed.

Obviously and regardless of circumstances, some paths are better than others. Nuke Plants and Solar Arrays each use one field per level, so there is no meaningful advantage there. Opinions have already changed, as you can read at the top of this page.

It's very hard to understand why you posted at all. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to walk away. Telling the rest of us to walk away, based on hand-waving and error,  is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: J.L. Picard on February 18, 2010, 01:05:37 PM
Quote from: "ThatOneGuy"
Nuke Plants and Solar Arrays each use one field per level, so there is no meaningful advantage there.

Building SA to level 20 gives you 2690 Energy. 366 more than on level 19. To get the same Energy from NPP you have to build NPP to level 2 (324 Energy) additionaly to a Solar Satelit.
That's what i ment. If you've got enough fields --> it doesn't matter what you are doing
                           If you haven't                  --> you should think twice and think about how much ress you would pay for 1 field
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Aaria.moon on February 18, 2010, 05:10:49 PM
Sorry, math and English just don;t make any sense.
Quote
To get the same Energy from NPP you have to build NPP to level 2 (324 Energy) additionaly to a Solar Satelit.

NPP at level 2 is not 324, maybe level 6? Good luck tryint o explain that away 6 fields for level 6 NPP genius, one level for solar array.

The cost of solar array increases by 1.5. The cost of a nuclear plant increases by 1.8. Until you get an insanely high and useless energy tech level then NPP will always be a waste.

calculate costs, and go recolonize a bigger planet. Screw listening to a guy who wants you to build on a tiny planet to save space.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Perseus on February 18, 2010, 05:46:25 PM
Quote from: "ThatOneGuy"
Your Nuke Plant should be about 1/3 the level of your Solar Array. It will sip truly microscopic amounts of hydrogen and allow a couple of extra levels for your mines. This is regardless of your mine levels, including your Hydrogen Synthesizer.

Someone up above actually typed that it is okay to power your Crystal and Ore mines with Nuke Plant, but not your Hydrogen Synthesizer. I am very eager to learn how I can divert my power from specific sources into specific mines.

I meant it was better to turn the reactor up for a crystal or ore mine upgrade instead of a hydro synth upgrade.

Reactors are okay, but if you can get extra hydro by building sats instead of turning up a reactor you should.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Perseus on February 18, 2010, 05:49:47 PM
Quote from: "Perseus"
I meant it was better to turn the reactor up for a crystal or ore mine upgrade instead of a hydro synth upgrade.

Reactors are okay, but if you can get extra hydro by building sats instead of turning up a reactor you should.

Not like it would matter because energy is pooled though. I just feel like wasting hydro when I use a reactor to power a hydro synth upgrade.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Xela on February 18, 2010, 05:57:49 PM
solar array does get expensive though... level 27 on my homeworld ;)
see for your self [XX:XXX:XXX]

;)
~Xela
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: J.L. Picard on February 18, 2010, 06:09:17 PM
ok i made a mistake, but that's no reason to get impolite.
doesn't matter. you guys are all gods.
JUST YOUR way is the best, all other are noobs
it's too complicated to say "it depends on what you want and what you have", isnt it?

bye
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Aaria.moon on February 19, 2010, 02:05:38 AM
Sure if you want to waste your resources go for nuclear power plant past the point where it puts out less energy than the solar array. there's nothing more to the NPP than that. Its like a race building these things, You can build two levels of solar array before you build another level of NPP and you will be saving space and getting more energy per field point.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Perseus on February 20, 2010, 12:04:18 AM
Quote from: "Xela"
solar array does get expensive though... level 27 on my homeworld ;)
see for your self [xx:xxx:xx]

;)
~Xela

You shouldn't have your coordinates on here. Did you read the rules you got when you joined?
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Amodius on February 22, 2010, 08:22:41 AM
Technically you're not supposed to link other people's coords.

Linking your own (assuming they are), is just waving a bloody steak in front of a pack of hungry, wild dogs.  :o
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Perseus on February 22, 2010, 01:28:51 PM
Quote from: "Amodius"
Technically you're not supposed to link other people's coords.

