Renewable Energy Production in KSP 2

[WalebKassa]

Hello Everyone!

This is my first post on the KSP forums, so I'll try to keep it simple. From my understanding, we've seen a couple variations of Nuclear energy production for colonies in the game. Solar panels have always been a big part of producing energy for various crafts and satellites, but I was curious to see if anything regarding wind, wave, geothermal, or biogas energy has been referenced somewhere? For example, if you're on a planet with strong tides a coastal colony with wave-based energy generators would be plausible.  Or if you're on a planet with a dense atmosphere and plan on building a colony at higher altitudes perhaps some wind turbines would be best. I think it's great that we get to see near-future technologies being implemented into the game, but there are a great deal of other viable ways to generate electricity on other planets. Technologies such as these are becoming increasingly more affordable. I think in the early stages of colony construction renewable energy technology could be a vital solution as they don't require a source of fuel (Disregarding resource cost for construction of course).

As someone with experience in Environmental Science, I think implementing alternative energy production is crucial in any desolate environment due to minimal maintenance and cost. This might even make colony placement decisions more interesting by strategically developing colonies in locations where environmental features matter and they can be self-sustaining without the need for additional input of fuel resources. Let me know your thoughts!

[Dr. Kerbal]

Yes. We do! And welcome! And I ttolally aggree with you.

[jimmymcgoochie]

I think we’ve already had solar panels for colonies shown in one or two of the demo videos (and the trailer), but I can definitely see some benefit to having wind turbines and geothermal power systems in KSP2; not so much with wave/tide power since I’m not sure either of those will actually feature in KSP2, it wouldn’t be much fun to land on a watery world like Laythe only for your entire mission to be swept away by the tide when you weren’t looking, let alone an entire interstellar colony!

By the time a colony is big enough to need a nuclear power supply, even the smallest version shown in that video, it’ll be too big to use wind/wave/tide/solar power anyway.

[Guest]

Thing with wind and wave power is that it implies a weather system for the former, and a tidal system for the latter. I kind of doubt we'll see that – nor a water system that supports hydroelectric power, for that matter – and I don't think fudging it in some simple way would be all that satisfying for gameplay purposes. Geothermal would be relatively simple though.

---> One potential direction for KSP2 to evolve is towards a "planetary ecology simulator," with systems like this providing gameplay variety, and terraforming the "end boss." That's a really complicated can of worms though and I'm pretty sure it's not in the game vision, at least not for now.

[K^2]

39 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Thing with wind and wave power is that it implies a weather system for the former, and a tidal system for the latter.

Yeah, but also cost of adding a wind turbine is basically cost of making the model and textures, which are exceptionally straight forward for a wind turbine. Sometimes, decision for adding something to the game is basically, does it sound interesting and fits the theme? Yes. Is it really quick and easy to add? Yes. Is it going to break balance? No. Add it. The fact that it's going to be a niche tech for small colonies on worlds with sufficiently thick atmosphere is kind of secondary then. It's a bit of variety at almost no cost.

Wave/tidal power, though, I completely agree on. If Intercept actually ends up adding aquatic bases, then it might move up into the same low-effort tier as wind power and be worth it. But I kind of feel that we're probably in mod territory here.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

Yeah, but also cost of adding a wind turbine is basically cost of making the model and textures, which are exceptionally straight forward for a wind turbine. Sometimes, decision for adding something to the game is basically, does it sound interesting and fits the theme? Yes. Is it really quick and easy to add? Yes. Is it going to break balance? No. Add it. The fact that it's going to be a niche tech for small colonies on worlds with sufficiently thick atmosphere is kind of secondary then. It's a bit of variety at almost no cost.

Yeah I suppose sometimes you shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. You could add some simple formula to the turbine for its energy output – plug in time of day, latitude, altitude, air pressure, and a random vector that changes every once in a while and you'd have something that behaves enough for a wind turbine to feel real.

And even if you don't and just give it a constant power output it would pass your quick smell test.

[WalebKassa]

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

Yeah, but also cost of adding a wind turbine is basically cost of making the model and textures, which are exceptionally straight forward for a wind turbine. Sometimes, decision for adding something to the game is basically, does it sound interesting and fits the theme? Yes. Is it really quick and easy to add? Yes. Is it going to break balance? No. Add it. The fact that it's going to be a niche tech for small colonies on worlds with sufficiently thick atmosphere is kind of secondary then. It's a bit of variety at almost no cost.

Wave/tidal power, though, I completely agree on. If Intercept actually ends up adding aquatic bases, then it might move up into the same low-effort tier as wind power and be worth it. But I kind of feel that we're probably in mod territory here.

