Less pollutions = less attacks and resources spent on defence. Still require expended power, adding 0.96 boilers per Yellow belt smelting.ġ) There is no need to upgrade right away from Steel furnaces, as by themselves they are just better Ģ) If you have to build new smelters and you already have access to Electric furnaces, but modules still weren't set up, you might go for the easier build and upgrade furnaces later, as actually difference in base fuel/energy consumption isn't that big on the global scale and equal to a few more miners and boilers ģ) As smelting is almost constantly in use and produces a lot of pollution, you should consider upgrading it with efficiency modules in a midgame. Produce 60% less pollution than just an Electric Furnace, and 20% less than a Steel one.Įven more expensive to setup. You need 0.864 coal miners per Yellow belt smelting You'll have to have expended power aswell, adding 2.4 boilers per Yellow belt smelting.Įlectric furnaces with Efficiency 1 modulesĬonsume 60% less power than just an Electric Furnace, and 20% less than a Steel one. Twice as less fuel efficiency and thus 2x fuel consumption, requiring 2.16 coal miners per Yellow belt smelting You have to pull fuel to the smelting area.Ĭan be an easier to build step, before upgrading them with modules.Īren't cleaner with boiler power, actually producing 0.2% more pollution than a Steel Furnace More complicated logistics and are to build. Smaller 2x2 Steel furnaces can make smelting more compact. You need 1.08 coal miners per Yellow belt smelting So with this information I've decided to make a comparison between Steel and Electric furnaces(in early game) with some practical examples, and also take a look at the Efficiency 1 module usage: So, not so long ago, I've learned that a Steel furnaces has doubled the fuel efficiency than Stone and Electric furnaces, and now looking closer at pollution values, it turns out that Electric smelting is not much cleaner as you might expect - actually, producing 0.2% more pollution, while also requiring twice as much fuel.
0 kommentar(er)