Linking your own (assuming they are), is just waving a bloody steak in front of a pack of hungry, wild dogs.  :o

You're not supposed to post coordinates at all. It doesn't matter who's they are.

You don't get a report on Solar Array level when you scan someone anyways.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Ness on February 22, 2010, 01:30:53 PM
Quote from: "Perseus"
You don't get a report on Solar Array level when you scan someone anyways.

Why is that?
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Perseus on February 22, 2010, 01:34:31 PM
Quote from: "Ness"
Quote from: "Perseus"
You don't get a report on Solar Array level when you scan someone anyways.

Why is that?

There's really no reason to know it. You don't get a report on Reactor level either. Having those 2 appear on an ESP report would just clutter up the report.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Ness on February 22, 2010, 01:37:01 PM
Quote from: "Perseus"
There's really no reason to know it. You don't get a report on Reactor level either. Having those 2 appear on an ESP report would just clutter up the report.

I think it'd be useful for calculating hydro production/usage when trying to determine whether or not someone's online/FSed.  If we're going to show all the builds and techs they don't have (Foundry 0, ARCnet 0) I don't see what 2 more buildings being listed would hurt.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Perseus on February 22, 2010, 05:01:26 PM
Quote from: "Ness"
Quote from: "Perseus"
There's really no reason to know it. You don't get a report on Reactor level either. Having those 2 appear on an ESP report would just clutter up the report.

I think it'd be useful for calculating hydro production/usage when trying to determine whether or not someone's online/FSed.  If we're going to show all the builds and techs they don't have (Foundry 0, ARCnet 0) I don't see what 2 more buildings being listed would hurt.

That wouldn't work since you don't know how many droids/workers are in their mines, what their base production for hydro is on that planet slot, or if their reactor is even turned on.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: FRACKnCYLON on February 23, 2010, 11:00:51 PM
As a newbie player who has been playing now for about a week and a half, I have noticed that there is a valid reason to have reactors over satellites - the distance from your star. My home planet is in location 13, which means that I have pretty good Hydrogen production, and lousy satellite energy production. My satellites produce 8 units / hour - no, not a typo, eight (8) units / hour. It make sense for me to build a low level reactor to augment my solar array between mine builds. I can build my mines to a level that the solar collector doesn't supply them enough energy, and tune my reactors to exactly where they need to be in order to provide full energy output with very little waste. Then save up resources to build the next highest solar array, and turn off the reactors when it comes online. The reactor sips very little hydrogen at this point. At this early stage of the game for me, I don't have nearly as much need of hydrogen as I do other resources. I am sure that this will change later, but for now I am comfortable with it.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Danb23Rock on March 11, 2010, 03:04:30 AM
So where is chapter 2?
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Aaria.moon on March 11, 2010, 01:53:33 PM
Theres a 2,3 and 4 if you search for it.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Cosmic fool on April 10, 2010, 03:54:50 PM
Greats posts, took me awhile to read 2-4 since I had to get off my lazy rear and go find them... would be helpful to some if someone would edit in there links at the end of original post.  But I cant criticize any thing else.  Good job.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: KingreX32 on May 30, 2010, 03:54:28 PM
Energy is such a pain. Solar Array and Nuc Plants cost alot. And you cant build satillies cause if you get attacked (WHICH YOU FRIKKIN WILL) they'll get destroyed and screw over your mines. Yet there so bloody cheap. Why cant those things have a weapons system. Or a more powerful weapons system. 30 attack at least.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: BlackShirt on May 30, 2010, 04:04:46 PM
Have your defenses strong enough to deter form someone coming to wipe your Solar Sats :)
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: CptKeyes on June 30, 2010, 11:29:04 AM
Quote from: "FRACKnCYLON"
As a newbie player who has been playing now for about a week and a half, I have noticed that there is a valid reason to have reactors over satellites - the distance from your star.
Exactly! A "newbie" player has noticed the one reason which you rank > #1000 players don't know! :shock:

The colder your planet is, the more hydro your Hydrogen Sythesizer is making per hour, so you have a lot of Hydro to spare and you can build a Nuclear Power Plant.
The hotter your planet is, the more energy your Helios are producing.