I definitely understand Tidal-based energy being a stretch with how complex oceans are. However, mechanics that support things like Geothermal energy and Wind energy can be easily generated in terms of game mechanics, with height maps correlating the strength of wind in certain regions. On hotter, more geologically active planets, Geothermal vents could be procedurally generated surface features that are scattered across the planets surface, each with some random variables that control it's activity and therefore controls the amount of energy generated from the Geothermal Energy Plants.

Quote

I think we’ve already had solar panels for colonies shown in one or two of the demo videos (and the trailer), but I can definitely see some benefit to having wind turbines and geothermal power systems in KSP2; not so much with wave/tide power since I’m not sure either of those will actually feature in KSP2, it wouldn’t be much fun to land on a watery world like Laythe only for your entire mission to be swept away by the tide when you weren’t looking, let alone an entire interstellar colony!

By the time a colony is big enough to need a nuclear power supply, even the smallest version shown in that video, it’ll be too big to use wind/wave/tide/solar power anyway.

With what we've seen in the past in terms of solar panels I don't think it would be impossible to implement larger variations of solar energy plants. Nuclear plants can definitely support a larger grid, but I think we also have to account for things like radioactive waste (If waste ever becomes a biproduct). That way I definitely think investing in larger renewable grids could be beneficial if you're looking to avoid radioactive Kerbals. With how destructive KSP can be sometimes I also wouldn't doubt that these forms of nuclear energy have a chance of meltdowns or explosions which could really pose as a dangerous threat to those larger colonies.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, WalebKassa said:

I definitely understand Tidal-based energy being a stretch with how complex oceans are. However, mechanics that support things like Geothermal energy and Wind energy can be easily generated in terms of game mechanics, with height maps correlating the strength of wind in certain regions. On hotter, more geologically active planets, Geothermal vents could be procedurally generated surface features that are scattered across the planets surface, each with some random variables that control it's activity and therefore controls the amount of energy generated from the Geothermal Energy Plants.

I like the way you're thinking. I withdraw my objection to wind turbines, those really sound like they would be easy to do in a way that makes them still interesting and distinctive. And geothermal is definitely a cool idea. This has a lot of potential to make for distinct bases and make location scouting even more important.

– About the nuke plants, Nate said that there won't be any meltdowns or explosions; they just shut down quietly if there's a problem. I don't know what would happen if you flew a rocket into one though...

---> tangent 

Once upon a time I was fairly seriously hooked on Dwarf Fortress. One of the best parts in it was finding the perfect location for the kind of fortress you wanted to build. Finding somewhere with coal and flux and iron and magma and proximity to water but not TOO much water was not easy, and it was super rewarding when you did find it, and even more rewarding when you managed to put those resources into use. (Dwarves aren't exactly conservationists though...)

[WalebKassa]

2 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

I like the way you're thinking. I withdraw my objection to wind turbines, those really sound like they would be easy to do in a way that makes them still interesting and distinctive. And geothermal is definitely a cool idea. This has a lot of potential to make for distinct bases and make location scouting even more important.

– About the nuke plants, Nate said that there won't be any meltdowns or explosions; they just shut down quietly if there's a problem. I don't know what would happen if you flew a rocket into one though...

---> tangent 

Once upon a time I was fairly seriously hooked on Dwarf Fortress. One of the best parts in it was finding the perfect location for the kind of fortress you wanted to build. Finding somewhere with coal and flux and iron and magma and proximity to water but not TOO much water was not easy, and it was super rewarding when you did find it, and even more rewarding when you managed to put those resources into use. (Dwarves aren't exactly conservationists though...)

Interesting note on those nuclear plants...I mean even if they do shutdown if there is an issue I definitely believe that there should be a larger range of alternatives. I mean, when we look at hypothetical bases on the moon, or on other planets it's a lot more complicated then just pointing at a planet and hoping you land somewhere on it. I assume there will be other resources to mine and collect, so I don't see why we can't also make placement more thoughtful with the possibilities of alternative energy.

I also have a couple of years in game development myself (Nothing professional, just indie stuff), but these mechanics for generating wind maps and procedurally generating features is something that's been done before in other games. As much as I would love for planets to have simulated ecological systems, it's definitely not the focal point of a game about launching rockets and hoping they don't explode. However, I'm afraid some of these aspects may be overlooked, because environmental factors are so incredibly important especially when you're colonizing an entirely new planet.

[Lo.M]

Welcome! Definitely yes.

13 hours ago, jimmymcgoochie said:

I think we’ve already had solar panels for colonies shown in one or two of the demo videos (and the trailer), but I can definitely see some benefit to having wind turbines and geothermal power systems in KSP2; not so much with wave/tide power since I’m not sure either of those will actually feature in KSP2, it wouldn’t be much fun to land on a watery world like Laythe only for your entire mission to be swept away by the tide when you weren’t looking, let alone an entire interstellar colony!

