Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-81.182.123.118-20121230010847/@comment-128.208.36.196-20130107210239

I have no idea which page this is meant to be associated with. but here's my own analysis:

In a vanilla furnace, the lava bucket is the most smelts/emc, with about 1.5 jobs/emc. scaffolding is the second best. if you're using a vanilla furnace, however, you're probably still at the stage when you haven't got iron to spare for a bucket, so use scaffolding instead. in the long run, you'll care more about the eu's/emc...

fuel efficiencies:

Uranium, in reactor: a minimum of 500 eu/emc, if you use a single uranium cell. more eu's/emc may be extracted with fancier setups. warning: can "asplode".

scaffolding, generator: 333 eu/emc in theory. But you might want an entire chest dedicated to scaffolding if you want to hand-feed it to your generators. oh, and generators are wastefull if  your power demands are lower than its output, or if you don't have massive storage.

lava buckets, geothermal: 312.5eu/emc: but and geothermals don't waste power, AND have a higher max output than a generator. Automating requires figuring out how to get the empty bucket back out. (retreiver, possibly...)

lava cells, geothermal: 156.25 eu/emc. they are easy to automatically supply, as long as ee is enabled.

This efficiency is just enough to gain emc if powering a bunch of recyclers and a mass fab, as long as the mass fab is constantly supplied with scrap.

charcoal, generator: 125 eu/emc. and that's if you condense it directly. Indirect methods lose efficiency.

All other generator fuels, with the possible exception of "fuel" itself, are absolutely atrocious-unless you get the empty cells back with the biofuel can, in which case that would be the one fuel to rule them all.

In short: agree with original post, scaffolding>charcoal in terms of efficiency.

but geothermals are superior in terms of actual performance.