You are not logged in.

IC2 Experimental builds (jenkins):
v2.0/2.1/2.2 / 2.3 / 2.5 / 2.6 (For Minecraft 1.6.4/1.7.2/1.7.10 / 1.8.9 / 1.9.4 / 1.10)
IndustrialCraft² recent version: v1.117! (For Minecraft 1.5.2 → topic)

Dear visitor, welcome to IC² Forum. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

DrFission

Tree Cutter

  • "DrFission" is male
  • "DrFission" started this thread

Posts: 2

Location: Torrance CA

  • Send private message

1

Saturday, June 20th 2015, 6:33am

Plutonium Production Efficency

Having installed the latest versions of Reactorcraft, Buildcraft, IC2, and some other mods, I have been having a fun time. However, I had one problem, the new nuclear weapons need plutonium (or uranium if you want an inefficient and low yield bomb), and regrettably I cannot use the plutonium from my breeder reactor I have set up. So I decided to do what the US government did in real life, use a non power producing reactor to produce plutonium for weapons. Being the plutonium crazy person I am I decided to build a series of test reactors using the new 5x5 reactor system. Some of the places that those test reactors were are now craters. Due to this tendency to (in scientific terms) splode' I decided to go with a passively cooled, traditional, reactor design. While I have had great success with these, and plutonium production is now in full swing, I have come across another problem. I can only produce so much plutonium an hour, around 40 plutonium, from "A" Reactor, and because "B","C" and "D" are going to take forever to put online, I would like to know if anyone has a 4 chamber reactor that can handle more fuel than my current limit of around 18.


Oh, and here is a picture of the inside of "A" Reactor testbed located in my testworld in the attachments (still trying to find out an automated feeding system for the bugger).
DrFission has attached the following file:
This user likes the following items and will, in 10% of their posts, propose hare brained schemes to obtain more of the following:

:Nuke TNT: :Uranium Ore: :Mining Laser:

And before this is even is asked, yes I support the use of nuclear energy for peaceful applications.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "DrFission" (Jun 21st 2015, 8:17pm)


MauveCloud

Coal Miner

  • "MauveCloud" is male

Posts: 1,048

Location: California

  • Send private message

2

Saturday, June 20th 2015, 2:38pm

Sorry, but the picture does not actually show how you've laid out the components in the reactor. It looks more like the outside of your series of reactors.

DrFission

Tree Cutter

  • "DrFission" is male
  • "DrFission" started this thread

Posts: 2

Location: Torrance CA

  • Send private message

3

Saturday, June 20th 2015, 8:29pm

Sorry, but the picture does not actually show how you've laid out the components in the reactor. It looks more like the outside of your series of reactors.
Yeah, did not think about that, and yes, it is a picture of my last test reactor. The reason I say last test reactor is because I had my experimental auto loading system set up and forgot to set up the emerald pipe filter for one of my sub units on my fuel removal system, that way when I pulled the lever to insert fresh fuel that sub unit filled with fresh uranium. Because it had no heat vents the unit heated up extremely quickly and then destroyed the entire area. That and other problems have made me decide to scrap my plans for an auto loading system for manual loading as if I load it myself I can check for errors and problems like that.

Well here is a picture of one of the sub units inside Unit "A".

As you can see I went with a very simple grid design composed of the cheapest components I could find. Again, my main concern is if it is possible to pack in more fuel rods into one of these while still being a MK-1. The top picture is of the individual core layout using the regular heat vents

P.S. I also recalculated the plutonium production and found that the reactor produces around 34.56 units of plutonium (the big ones) per hour, so at current rates I will be able to produce two stacks an hour once all four reactors are online.
DrFission has attached the following file:
This user likes the following items and will, in 10% of their posts, propose hare brained schemes to obtain more of the following:

:Nuke TNT: :Uranium Ore: :Mining Laser:

And before this is even is asked, yes I support the use of nuclear energy for peaceful applications.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "DrFission" (Jun 21st 2015, 8:14pm)


Blackpalt

Stone Miner

  • "Blackpalt" is male

Posts: 140

Location: Sweden

  • Send private message

4

Tuesday, June 23rd 2015, 12:07pm

This one is slightly better with 23 rods instead of 18. in eu mode (which is the one i would use) it produces 250 eu/tick or 648 Hu/s in 5x5 mode. It is quite a lot more expensive thought.

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.…xnrwe3y0il9hxc0

or prntscreen if thats more up your alley
http://prntscr.com/7kauls

althought if i where you i would make a shittone of 0 chamber reactors and just chain them with a similar design as you are using
something like this perhaps?
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.…gam97gznv8cdji8
http://prntscr.com/7kaz0y
or just this if you wanna be cheap
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.…nnb21da4y0c7hfk
http://prntscr.com/7kazgv
A question that sometimes drives me hazy; am i or are the other crazy

Speiger

TMT & IC2 Classic Dev

  • "Speiger" is male

Posts: 997

Location: Germany

  • Send private message

5

Tuesday, June 23rd 2015, 12:31pm

for 45 EU (the last of your setups) or for 70 EU (the second one) you are wasting a lot of uranium...