By the time a colony is big enough to need a nuclear power supply, even the smallest version shown in that video, it’ll be too big to use wind/wave/tide/solar power anyway.

While biomass/biogas power plants?

Also, we could have solar thermal systems that could be a more efficient way to harness energy from some star.

Spoiler

Good if someone doesn't know what solar thermal energy is:

Parabolic Troughs systems:

These troughs, also known as line focus collectors, are composed of a long, parabolic shaped reflector that concentrates incident sunlight on a pipe that runs down the trough. 

Solar tower systems:

Large towers that act as a central receiver for solar energy. They stand in the middle of a large array of mirrors that all concentrate sunlight on a point in the tower. These large number of flat, sun tracking mirrors are known as heliostats.

Parabolic Dishes systems:

These are large parabolic dishes that use motors to track the Sun. This ensures that they always receive the highest possible amount of incoming solar radiation that they then concentrate at the focal point of the dish. These dishes can concentrate sunlight much better than parabolic troughs and the fluid run through them can reach temperatures upwards of 1023,15 K (1382 ºF  or 750 ºC)

Fonts: Harnessing the Power of the Sun: How Solar Power Plants Work | IE (interestingengineering.com) ///Solar thermal power plant - Energy Education

 

Tidal energy definitely doesn't.

As for the  wave/marine current power plants I still don't know, I don't have much programming knowledge so I don't know the complexity of it.

11 hours ago, K^2 said:

Yeah, but also cost of adding a wind turbine is basically cost of making the model and textures, which are exceptionally straight forward for a wind turbine. Sometimes, decision for adding something to the game is basically, does it sound interesting and fits the theme? Yes. Is it really quick and easy to add? Yes. Is it going to break balance? No. Add it. The fact that it's going to be a niche tech for small colonies on worlds with sufficiently thick atmosphere is kind of secondary then. It's a bit of variety at almost no cost.

It may be a stupid question for someone who has more knowledge in programming, but sea currents (in case of addition) could work in the same way as the wind?

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by Lo.M

[K^2]

1 hour ago, Lo.M said:

It may be a stupid question for someone who has more knowledge in programming, but sea currents (in case of addition) could work in the same way as the wind?

If you have a consistent current in one direction, possibly. Even then, you have way more problems with things floating in the water, so you rarely see just a bare turbine. But in a lot of cases, you really do get things like waves or tides that constantly change direction, and converting that motion into rotational motion for generators tend to be more convoluted. So purely from perspective of visual appearance, wave or tide power generators tend to look very different from wind turbines, and be significantly more complex geometrically and mechanically if you want the representation in the game to be somewhat realistic.

From perspective of the game design, there's also a question of where and how you build these. We'll have surface colonies. If you have one on a planet with an atmosphere, you can basically plop a mast for wind turbine anywhere. But if you want wave power, you need to build pretty far from shore. It can still be in the shallows, so construction on stilts isn't out of the question, but it's still something the game needs to support. So it's a lot of additional work just to make it possible for you to build these kinds of generators where they make sense.

Edit: MinuteEarth actually did a pretty decent video on wave power that might help put some things into perspective.

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by K^2

[kspnerd122]

Thing about wind turbines, you don't need to do complex simulations of weather, just have an 50% chance that at any moment, on a planet with an atmosphere, the wind would be blowing, simple enough, but defnitely, geothermal energy would be STUPIDLY easy to make, also, you don't need nuclear reactors for tiny outposts, you need them for industrial complexes(only main planets/moons of any system will get a reactor at the start, the rest will be combo of geothermal and solar.

[WalebKassa]

22 hours ago, K^2 said:

If you have a consistent current in one direction, possibly. Even then, you have way more problems with things floating in the water, so you rarely see just a bare turbine. But in a lot of cases, you really do get things like waves or tides that constantly change direction, and converting that motion into rotational motion for generators tend to be more convoluted. So purely from perspective of visual appearance, wave or tide power generators tend to look very different from wind turbines, and be significantly more complex geometrically and mechanically if you want the representation in the game to be somewhat realistic.

From perspective of the game design, there's also a question of where and how you build these. We'll have surface colonies. If you have one on a planet with an atmosphere, you can basically plop a mast for wind turbine anywhere. But if you want wave power, you need to build pretty far from shore. It can still be in the shallows, so construction on stilts isn't out of the question, but it's still something the game needs to support. So it's a lot of additional work just to make it possible for you to build these kinds of generators where they make sense.

Edit: MinuteEarth actually did a pretty decent video on wave power that might help put some things into perspective.

 

Definitely an interesting video! Thank you for sharing. I've gotta say it definitely changed my thoughts on how viable tidal energy would be on other planets. Our planet is extremely complex in terms of climate systems. Unfortunately there are a lot of systems that wouldn't be at play that contribute to tides and waves on planets with simpler designs in KSP. Things like nutrients in water, and even biological factors like microorganisms all contribute to how water flows across large bodies. Our planet relies on Thermohaline Circulation, which is driven through a number of variables. (Temperature Distribution, Ocean Depth, Salinity, etc.).

