Thermodynamics 101

[mrm]

I wouldn't use the 175 watt heaters as a "reasonable example" of anything, though.  Multiply the wattage by 10 and now you're in the range of "Portable Space Heaters".

Yes and i forgot about those. Such heater should have at least 2kW to heat up a small room. If i remember correctly, we need around 100W to heat up a 1m2 in winter, with good thermal isolation etc. Without isolation (steel or stone walls) it should be 200W or more. So for small rimworld bedroom 4x4 with very poor isolation and a thin steel tile roof, we need at least 3kW to keep it warm.

Well, solar panels are very poor for this, but geothermal generator is another thing. Almost 100% of power stations are making electrical power out of steam. Even nuclear reactors are heating water, making steam, and running turbine generators. I don't know how much steam typical rimworld geyser can produce, but i think that one geothermal generator should produce way more power than 3.6kW. If we asume 20-50kW for each, this realistic power consumption thing can by pretty playable

[Shurp]

You have a tiny, tiny sun in a containment field. The Sun creates light and heat, and the power requirements are to keep the containment field stable

Damn, they're a small portable fusion generator?  I think I'm going to build a dozen of these and use them to power my base

[Grax]

Solar panels calculation is good, IRL sun drops 1KW on 1m2 in summer, so its 200W/m2 with 20% (this is really the upper limit) efficiency.

44% was the best in 2015, and maybe 50% already for today.

And one more thing. Efficiency of solar panel is 20% at best, efficiency of sun lamp is 15% at best, so theoretically 1KW/m2 from sun can be transformed into 30W/m2 inside the farm. But it game, we can take light from 16m2 and transform it into the same amount of light for 29m2. And we have left 100W extra. So this technology must be very advanced, if it has over 180% efficiency

"The energy consumed by a 100-watt GLS incandescent bulb produces around 12% heat, 83% IR and only 5% visible light. In contrast, a typical LED might produce 15% visible light and 85% heat."

So, efficiency of visible LEDs now is about 15%, and incandescent light is 5%.
It have no distinguishable correlation with brightness of emitted light because of the difference in spectre of emitted light.
LED light can be made for growing (with spectral lines exactly that chlorophyll can almost fully utilize, thin red and blue segments of spectre) while incandescent emits full spectre that plants can't use (all other parts of visible spectre - yellow, green, cyan, violet).

That's why incandescent is almost unusable for hydroponics and greenhouses considering its power usage.

And the second - nobody thought about the level of technology needed to produce solar panels. It's more advanced than space flights.

[mrm]

44%? In a perfect laboratory conditions. With technology that cost so much, that its simply uneconomic to buy and install such panels, i mean, it will return after decades if it survive so much. Cheap affordable panels with 30% efficiency will have 30% in... lab conditions. When they heat up (and they heat up a lot), it drops to 20% or less. When we assume this is a space technology and efficiency should be greater, then we should increase each solar panel power output at least twice, but for now, its pretty good. Well im not an expert in solar technology and i can be wrong, but i made few experiments and measurements myself and i pretty know its poor and barely profitable.

The real "problem" is that bulbs doesn't produce heat (or produce much less they should), and heaters are magic. It's pretty impossible to make 1750W of heat out of 175W of electrical power, i don't think any space technology will do this.

[Grax]

44%? In a perfect laboratory conditions. With technology that cost so much, that its simply uneconomic to buy and install such panels, i mean, it will return after decades if it survive so much. Cheap affordable panels with 30% efficiency will have 30% in... lab conditions.

Oookey, that's just 40 year of research.
I suppose the technologies will somewhat evolve a little for next 3000 ingame years. ;-)

[stu89pid]

If a sun lamp uses as much power as 9 heaters, it should create as much heat as 9 heaters, right?

Our greenhouses should need air conditioning even on ice sheets!

It's been a few years since I got my chemistry degree, but this is absolutely NOT how thermodynamics works lol.

Light and heat are different forms of energy. Sure most light bulbs put out some heat, but this is not intentional and the heat loss is due to inefficiency, mostly in filament bulbs. You are likely familiar with LED lights which are much more efficient than a incandescent bulb, and also product almost no heat.

In reality though, your post has some merit. The fact the grow light in Rimworld requires so much power indicates it is probably not an efficient lighting system and could generate some heat. But there are other items like electric smelters and generators that don't affect room temperature so it's understandable this wasn't considered for the grow light.