You can find out the temperature of a planet you have on the home page of the planet, you look at the Maximum temperature!

You can find out how much hydro does a Synth make: Production Value = 12 * Level * (1.1^Level) * (-0.002 * max_temp + 1.28)
You can find out how much energy does a Satellite make: Output = ( 0.25 * max_temp ) + 20


The WIKI is your friend!
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: poeticmotion on June 30, 2010, 12:35:37 PM
Quote from: "KingreX32"
Energy is such a pain. Solar Array and Nuc Plants cost alot. And you cant build satillies cause if you get attacked (WHICH YOU FRIKKIN WILL) they'll get destroyed and screw over your mines. Yet there so bloody cheap. Why cant those things have a weapons system. Or a more powerful weapons system. 30 attack at least.

Like everything in this game, you have a tradeoff. Expensive and safe (solar array) or cheap but vulnerable (sats) or in the middle, but costs hydro to run (nuke). They're balanced.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Former Empire guy. on June 30, 2010, 07:43:32 PM
still i'd like something better perhaps god tech could be applied to this aswell
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: T.Rex on June 30, 2010, 10:58:18 PM
Quote from: "CptKeyes"
The colder your planet is, the more hydro your Hydrogen Sythesizer is making per hour...

'xactly!  And because Sats are so cheap, everyone should gaia train slot 15 planets and build 1000 sats on each.  That is if you really want to excel here.  And yes, I am serious.  If only I had this knowledge before I built up my planets.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: CptKeyes on July 01, 2010, 09:29:22 AM
Quote from: "T.Rex"
Quote from: "CptKeyes"
The colder your planet is, the more hydro your Hydrogen Sythesizer is making per hour...
... everyone should gaia train slot 15 planets and build 1000 sats on each.
You're not making any sence at all, you mean build slot 1 planets and THERE put sats, because they have a higher output on hot planets?
I would NEVER put sattelites on cold planets and moons, unless I didn't have anything else to waste my res on, or to add comic effect...
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: the enforcer on July 01, 2010, 10:44:40 AM
slot 15 gives you more resources than a slot 1.

sure you can get power easier but for long term slot 15's will produce more resources.

such as i have a low slot high slot galaxy hive feeder set up.  low slot gets 27/27/24 high slot gets 24/27/27. the high slots, while being slightly more expensive in terms of powering and construction because of the higher cost for hydro mines and not being able to supplement power from helios. however they more than make up with it by the nearly 20% more in hydro production.

and you can't say oh but field count...15% chance in any slot for a 200+ field count.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Angelwatch on July 03, 2010, 08:54:46 PM
Quote from: "the enforcer"
slot 15 gives you more resources than a slot 1.

sure you can get power easier but for long term slot 15's will produce more resources.

such as i have a low slot high slot galaxy hive feeder set up.  low slot gets 27/27/24 high slot gets 24/27/27. the high slots, while being slightly more expensive in terms of powering and construction because of the higher cost for hydro mines and not being able to supplement power from helios. however they more than make up with it by the nearly 20% more in hydro production.

