Small Changes That Would Solve A Lot of Problems

[Urza1234]

It is true. Even with our crappy level of technology we currently have in the modern day, power generation is much cheaper and more energy efficient than growing plants to turn into power. There is a reason why ethanol fuel isn't seriously considered as an alternate fuel source from gasoline, and not just because oil companies pour money into lobbying against the ethanol industry... it would take THREE football fields of corn to make ONE flight from New York to Chicago... completely unsustainable.


As stated before, even our crappy level of modern power generation technology outstrips the efficiency of turning plant matter into energy.


It would be cheaper to spend the money to develop the area into something that can be used for power generation and spend the money on maintaining complicated infrastructure that generates that power because as I said before, even our crappy level of modern power generation is so much more energy efficient than farming plant matter to turn into energy. The difference is THAT big, and it is only going to get bigger in the future as we discover more energy efficient ways of generating power.

MAYBE, if the upfront costs for development cannot be met, and the land would otherwise go unused what you are saying MIGHT be feasible... but that is a huge maybe, and it would certainly only exist as a stopgap measure.

I love how he just completely ignores the issues of the gravity well, of the special materials and land development required for solar panel farms, and the issue of actual energy storage.
Lol, nvm, he's more interested in either quoting something he just learned on Bill Nye or shilling for the contemporary solar energy than actually talking sci-fi.

Well, I'll just take his side of the conversation.
I actually refreshed myself on the question a bit out of curiosity, even though the issue of the gravity well still negates the wisdom of planet-surface energy generation for a space-based economy.
Realistically you cant be beaming your energy through the atmosphere to your space stations if you want a weather system left when you're done, and the feasibility of space elevators is still questionable, so you're still left with shipping that energy from the surface into orbit in a chemical form. Hydrogen as it turns out has a much better specific energy (important for shipping) than any hydrocarbon we know of, and the efficiency of generating hydrogen via eletrolysis is even at least 70% with current tech.

Its still 9 million gajillion times better to generate energy in space {eg dyson sphere) than on the limited life-supporting surfaces of habitable planets, but if we have to assume planet-based generation then yeah, I think solar panels have to be better in the long run, when and where you can actually build them.

The point thats been made about converting things like algae to a biofuel is still valid, for certain planetary types, as well as terrestrial plants for worlds with dangerous weather or wildlife.
In those cases though, I'd actually still wonder why you dont just build nuclear power plants, or get your power dropped on you from space.

If we were to translate any of this speculation into Stellaris terms, I would say it would be interesting to have generation of energy credits be entirely space based, but to have food and bio-products be a much more important planetary resource.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

It is true. Even with our crappy level of technology we currently have in the modern day, power generation is much cheaper and more energy efficient than growing plants to turn into power. There is a reason why ethanol fuel isn't seriously considered as an alternate fuel source from gasoline, and not just because oil companies pour money into lobbying against the ethanol industry... it would take THREE football fields of corn to make ONE flight from New York to Chicago... completely unsustainable.

Out of interest, how much area of solar panels does it take to make that flight?
...do we even have commercial planes that work solely on electricity as a fuel?
...what is the energy density per volume and per kilogram for our best batteries versus biofuels?

 

[Urza1234]

0.875 MJ/kg - Average Lithium-ion battery
0.9 MJ/kg - Tesla/Panasonic car battery
48 MJ/kg - Diesel
142 MJ/kg - Hydrogen
80,000,000 MJ/kg - Uranium

We dont have large scale airplanes that run on batteries, it isnt feasible. Techno-hobbyists have made much smaller manned airplanes that do run on batteries. Also one or two that run on solar collection, very slowly.
IMO if you're going to try to run vehicles on solar its better to convert the solar into hydrogen, and just run everything on hydrogen fuel cells.

 

[w1zard9169]

Out of interest, how much area of solar panels does it take to make that flight?

None, because we don't have batteries powerful enough to run commercial planes. I was merely pointing out that manmade biofuels are not energy efficient enough to even sustain our current infrastructure.

...do we even have commercial planes that work solely on electricity as a fuel?

No. See above.

...what is the energy density per volume and per kilogram for our best batteries versus biofuels?

Irrelevant, batteries can be recharged, biofuels cannot. The only reason we use gasoline now is that there are large reserves under the earth that we don't actually have to make.