[stu89pid]

The most interesting part of all this is, for me, not the violation of conservation of energy (it's a game/simulation after all), but that the greenhouse temperature should be lower when plants are grown compared to not growing plants. All the energy absorbed from the rice plants should make a good cooler actually.
*what a weird unit that is. such things happen when morons try to enter the fields of physics.

Unless the grow light is putting out a lot of infrared light (Which it shouldn't be as plants don't use this wavelength), the room temp wouldn't change with or without growing plants. The sun can heat up a wall (because of the infrared light), but a spotlight will not (as this is only within the visible spectrum).

[Lubricus]

The most interesting part of all this is, for me, not the violation of conservation of energy (it's a game/simulation after all), but that the greenhouse temperature should be lower when plants are grown compared to not growing plants. All the energy absorbed from the rice plants should make a good cooler actually.
*what a weird unit that is. such things happen when morons try to enter the fields of physics.

Unless the grow light is putting out a lot of infrared light (Which it shouldn't be as plants don't use this wavelength), the room temp wouldn't change with or without growing plants. The sun can heat up a wall (because of the infrared light), but a spotlight will not (as this is only within the visible spectrum).

Wrong! visible light do also heat up stuff if it is absorbed. White surfaces reflect much of the light and don't get as hot as black surfaces. In practice light from incandescent light is mostly infrared light and heat up stuff much more than led light with the same lumen. Direct sunlight is very strong and artificial light is rarely close to the real sun in intensity.

[travin]

If a sun lamp uses as much power as 9 heaters, it should create as much heat as 9 heaters, right?

No. Equal electrical input does equal heat output, unless devices are 100% efficient at performing whatever task. Only a variable percentage would be converted to heat. For example, a copper wire coil of a motor will produce a different level of heat than a Nichrome coil of a heater, based on efficiency of that device and material the electricity is traveling through.

While on the subject, the coolers should produce roughly the same amount of heating (when reversed) as they do cooling, just like in real life. However, currently, they don't.

That's actually not true.  Creating heat is nearly always 100% efficient.  Heat is actually what most devices try to avoid creating, because that is what cuts their efficiency.  When a device suffers from energy inefficiency, then a portion of the energy input for the device is turned into heat, rather than the useful work that was intended. 

If you're trying to create heat, then your efficiency will be 100%.  The only thing that would bring down the efficiency is transmission losses to your device, which in truth just amount to heat being made elsewhere.

As for Air Conditioners, because it is impossible to create a 100% efficient heat-pump, some of the energy used to move heat from the inside to the outside gets converted into heat itself.  The total heat coming out of a Refrigeration Unit will actually exceed the heat being removed from its cooler.  If you feed an ACs hot stream back into the same room it's cooling, what you have created is a heater.

Actually, it is 100% true.

The point of a heater is to be as efficient as possible in converting energy to heat, while a motor is designed to be efficient converting energy into kinetic energy. Given the same energy input, one will produce more heat than the other. The same applies to lamps.

And so, as I said, equal energy input to differing systems does not produce equal heat output. This is basic physics.

[Hans Lemurson]

If a sun lamp uses as much power as 9 heaters, it should create as much heat as 9 heaters, right?

Our greenhouses should need air conditioning even on ice sheets!

I'll let MRM answer this (emphasis added)

The real "problem" is that bulbs doesn't produce heat (or produce much less they should), and heaters are magic. It's pretty impossible to make 1750W of heat out of 175W of electrical power, i don't think any space technology will do this.

It's been a few years since I got my chemistry degree, but this is absolutely NOT how thermodynamics works lol.

Light and heat are different forms of energy. Sure most light bulbs put out some heat, but this is not intentional and the heat loss is due to inefficiency, mostly in filament bulbs. You are likely familiar with LED lights which are much more efficient than a incandescent bulb, and also product almost no heat.

Heat is the "graveyard of energy".  All forms of energy eventually get converted into heat. 
Wall absorbs some light?  Heat.
Car comes to a stop using brakes?  Heat.
Hammer drives a nail into wood?  Heat.
Fading echoes of a ticking second-hand in an empty room?  Heat.
Construction crane drops an I-beam from 10 stories up?  Kinetic energy disappears with a crash, the noise fades away, and what do you have?  Heat.