and you can't say oh but field count...15% chance in any slot for a 200+ field count.
And for you slot 15 24/27/27 planets, what level Solar and Nuclear Reactors are you using?  Just curious.  And do you use any satellites at all?  Yes I know that they produce almost nothing but I still use them on my slot 13 and 14 planets to get me over "bumps" when I only need like 30 energy for another mine level.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Bill E Bob on July 19, 2010, 10:54:49 PM
It was already mentioned that those cold planets being so far away from the star the solar sats produce maybe 7 or 10 units of power as opposed to over 40 if the planet was warmer? Same goes for the solar panels. Trade off for sure.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Laggynate on July 19, 2010, 11:00:39 PM
Quote from: "Bill E Bob"
It was already mentioned that those cold planets being so far away from the star the solar sats produce maybe 7 or 10 units of power as opposed to over 40 if the planet was warmer? Same goes for the solar panels. Trade off for sure.
Solar Arrays do not vary in energy output from either energy tech or planet temperature.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Bill E Bob on July 19, 2010, 11:07:15 PM
Quote from: "Laggynate"
Quote from: "Bill E Bob"
It was already mentioned that those cold planets being so far away from the star the solar sats produce maybe 7 or 10 units of power as opposed to over 40 if the planet was warmer? Same goes for the solar panels. Trade off for sure.
Solar Arrays do not vary in energy output from either energy tech or planet temperature.
They vary in energy output based on photon input. i KNOW the sats do, Ive tested it. They are worthless when U R in slot 15. And I'm pretty sure the Solar panels do as well but not to as great a degree as the sats.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: the enforcer on July 19, 2010, 11:34:27 PM
helios are not worthless on colder planets they just have a higher roi.

which is paid for by the higher hydro output.

the difference in a 43 helios powered colony and a 9 helios powered at hydro lvl 25 is 3555 hydro with the 43+ npp running at 10% and the 9+ npp running at 80%(yes somebody blew up my helios last night). the larger the mine the bigger the difference. by lvl 27 mines that difference is close to 7k hydro, that is about an extra capitol worth of hydro every 2 hours.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: BrianC on July 19, 2010, 11:42:08 PM
Call me crazy, but Helios are even more important on cold planets, if the intent was to colonize a planet for the sake of hydrogen production.

Most people will get to a level 22 Solar Array and 11 Nuclear Power Plant before they start considering their options and thinking their upgrades are limited due to the large amount of resources needed to build the next level of either.

If you have the defenses to protect them, build a metric tonne of helios. You're going to save 314 Hydrogen per hour, on a planet you build to produce more hydrogen in the first place, which is already most likely producing 300-500 more hydrogen per hour, depending on the temperature difference and level of mine. The only upkeep to a Helios is the potential ability for destruction. But, if you leave enough defenses behind, you'll likely not run into problems.

At 7 energy per helios, it'll take roughly 242 Satellites to make up for the energy production of a level 11 Nuclear Power Plant. Already, it's cheaper to build, but then you figure the 314 Hydrogen/hr decrease, and you'll find that those NPP's are quite taxing, to the point where they are not worth it to have operating. If you have the extra fields, go ahead and build the sats and turn the NPP's off.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Bill E Bob on July 19, 2010, 11:45:08 PM
Quote from: "the enforcer"
helios are not worthless on colder planets they just have a higher roi.

which is paid for by the higher hydro output.

the difference in a 43 helios powered colony and a 9 helios powered at hydro lvl 25 is 3555 hydro with the 43+ npp running at 10% and the 9+ npp running at 80%(yes somebody blew up my helios last night). the larger the mine the bigger the difference. by lvl 27 mines that difference is close to 7k hydro, that is about an extra capitol worth of hydro every 2 hours.

Im just going to nod my head slowly and let you think I understood that.. Sorry about your helios.
What is a higher ROI?
R U saying the power output can be increased from the solar sats by hydrogen levels on the ground?

OK now i get it with the explanation of how vast numbers can compensate for the lack of power..
At xmas time u can decorate them and make them look like a global xmas canopy from hell
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Bill E Bob on July 19, 2010, 11:48:11 PM
So about the helios and there fragile nature, are they destroyed if one is attacked with or by cargo ships only? I assume they can handle probes...
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Big S on July 19, 2010, 11:57:42 PM
Quote from: "Bill E Bob"
So about the helios and there fragile nature, are they destroyed if one is attacked with or by cargo ships only? I assume they can handle probes...
Weapons on a probe are 0. Hull of a probe is 100. Helios have weapon rating 1 and hull 200. So 100 helios can dispatch 6+ probes. Probes do no damage.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Bill E Bob on July 20, 2010, 12:11:32 AM
Quote from: "Big S"
Quote from: "Bill E Bob"
So about the helios and there fragile nature, are they destroyed if one is attacked with or by cargo ships only? I assume they can handle probes...
Weapons on a probe are 0. Hull of a probe is 100. Helios have weapon rating 1 and hull 200. So 100 helios can dispatch 6+ probes. Probes do no damage.
It has no weapon does not mean it cant do ritualistic suicide i.e. collision.. In addition Helios are on the "chose a ship to attack" list. Sats are not. It doesn't matter. The bigger the fleet the juicier.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: the enforcer on July 20, 2010, 01:19:39 AM
Quote from: "Bill E Bob"
Quote from: "the enforcer"
helios are not worthless on colder planets they just have a higher roi.