I love how he just completely ignores the issues of the gravity well, of the special materials and land development required for solar panel farms, and the issue of actual energy storage.

I wasn't ignoring it, we are assuming planetary based energy generation as a matter of course. I agree with you that space based methods are definitely more efficient but that isn't what this discussion is about.

Lol, nvm, he's more interested in either quoting something he just learned on Bill Nye or shilling for the contemporary solar energy than actually talking sci-fi.

I'm not advocating for solar power, merely pointing out that even solar power is more energy efficient than manmade biofuels. But thanks for staying classy.

The point thats been made about converting things like algae to a biofuel is still valid, for certain planetary types, as well as terrestrial plants for worlds with dangerous weather or wildlife.

Assuming algae needs light to grow, a solar panel will always be more energy efficient in the same spot, even with our currently shitty solar panel technology. If we want to use the sci-fi excuse, solar panels may be even more efficient in the future widening the gap further.

For worlds with dangerous weather or wildlife it will still come out cheaper to pay to nullify these factors in some way and set up solar panels, than to muck around with algae and biofuels. As I said the energy efficiency difference is THAT large, even with our currently shitty solar panel technology.

In those cases though, I'd actually still wonder why you dont just build nuclear power plants, or get your power dropped on you from space.

Exactly, making biofuels and plant -> energy conversions even that much more useless in comparison.

 

[KingAlamar]

Admin cap is cheap. If expansion becomes cheaper then the penalties for being over should be tweaked up for balance. I think the system is fine as is. And long as you're growing even slightly effectively then expanding is always worth it.



Agreed with this. It would certainly smash the "food-only economy" thing. I think Machine Empires need a little more to make them competitive. Either slash their pop energy upkeep in half or boost the energy they get from districts by 50%. Something like that.

Unless there's a play balance issue I'm missing my thoughts are that changing outputs of Energy & Food to get them in balance would go a long way towards balancing the scales. I did test a machine empire with a generator-only approach and it was a PITA but doable in vanilla SP. Granted that doesn't say much with the state of the AI ...

 

[Urza1234]

I'm not advocating for solar power, merely pointing out that even solar power is more energy efficient than manmade biofuels. But thanks for staying classy.

Sorry about that, actually. As soon as someone starts trying to talk in terms of football fields I get triggered, since I take as meaning that either they're stupid or they think who they're talking to is stupid.

Assuming algae needs light to grow, a solar panel will always be more energy efficient in the same spot, even with our currently shitty solar panel technology. If we want to use the sci-fi excuse, solar panels may be even more efficient in the future widening the gap further.

For worlds with dangerous weather or wildlife it will still come out cheaper to pay to nullify these factors in some way and set up solar panels, than to muck around with algae and biofuels. As I said the energy efficiency difference is THAT large, even with our currently shitty solar panel technology.

I somewhat disagree with this. The logistics of covering an entire ocean with buoyant solar panels, and not losing half of them per year, seems infeasible to me almost no matter your level of technology.

I mean, firstly, in that scenario how do you get the power that you're collecting to any sort of processing station? Stringing thousands of miles of conductive cables across the surface of the ocean doesnt seem like a great idea to me.

Between life-forms, weather, and oceanic turbulence, how efficient would such panels actually be? They'd have to be equipped with a deal of on-board mechanisms for essentially navigation and facing readjustment. Not only would that sap a good deal of what they collect, but those mechanisms would have to operate under pretty much the worst conditions possible. Water/saltwater intrusions, animal damage, algae or bacterial growth either in the mechanical mechanisms or on the panels themselves...
Not to mention you dont get oceans without storms, probably a good deal of breakage there.
How do you service and maintain your ocean-spanning fleet of solar panels?
Oceanic collection is much tougher than the small-scale collection people are currently playing with in the placid waters of lakes.

Idk, in the case of oceans I think I'd rather stick to a simple boat trawling for a naturally occurring microorganism.

 

[Piotrzeci]

System property is more about strategic map control than resource generation.

But then, unless there is something special in a system, a small empire will have a tactical defensive edge over a big one. Expanding just makes empires weaker.
It's a choice between being sizeable and gaining barely anything out of it or just patheticing everyone in technology by staying under the cap (and then researching repeatable +15 Admin Cap).

