The SOLUTION to the World's Nuclear Waste Problem in Satisfactory! 

Plutonium waste is horrible, I did that to start, and then realized I wanted the tickets more than the unusable waste. Maybe useable in the future? Not worth holding on to it until then.

Running the numbers I feel that plutonium waste is way too much trouble than it's worth. You'll fill up an industrial container every 1 hour and 45 min or so and so then it'll be a repeat of the nuclear waste incident except there is no way to get rid of it.

personaly i think that I would just sink them. I just wouldnt want to ever need to worry about running out of storage space for waste, and given how much time you put into this world that waste would likely build up fast. Love your videos!

Wait until we have a firm date for Update 5 to decide

Sink it you have enough Power and Plutonium waste is horribble

Same

Bros world was corrupting because of his Nuclear Waste issue. And the Lizard Doggo population drastically declined.

same bro

Me too

Yes, you're right!

well which one is more fun? the answer is obvious

There are two types of people.

Eh, kibz kinda made a spaghetti mess. There's no rime or reason to where he put each production line

The saddest part of Josh’s video is the yeething of the doggos

And making conveyor tornadoes

Would it hurt to set up one plant though? If it could offset the ridiculous production power costs of the plutonium then maybe a nuclear dump pile of smaller portions is worth it.

He doesn't need to use ALL 22,5 of them.

I sink a large part of it and use the rest in my current world to offset the power needed for the production of both uranium and plutonium fuel. The golden rule should always be "don't do more than you can handle". My storage can run for around 900-1000h with its current plutonium waste input and thats plenty considering the save I put the most time in only had around 1000h.

@@carnevalli.9329 This is Kibs. If he uses one he's gonna use them all

why would this be a problem? if you build them 5 high a platform of 2x1 holds out for nearly 9h of gameplay and a building of 10x20 isn't really that big (900h is a lot of time)

me too dawg me too

Sameeeee

I just restarted playing

Just the amount of work he puts into this... makes me give up a few hours in

Same

+you get more dope-ass accelerators to decorate the factory with

Depends on how much nuclear waste he can make at any given time. While it's good to future-proof a place this project seems a little to expensive to be wasteful.

@@marcusdaloia2974 eh as long as the future proofed running is able to keep up or over do the outflow it should be good. so in about 6 hoours he can just clock on his nuclear plants in a reset and just let the waste do its thing

@AMGPlayz Huh, gimme the goods, how you mod Satusfavtory

Or you can just strap barrels to lizard doggos and yeet them into the void

YES. Someone asked itself "Why Thorium rocks?"

technically thorium should be pretty common compared to uranium

@@raiyan3348 I guess you don't know how to use it until the super late game

Hell yes. And it would be a lot safer to use (as it is IRL). maybe also adding explosive functionality to plutonium at a later date. Only coffee stain knows, and they aren't telling. yet.

Based

Sadly that’s one of the reasons Chernobyl blew up the reactors were designed to make weapons grade plutonium

@@andrewpederson8074 So... Kibbz should definitely use the plutonium fuel rods as fuel?

@@andrewpederson8074 l0jj,0

@@andrewpederson8074 Chernobyl was designed to be *cheap,* not to breed plutonium. It used almost unenriched uranium. The disaster was due to bad design and human error, not because the Soviet Union wanted the waste.

@@andrewpederson8074 not so. It was designed to be as cheap, quick and dirty as possible. And we all know how reliable things of that nature are. (especially when combined with potentially extremely dangerous uranium) It wasn't designed as a plutonium breeder at all.

Your right but im pretty sure this is artifical drama. Someone who essentially builds megafactory after megafactory would not even think a second about producing more undeletable waste.

@@Cronos804 wdym? He's sinking the rods

@@Cronos804 yeah if would be neat if the devs implemented something akin to a plutonium breeder (would be more of a burner here tho) or a throium breeder. Plutonium fast reactors would require more cooling and more care and would generate transient waste that needs to be safely stored for a bit to become inert. Throium breeders would work like the real deal, using a whole new, more abundant and efficient fuel, but needing a very well tuned salt treatment system to keep the breeding ratio high, on top of needed another fuel to start the reactor as thorium takes a while to decay into something fissile (in real life it takes 30 days or so). Since MSRs can take on a concentration of other fuels to be exposed to neutrons if your efficiency is high enough you can bring some plutonium to burn. Because MSRs are so good damn good at processing and cleaning their fuel, you get waste that is very spicy but very short lived, and because you run at high temperature it is a lot more efficient (IRL your combustion is already several thousand times better than solid fuels and running on a gas turbine rather than a steam one). After all, the molten salt throium reactor is sort of the ultimate stage of energy production and it's been tested successfully in the 60's so it isn't new. However i feel the need to carefully process the fuel cycle to keep the reaction would be a perfect fit for the game.