which is paid for by the higher hydro output.

the difference in a 43 helios powered colony and a 9 helios powered at hydro lvl 25 is 3555 hydro with the 43+ npp running at 10% and the 9+ npp running at 80%(yes somebody blew up my helios last night). the larger the mine the bigger the difference. by lvl 27 mines that difference is close to 7k hydro, that is about an extra capitol worth of hydro every 2 hours.

Im just going to nod my head slowly and let you think I understood that.. Sorry about your helios.
What is a higher ROI?
R U saying the power output can be increased from the solar sats by hydrogen levels on the ground?

OK now i get it with the explanation of how vast numbers can compensate for the lack of power..
At xmas time u can decorate them and make them look like a global xmas canopy from hell

return on investment.

you are paying x for power out put to be converted into rez. so on a 24/21/21 colonoy in a low slot you might have a 20k/15k/7k and hour output that requires sa 25 75 helios or a 24/21/21 on a high slot and it produces 20k/15k/9k sa 25 225 helios. you can trade 1:1 hydro to crsytal so you are looking at an extra 178 hours of hydro to pay for the extra helios that you had to invest in.  now that planet is going to produce more res per hour for invested rez into it.

sure you can save money on power at the lower slots, you can make more money at the high slots.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Capt_B on April 23, 2011, 10:27:04 PM
Okay
I'm late in reading here. but very interesting.
I'm not upgrading my Solar Arrays anymore. There all at lvl 28 except for 1 at lvl 29 and yes freakin expensive to build and my nukes are all at lvl 7 and from what i read about the 1/3 formula I could bring them up to lvl 9-10. I'll do that and bring them down if not needed. Of course on high field planets. Time to up my defenses now for sat's and mine production :)
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: 2$Bill on April 28, 2011, 03:47:28 AM
I just want to know if, with all of the nuclear meltdown crisi in Japan, if I should stop building NPP's.  I feel that they are safe enough, but i worry about the Cs-141.  Am I being too cautious?
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: DOH on May 03, 2011, 11:00:21 AM
SATS FTW!
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Tygger Meltdown on September 21, 2011, 06:13:34 AM
Well, I am happy with my home world's level 20 NPP and No Solar Array.  It was the only way I could fit level 30 mines.  I am gradually replacing all Solar Arrays with NPPs on planets under 260 in size.  They just get in the way.

Remember, that the high costs of NPPs go towards your resource spent points.  You get way better rank out of a planet going all nuclear.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: NormanPreece on October 27, 2011, 12:47:55 PM
Quote from: azzaron
Long story short:
Solar Arrays are way better than Nuke Plants when your Energy tech is low.
Nuke Plants are better than Solar Arrays once you get your Energy tech really high. For example, at Energy level 15, Nuke Plants outperform Solar Arrays (even taking into account the hydrogen consumption).


Energy tech 15 costs over 13 million crystal, and I doubt anyone even has energy tech level 12. The players who could afford that just built another solar array on every planet.


I'll answer the solar vs. nuclear question for you guys:


1. You need both.
2. If your reactor produces more energy than your solar array, you did it wrong, and probably have a HUGE hydrogen shortage and find yourself unable to get enough for techs that require it.
3. Use sats to keep your reactor turned down. If you're afraid of your sats being wiped, build defenses.
4. Yes, high level solar arrays are expensive, but you need production power.
5. Using a reactor to power a hydro synth is a waste of resources unless you build sats later to relieve the reactor.
6. Use the reactor to power ore and crystal mine upgrades at first so that they can produce more OC for the solar upgrades.