 

[Mikhail_Mengsk]

But then, unless there is something special in a system, a small empire will have a tactical defensive edge over a big one. Expanding just makes empires weaker.
It's a choice between being sizeable and gaining barely anything out of it or just patheticing everyone in technology by staying under the cap (and then researching repeatable +15 Admin Cap).

Doesn't work because they guy expanding can colonize more planets and laugh at Admin Cap.

 

[AlphaAsh]

Heres a random idea, what if outposts had 1 module slot?

Tried it. The biggest bit of criticism was the nightmare of remembering to actually select a module for every outpost.

I also tried a free auto-build of a module in the slot. The feedback then was contradictions on which module should be built under which conditions and... my brain sploded.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

None, because we don't have batteries powerful enough to run commercial planes. I was merely pointing out that manmade biofuels are not energy efficient enough to even sustain our current infrastructure.


No. See above.


Irrelevant, batteries can be recharged, biofuels cannot. The only reason we use gasoline now is that there are large reserves under the earth that we don't actually have to make.

No.
A major reason why we use gasoline and similar fuels is that we physically can't fit the same amount of energy on board things with batteries as we can with a tank of fuel.
If the numbers given upthread are still the best ones, it's *48* times as efficient in terms of mass to use gasoline. Ethanol is only 25 times as efficient though.

It then doesn't suffer from being radioactive (like a nuclear powered source) or from the same degree of flammability/explosive concerns that hydrogen does whilst still being more storable (as volume becomes an issue for hydrogen storage due to the low density, even with reasonably pressurised containers).

I wasn't ignoring it, we are assuming planetary based energy generation as a matter of course. I agree with you that space based methods are definitely more efficient but that isn't what this discussion is about.


I'm not advocating for solar power, merely pointing out that even solar power is more energy efficient than manmade biofuels. But thanks for staying classy.


Assuming algae needs light to grow, a solar panel will always be more energy efficient in the same spot, even with our currently shitty solar panel technology. If we want to use the sci-fi excuse, solar panels may be even more efficient in the future widening the gap further.

For worlds with dangerous weather or wildlife it will still come out cheaper to pay to nullify these factors in some way and set up solar panels, than to muck around with algae and biofuels. As I said the energy efficiency difference is THAT large, even with our currently shitty solar panel technology.


Exactly, making biofuels and plant -> energy conversions even that much more useless in comparison.

That depends on a lot of factors, and ignores the problems that simply covering areas over with solar panels has for environmental issues, as well as the logistics of storing and transporting the hydrogen, as well as the efficiency involved in the conversion from electricity to hydrogen.

It also ignores any possible advances in getting fuel crops that directly produce usable fuels rather than needing to be processed, as well as any sources of biomass/biofuel that can be grown on (effectively) waste heat or in dark areas using something akin to radiotrophic fungi or bacteria.
Potentially the feed stock for these (or even the algae) can be waste materials from manufacturing or from production of industrial feed stock, given the right bio-tweaked organisms.
I'm not saying solar is a bad answer - I'm trying to explain why in a situation where we have "food" processors, the name is incorrect, especially in the case of robotic/machine entities.

 

[Tisifoni12]

The randomness of tech research is very annoying; too often none of the options fit with what your Empire would want to develop.

If any you part-researched stayed in the mix until you completed the research you could at least have some influence over queueing research.

I don't bother with mining energy, mineral or science nodes worth less than 3.

I may be overcautious about developing energy and mining districts, but so far I've been wary of limiting potential urban space.

Resourcing the empire still tends to be a bit of a roller coaster.

 

[Novacat]

-Mining and generator districts should generate 6 minerals/power per job instead of 4... like how farms generate 6 food.

I actually think that food should be brought down to 4 per job. Late game, food becomes an almost irrelevant resource, even with nutritional plentitude and over a hundred pops per planet, I only needed a few farming districts to feed everyone, and that included supporting Fen Habbanis.

Also, this included deliberately avoiding food producing technologies. I could have brought my food production even higher, had I researched those technologies.

 

[w1zard9169]

Sorry about that, actually. As soon as someone starts trying to talk in terms of football fields I get triggered, since I take as meaning that either they're stupid or they think who they're talking to is stupid.

Not a problem. I was using "football fields" as an area of measurement because it is easier to visualize than "57,600 square feet", not because I think you are unintelligent.