This setup is maybe a little bit more expensive in creation cost but running cost is needs way less uranium and you gain more energy out of it... (energy / needed Uranium)

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.…8nfnk7hggo3owzk
(that is made by myself no copieng or something)

To your first setup with 250 EU output and a low EU Efficiency of 2,17 (which is actually pretty low) i have a way more effective setup... Creation Cost is a little bit higher (because it uses a full reactor to build)
but the running cost is way lower... So you gain more EU out of less Uranium...

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.…cmx5zm4ops1patc
(I have to say this is not my setup. It is the setup of one of my friends...)

Blackpalt your setups are good for running once when you do not have much materials but high output and efficiency they are not that good...
Also you wast a lot of Uranium with your setups...

Edit: you also gain a lot of UsedUranium cells out of that so Plutonium production work with both... Without wasting energy xD

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Speiger" (Jun 23rd 2015, 12:48pm)


MauveCloud

Coal Miner

  • "MauveCloud" is male

Posts: 1,048

Location: California

  • Send private message

6

Tuesday, June 23rd 2015, 2:39pm

The initial post mentioned that these reactors wouldn't even be hooked up to power storage, so EU production/efficiency is probably not a big concern.

DrFission, if you're willing to consider overclocked heat vents and a 6-chamber reactor, here's a design I came up with that uses 41 rods:
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.…gpl994o5nt5rk74

If you still insist on it being 4 chambers, 2 adjacent middle columns can be removed, leaving a design that uses 32 rods:
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.…3bf821v1akoh5vk

Also, I looked at your image, and that's a 3-chamber reactor, not a 4-chamber like you said in your initial post. With plain heat vents, I think you'd only be able to support 3 rods per reactor chamber (counting the 3 chambers used to make the main reactor). Thus you could use 21 with an actual 4-chamber reactor, or 27 with a 6-chamber.

Blackpalt

Stone Miner

  • "Blackpalt" is male

Posts: 140

Location: Sweden

  • Send private message

7

Thursday, June 25th 2015, 11:31am

Nice design concept there mauvecloud, manage to make some improvements on it thought, by rebalancing the heat i managed to squeeze in an additional 2 rods to 43

6 chamber
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.…elijpi9cklt2xog

And a slight improvement on the 4 chamber reactor with 33 rods
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.…29snh0499irnf9c

Also made a few small ones, think this would be the easiest way to produce a lot of plutonium.

2 chamber with 23 rods
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.…sqf6z6som0b0zr4

0 chamber 14 rods
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.…nua04g6c1od4r9c
A question that sometimes drives me hazy; am i or are the other crazy

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Blackpalt" (Jun 27th 2015, 5:27pm)


8

Thursday, February 16th 2017, 5:02pm

Hi,

sorry to dig this out - I came across this thread via google, searching for the most efficient Plutonium production setup. Unfortunately, most of the screenshots are down so most of the info of these contributors is lost.

Does anybody have a better recommendation than a simple grid of advanced heat vents and uranium rods? I don't need the reactor for power, since I have a Geothermal generator farm hooked up to the nether via ender tanks.

MauveCloud

Coal Miner

  • "MauveCloud" is male

Posts: 1,048

Location: California

  • Send private message

9

Thursday, February 16th 2017, 10:30pm

Hi,

sorry to dig this out - I came across this thread via google, searching for the most efficient Plutonium production setup. Unfortunately, most of the screenshots are down so most of the info of these contributors is lost.

Does anybody have a better recommendation than a simple grid of advanced heat vents and uranium rods? I don't need the reactor for power, since I have a Geothermal generator farm hooked up to the nether via ender tanks.

All of the links that are actually screenshots still work. The talonfiremage links were for the old planner, rather than screenshots. However, they can be pasted into the new planner.

If you're using single-rods, as opposed to dual-rods, plain heat vents will suffice, though you're limited to about 27 rods per reactor.

The 43-chamber design that Blackpalt provided needs overclocked heat vents.

10

Thursday, February 16th 2017, 11:01pm

oohhhh i see. I have been playing around with this awesome simulator a bit, but it didn't occur to me that these links actually contained the setup codes.

so, overclocked heat vents seem cheap enough to me, as long they don't get destroyed.

I think I'll either go with the 27-rod standard heat vents or the 43 rod overcloked vents design. Thanks!

Counter:

Hits today: 14,238 | Hits yesterday: 1,368 | Hits record: 152,331 | Hits total: 65,310,329