The only energy in the grow-room that does NOT get converted into heat is if it gets stored as the potential energy of something else, usually chemical. 
-The 15% of light that hits a solar panel that (rather than making a "black thing hot") generates electrical-current that charges a battery? 
Not heat.  Chemical potential energy.
-The photosynthesis of the growing plant being illuminated by the grow lamps?
Not heat.  Chemical potential energy.
-Lifting an I-beam up 10 stories? 
Not heat.  Gravitational potential energy.

That's actually not true.  Creating heat is nearly always 100% efficient.

Actually, it is 100% true.

The point of a heater is to be as efficient as possible in converting energy to heat, while a motor is designed to be efficient converting energy into kinetic energy. Given the same energy input, one will produce more heat than the other. The same applies to lamps.

And so, as I said, equal energy input to differing systems does not produce equal heat output. This is basic physics.

Riddle me this:  If you have a heater that is only 90% efficient at converting Electricity to Heat, what form does the other 10% of the electrical energy take?  It's gotta become something, and that something nearly always ends up as...heat.

Just because something is 90% efficient doesn't mean that the Conservation of Energy stopped applying to the 10% remainder.

...
You can however correctly point out that RimWorld does not in fact obey the law of Conservation of Energy, as I showed with my Wood-Powered Tree-Farm, so I'm not totally sure where this leaves us.

[Shurp]

Yes, if we throw out the law of conservation of energy, then it's easy to explain where all that sun lamp energy goes.  *poof* it's just *gone*!

But I want energy conservation!  I want every joule that goes into that sun lamp to wind up somewhere.  So either the plants are absorbing it all (100% efficiency, wow!) or something else is.  Like the walls, the dirt, the air...

...and when ordinary matter absorbs ordinary energy, it is stored one of three ways.  Gravitationally, chemically, or thermally.

I'm watching my greenhouse levitate.  Crap, I'm gonna need a ladder to get in there and harvest my smokeweed.

[O Negative]

Couldn't some of this energy be lost in the conduits? I'm not physics wiz, but I can't help but to feel like the wires have merit in absorbing some of that energy.

In all honesty, full conservation of energy will never really be observed in RimWorld. Stick as many heaters/coolers as you want outside, and you're not going to make a dent in the local temperature. I understand the desire to see where all our precious energy is going, but is it really necessary? For me, it's not.

Anywho...
I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to make lamps give off at least a bit of heat (kind of like torches do). I think that would be fair.
*I've actually always thought it would be interesting to see endotherms push heat into their environment

[Hans Lemurson]

Energy lost via transmission through conduits?
Heat.

You are right that the lack of conservation of energy isn't game-breaking, since we are not operating in a closed system.  Heat enters and exits the map as the days and seasons change.  Bountiful sunlight streams down on your crops, forests, and solar collectors.  Wind blows in from parts unknown and turns your windmills.  Steam rushes up from cracks reaching the seething blood of the earth.

All of these give you external sources of energy that you can harness for your efforts.  The issue is "what happens to it".  Does it disappear like when you leave the Machining Bench on?  Does it come from nowhere like the super-powerful (1,000% efficiency) heaters and refrigerators?

The critical question though is: If the game's balance were based on real-world values for the production and consumption of electricity...would it still be fun?

[Shurp]

Well, getting back to my original post, I think it would be fun if you had to properly balance the heat load in your ice sheet greenhouse to keep it from melting the icecap and floating off to the next hex tile in the world map.

Hmmm, which gives me another thought, why can't we build bricks out of ice and make igloos?

[giannikampa]

Energy lost via transmission through conduits?
Heat.

You are right that the lack of conservation of energy isn't game-breaking, since we are not operating in a closed system.  Heat enters and exits the map as the days and seasons change.  Bountiful sunlight streams down on your crops, forests, and solar collectors.  Wind blows in from parts unknown and turns your windmills.  Steam rushes up from cracks reaching the seething blood of the earth.

All of these give you external sources of energy that you can harness for your efforts.  The issue is "what happens to it".  Does it disappear like when you leave the Machining Bench on?  Does it come from nowhere like the super-powerful (1,000% efficiency) heaters and refrigerators?

The critical question though is: If the game's balance were based on real-world values for the production and consumption of electricity...would it still be fun?

Happy to read someone that knows how it works in real world!
It would still be fun AND realistic if properly balanced: walls, roof and floor absorbtions and so on.
From one side the fun would be the same because this is how the programmer wanted it to feel , from another side it woud be non-diseducational. Very cost effective in terms of programming by the way