Actually I have Level 15 Energy Tech and think Nuclear is far superior to solar as you get to the higher levels and am knocking down all my solar
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: NormanPreece on October 27, 2011, 12:53:08 PM
I should add that I shall shortly be doing level 16 energy which will increase energy on ALL my planets - you cannot do this with solar
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: cupAsoup on October 27, 2011, 03:19:19 PM
Is the consensus that people stop building SA's at around level 22? I didn't get that memo because I've built a few lvl 27 SA's. I have NPP's on my planets up to around 12, but I haven't turned em up yet.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Victor Doom on October 27, 2011, 04:46:54 PM
 :D I tend to use the Keep it simple approach... in the beginning... stick to solar arrays and nuclear power..

Quick and dirty ratio... Solar array level approximately twice that of Nuclear plant... ie: lvl 24 SA/12 NPP...

 I have found that if you build one level solar array and bump up the nuke plant by a level.. you can upgrade Ore/Crystal/hydro mines by 1 without issue...

 Beef up to a good level of Energy tech and as you're building higher level nuke plants their energy output greatly increases...

 As time progresses and you've managed to build up a good defensive matrix... Launch some Helios and power down the nuke plants... keep the nukes in place in case someone crashes the helios and you need power now.. .

 With the mine outputs of extreme uni's, the hydro losses incurred by nuke plants is negligible compared to energy output...
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Sandor Clegane on November 12, 2011, 03:07:38 PM
I think the answer changes as you become more developed in the game.  For myself, I have (had) lvl 16 energy tech and lvl 16 NPP.  My mines were at 32/28/28 on all planets.  Between these and about 400 sats I could power everything and leave the NPPs mostly powered off.  I dismantled all solar arrays and freed up a ton of fields.  The hydro cost is a very small fraction of my hourly production even at full power.  If my satellites get crash I could crank up the NPPs and recover production instantly.

At lower levels though it is really impractical to invest so much in energy tech and the high cost of NPPs at higher levels.  SA's and sats are a much cheaper option when your resource production is low.  The trick is determining when to start making the transition such that your progress doesnt screach to a grinding halt, and your RSP doesn't take a huge hit (like mine did) by dismantling lvl 30+ SAs.. :-(

Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Morat on November 12, 2011, 04:59:10 PM
It's also a different answer for each Uni.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Jedi High General on November 27, 2011, 11:31:38 PM
What Morat says is correct. I play Original version, uni 2, X1 & X2. In orig, Uni 2 & X1 I would never consider using Nuke power. Hydro mines there cannot produce enough to make it a viable energy source. However in X2 it is a different ball game. Until recently I swore bu Solar Power. But someone made me test nuke power there with a comment they made to me. So on a planet I set up building nukes to replace my solars. I was shocked at what happened. With Hydro mines in X2 producing so much hydro. Well my hydro production was barely even dented by switching over to nukes. I am at lvl 15 energy tech there & well here is somert I posted within my alliance to show the different in field count between Solar & Nuke Power This is same planet with Nuke Power & before it had nuke power:

This is what I have at my most developed planet at current. It is a 243 field planet & has 191 fields used up. So this goes to show that with a lvl 15 Energy Tech. That you can develop good mines on a 206 planet using NPP's over Solar's. LOL.