I somewhat disagree with this. The logistics of covering an entire ocean with buoyant solar panels, and not losing half of them per year, seems infeasible to me almost no matter your level of technology.

I mean, firstly, in that scenario how do you get the power that you're collecting to any sort of processing station? Stringing thousands of miles of conductive cables across the surface of the ocean doesnt seem like a great idea to me.

Between life-forms, weather, and oceanic turbulence, how efficient would such panels actually be? They'd have to be equipped with a deal of on-board mechanisms for essentially navigation and facing readjustment. Not only would that sap a good deal of what they collect, but those mechanisms would have to operate under pretty much the worst conditions possible. Water/saltwater intrusions, animal damage, algae or bacterial growth either in the mechanical mechanisms or on the panels themselves...
Not to mention you dont get oceans without storms, probably a good deal of breakage there.
How do you service and maintain your ocean-spanning fleet of solar panels?
Oceanic collection is much tougher than the small-scale collection people are currently playing with in the placid waters of lakes.

Idk, in the case of oceans I think I'd rather stick to a simple boat trawling for a naturally occurring microorganism.

It still won't pan out. Firstly you have to seed the algae in question, this takes energy, resources, manpower and is just as destructive to the environment if not moreso than setting up solar panels. An algae crop is just as vulnerable to environmental factors, if not more vulnerable because something as stupid as a low temperature can kill an entire crop. You must then harvest and process the algae, which takes more energy, resources, and manpower into a usable fuel. The end result? 3-4% of the energy of the sunlight that hit all of that algae is turned into usable power... whereas solar panels in the same spots turn about 16-20% of the sunlight into usable energy and there is no downtime in between crops.

No.
A major reason why we use gasoline and similar fuels is that we physically can't fit the same amount of energy on board things with batteries as we can with a tank of fuel.
If the numbers given upthread are still the best ones, it's *48* times as efficient in terms of mass to use gasoline. Ethanol is only 25 times as efficient though.

The ONLY reason we use gasoline is because we don't have to make it ourselves, we just find it and process it. I assure you, if we had a magic process to turn crops into something even twice as efficient as ethanol we still might not use it because we literally don't have enough farmland on the planet to sustain our worldwide usage, it just isn't energy efficient enough in terms of land usage. That, and gasoline packs a large amount of power in a weight efficient package as you said. Our energy STORAGE technologies are currently not capable of storing energy very efficiently (gasoline wins here), but our energy GENERATION technologies are far more efficient than producing manmade biofuels.

It also ignores any possible advances in getting fuel crops that directly produce usable fuels rather than needing to be processed, as well as any sources of biomass/biofuel that can be grown on (effectively) waste heat or in dark areas using something akin to radiotrophic fungi or bacteria.

If you want to use that excuse, I can easily say solar panel technology in the future is capable of 80% energy efficiency, and is also capable of wacky stuff like turning EM radiation like infrared, or gamma radiation into power too. I don't buy that argument because it is an easy out.

 

[w1zard9169]

I actually think that food should be brought down to 4 per job. Late game, food becomes an almost irrelevant resource, even with nutritional plentitude and over a hundred pops per planet, I only needed a few farming districts to feed everyone, and that included supporting Fen Habbanis.

Also, this included deliberately avoiding food producing technologies. I could have brought my food production even higher, had I researched those technologies.

Possibly... this would be a good way of narrowing the planet vs system resource gap... however, I often notice that after specialist resource usage, planets are often in the negatives in terms of energy and mineral generation even when multiple districts are up and running. Maybe something like 5/5/5 instead of 4/4/4?

 

[Novacat]

Possibly... this would be a good way of narrowing the planet vs system resource gap... however, I often notice that after specialist resource usage, planets are often in the negatives in terms of energy and mineral generation even when multiple districts are up and running. Maybe something like 5/5/5 instead of 4/4/4?

Not really needed as there are are a ton of methods to boost energy, food, and mineral production... Overall, eventually your resource consumption caps out while your energy, food and mineral production continues to grow constantly forever.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

If you want to use that excuse, I can easily say solar panel technology in the future is capable of 80% energy efficiency, and is also capable of wacky stuff like turning EM radiation like infrared, or gamma radiation into power too. I don't buy that argument because it is an easy out.

Eh.. you started with the whole "in the future we'll have better technology" thing.

Since you opened the door, I'm entitled to use it on my side.