I feel like mapping the strength of ocean currents on a map similar to how wind strength would be mapped would definitely be a stretch because there are a larger sum of variables at play when it comes to tidal formations and the strength at which waves form. The best way to dumb something like this down would be with two variables, How deep is the water, and what is the proximity of orbiting bodies. Planets with closer moons would have stronger tides overall than planets without moons.

Basically, waves would be stronger the closer you are to a shoreline or coast, and then overall are either increased or decreased via the mass and proximity of orbiting moons. As we've seen with some of the exoplanets mentioned before, how these planets interact would be a huge problem. Normally a simple one time calculation would be done at the beginning of a game to determine these maps, but if the distance between planets and moons is changing it would definitely impact tidal formations. Depending on how complex these calculations are, it could use up unnecessary processing power for something that has a single use. Although, I am in no way an expert at optimizing algorithms and such. 

[Guest]

On 2/25/2021 at 11:25 PM, WalebKassa said:

Basically, waves would be stronger the closer you are to a shoreline or coast, and then overall are either increased or decreased via the mass and proximity of orbiting moons. As we've seen with some of the exoplanets mentioned before, how these planets interact would be a huge problem. Normally a simple one time calculation would be done at the beginning of a game to determine these maps, but if the distance between planets and moons is changing it would definitely impact tidal formations. Depending on how complex these calculations are, it could use up unnecessary processing power for something that has a single use. Although, I am in no way an expert at optimizing algorithms and such. 

I don't think performance would be a problem. However, the time and effort needed to code, implement, test, and playtest it would be. It's a complex system and ultimately the gameplay impact is going to be fairly marginal. A weather/climate simulation with wind, precipitation, etc. would have a much bigger impact, and Nate has already said that that's off the table. 

[Kernel Kraken]

Assuming Kerbals are a plant-based water creature, I want to melt my dead ones into Biodiesel for colony generators. I gotta start the climate change early if I want to make Duna just like home (for the Kerbals' morale, of course!)

[WalebKassa]

On 2/24/2021 at 7:41 PM, kspnerd122 said:

Thing about wind turbines, you don't need to do complex simulations of weather, just have an 50% chance that at any moment, on a planet with an atmosphere, the wind would be blowing, simple enough, but defnitely, geothermal energy would be STUPIDLY easy to make, also, you don't need nuclear reactors for tiny outposts, you need them for industrial complexes(only main planets/moons of any system will get a reactor at the start, the rest will be combo of geothermal and solar.

 

On 2/24/2021 at 7:31 AM, Brikoleur said:

I like the way you're thinking. I withdraw my objection to wind turbines, those really sound like they would be easy to do in a way that makes them still interesting and distinctive. And geothermal is definitely a cool idea. This has a lot of potential to make for distinct bases and make location scouting even more important.

– About the nuke plants, Nate said that there won't be any meltdowns or explosions; they just shut down quietly if there's a problem. I don't know what would happen if you flew a rocket into one though...

---> tangent 

Once upon a time I was fairly seriously hooked on Dwarf Fortress. One of the best parts in it was finding the perfect location for the kind of fortress you wanted to build. Finding somewhere with coal and flux and iron and magma and proximity to water but not TOO much water was not easy, and it was super rewarding when you did find it, and even more rewarding when you managed to put those resources into use. (Dwarves aren't exactly conservationists though...)

 

For those interested in Geothermal Energy plants, I made some concept models for what a geothermal plant could look like in KSP 2 using Blender:

 

[StarStreak2109]

IMHO, for emerging colonies, only solar power makes sense, if not using some kind of nuclear power generation (fission or fusion).

For more established colonies, it would make sense to use some kind of "planetary energy". In my mind, this could avoid having to cope with the intricacies of geothermal power (finding the right spot, drilling, building a heat exchanger) ingame. Instead, one could use a global (or regional) "planetary energy" coefficient, that defines how much energy could be generated from the planet itself.

Wind power IMHO is too special, in that it would require a weather system. Again, it would theoretically be feasible (game-play-wise) to use  overall mean value (i.e. average surface wind speed) for each planet to determine how much energy can be generated with a given turbine. But since this only properly works if your atmosphere is a) non-corrosive and non-dusty and b) has a sufficient wind speed and atmospheric density, I think it is way too complicated.

Tidal and hydropower are even more complex, since it would require simulating flowing water and tides on the surface of planets.

I think it makes sense to concentrate on solar and geothermal/planetary energy as "renewable" sources and fission/fusion for non-renewable sources (for stock anyway)...

Edited March 3, 2021 by StarStreak2109