The NPP planet of 243 using 191 of it's fields:

Ore Mine level 30
Production: 111,926
Energy: 5,235

Crystal Mine level 28
Production: 52,710
Energy: 4,038

Hydrogen Synthesizer level 26
Production: 25,455
Energy: 6,198

Solar Array
Energy Production: 0

Nuclear Power Plant level 19
Energy Production: 18,210
Hydrogen Consumption: 2,326

Shipyard level 15
Capitol level 12
Research Lab level 13
Missile Silo level 7
Factory level 4
Ore Warehouse level 12
Crystal Warehouse level 10
Hydrogen Storage level 9
Foundry 6

This is same 243 planet when it was using Solar Arrays & being changed over to NPP's it was using 209 of it 243 fields:

Ore Mine level 30
Production: 111,926
Energy: 5,235

Crystal Mine level 28
Production: 52,710
Energy: 4,038

Hydrogen Synthesizer level 26
Production: 25,455
Energy: 6,198

Solar Array level 34
Energy Production: 17500+

Shipyard level 15
Capitol level 12
Research Lab level 13
Missile Silo level 7
Factory level 4
Ore Warehouse level 12
Crystal Warehouse level 11
Hydrogen Storage level 10
Foundry level 6

So to conclude. Switching to NPP with Energy Tech 15 gives you an extra 18 fields to play with. That a Solar Array would use up.

So make up your desicion. I would only do this in X2 cause Hydro mines are ridiculous with the amount of hydro they produce. Has said I would never do this in Orig, Uni 2 or X1. Not worth it there.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: the enforcer on November 27, 2011, 11:44:45 PM
you are ridiculous...
my colonies in x1 use 30k+ energy, i get 20k+ from helios. based on the savings from not using npp for that amount of power i can rebuild helios every 4 days.  the better you build your mines, the better helios become. 8)
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Jedi High General on November 28, 2011, 01:52:57 AM
the enforcer if u read it properly my last post. I do state that I would only ever use Nuke power in X2 cause of the Hydro that Hydro mines give of there.

A lvl 28 hydro mine with mine driods produce 43,817 hydro per hour. So 2,326 hydro per hour used up by a nuke reactor in X2 is basically nothing. I still have to see what a lvl 30 hydro mine produces. Cause the jump has u can see from last post of a lvl 26 mine being 25,455 per hour is well absolutely amazing. No other uni other than X2 has these types of mine rates in.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Sandor Clegane on December 03, 2011, 01:36:13 PM
@Jedi, I disagree with your assertion that nukes are not worth it in x1.  The ratio of cost to run versus hourly production, assuming your energy tech is 15+ is just as appealing when compared to the fields gained by eliminating SAs.  There were many players making the transition before x2 was launched.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Monkey D. Luffy on December 03, 2011, 04:54:58 PM
Can't speak for the other universes, but I can confirm this is X2:

(http://i626.photobucket.com/albums/tt346/chaylafay/nuke_plant_power_consumption.jpg)


With energy 17, the nuke plant is indispensable.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: the enforcer on December 03, 2011, 06:41:07 PM
i can confirm this is x1. my guess is what you spent on npp's and energy tech you could of built enough def to protect your helios.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Jedi High General on December 06, 2011, 04:18:31 AM
Ok has been a while since I checked upon my X1 account rarely checked it. Not sure if my X1 account is till active now come to think about it.
But yes mygrynch u would be rite there. Thinking about it. If a lvl 33 hydrogen produces that like enforcers picture shows. Then yes I would use it in x1. If I'm still there. LOL.
If that's the case in X1 then the NPP would probably be more than viable to switch to in uni2 to. Has mine rates are higher than in X1 but lower than X2. So will be worth looking into that will. May try it on a planet there see what happens. LOL. Run another experiment.
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: LunarAvenger on December 06, 2011, 10:52:15 AM
Just to point out, don't the NPP in the eXtreme universes use twice as much hydrogen? Just sayin...
Title: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear - Chapter 1
Post by: Sandor Clegane on December 06, 2011, 11:39:28 PM
@Lunar Even if that were true, which I can't  say either way, the cost to run my NPPs is an insignificant portion of my hourly production, especially considering the fields gained.  Of course I don't run my nukes at 100% anyway, unless I have to.  I have no SA's and use helios to power my mines.  If someone crashes my sats, I turn on the NPPs to continue production until I can backfill.  As long as you go a decent amount of time without getting crashed, its cheaper to build helios.