@AMGPlayz Well If, you are interested, I can tell you all about this. I am not a nuclear physicist, I'm an engineer. However I think that helps me in this case since that means that I don't have the training and experience biases of experts, but I am substantially knowledgeable in the subject. As hilariously disastrous as Chernobyl was (and it really was the worse case scenario), it would be more than disingenuous to say that this is a template for nuclear reactors. I won't go into details here (unless you want me to? just asking) but in short, this is all that was needed for Chernobyl to happen: (warning, this is the simple version, but its still HELLA LONG) - Was a boiling water reactor subtype, these reactors are far more susceptible to temperature change as the moderator (water in this case) is aslo the coolant and also is left to boil directly in the reactor chamber. - It was a reactor called an RBMK, a Russian reactor with frankly a more than dubious design. In its efforts to use un-enriched uranium, they created a reactor which was VERY unstable, was easily poisoned by Xenon, needed to enhance its reaction via moderator rods to work, had a positive void coefficient, needed a LOT more fissile material, and had no containment building. I won't call it the dumbest reactor ever made (that would probably go to the one with an open sodium burn pit) but that one is easily in the top 3. - It was launched without a trial period. RBMK-1 in Stalingrad suffered a runawway excursion already (lead to fuel damage but no radioactive release), but the communist government prevented information about Xenon poisoning and the AZ-5 to be learned by other plants - Reactor 4 was chosen to perform a shutdown test on the yet untested safety shutdown procedure. One that consistently failed each time, but pressure from the government to get it over with meant the test would be launched regardless - The plant operators poisoned the reactor with Xenon, causing the output to essentially drop to zero. Instead of cancelling the test, they ignored the few safety rules and placed basically all the moderator rods (read: enhance the reaction) into the core to burn the Xenon and restore power. - Started the test with lower than stated output to speed things up, this lead to the emergency cooling system being running under-powered - As expected, the reactor was in an unstable configuration, having burned its Xenon, the reactor output spiked, water started to boil away, further enhancing the reaction (what is called "positive void coefficient", most reactors are built to have the inverse effect). - The plant control team, seeing the excursion, pushed the emergency shutdown (AZ-5) button, which in their manuals stated it would insert all control rods as fast as possible and stop the reaction. However if they had been made aware of the Stalingrad plant, they would have known that AZ-5 caused a temporary power spike in the RBMK reactor type only. - The reactor had now been placed in its single worse configuration imaginable: the control rods pushed all the water out the channels during insertion, leaving only moderating units. There was no Xenon left in the core, meaning no neutron absorption. Cooling was non existent, and the control rods got stuck in the worst position. The power of the reaction went off the charts, and caused the water to flash-boil into steam, causing the explosion (contrary to popular belief, the explosion that knocked the reactor plate clean off the building was a steam explosion, NOT a nuclear one). This, in short, is the result of design, safety, control and operation all going wrong in a very specific way to cause this. However, there is something to learn. May it be Chernobyl, TMI or Fukushima, these three plants experienced at least partially the consequence of using a solid fuel with water as a moderator, with RBMK pretty much having everything go wrong, BWR losing all active cooling due to a safety system flaw, and PWR losing pressure due to a maintenance error and shift change. There is only one reactor type that physically fixes all these issues, and that's the molten salt thorium reactor. Its the most interesting power generation tech ever made, by far, however i won't bother explaining it to you, unless you are genuinely interested in learning more about it.

@@mobiuscoreindustries honestly I'd already be happy about walls that block the radiation or sth like that, but did CS ever say that nuclear power is the final goal? maybe they'll add some fancy scify stuff like using the nuclear pasta as fuel some day.

Yeah but he wants to reduce lag

They are gonna switch to a linear formula in update 6, but before that, yes it was more efficient

It's been a bit since I played, but if I remember correctly, batteries have a maximum rate of recharge, so you'd need a lotta batteries, cuz otherwise they wouldn't recharge fast enough.

@@ashtentheplatypus Max charge rate is 100MW, total capacity is 100MWh. With a 60 second run time if the batteries powered the second half it would be equivalet to 10830MW for 15s, or 45.125MWh, so 1 battery would be able to last for 2.216 cycles. The charging can only happen for 30 seconds and needs to recharge the 45.125MWh lost, one battery can only charge 0.833MWh in 30 seconds, so 54.15 batteries are needed per particle accelerator to smooth out usage. Given that you can fit like 9 batteries in one floor tile and can daisy chain them, it's doable... But sketchy. For the 9 particle accelerators needed for max overclocking, this would be 1218.375 batteries. In practice this would be more batteries to make sure it never fully discharges. It also solves the problem of cleaning waste while the factory is off, as the 54.15 batteries can last for 120 cycles and if there are extra batteries or alternative power production, they will slowly charge while the grid is online.

I saw rods and cable lol

You definitely should

You should also should be more toutureing your pc

There is always someone who beats me too pointing out a song I enjoy in a youtube video. And I will always ctrl f and find that comment and give it a like. It is a good piece

Also, his nuclear power plant is offline.

Just like real world plutonium gathering in nucleat waste.