Let me start by saying that I'm fairly new to reactor design. I've built a couple in the past and I've never blown one up (knock on wood), but I can't shake the feeling that I'm missing something.
I just designed this reactor. It's a Mark V EA* and puts out 170 EU/T effective on a 24s on/ 36s off cycle. It's stable and very efficient (EA*) but I'd love to hear input on how I can improve the design, especially with an eye toward a higher effective EU/T. Thanks!
a simple, efficient and relativelyy strong reactor design is several fuel rods in one corner, and all the other slots are filled with overclocked heat vents and component heat exchangers to balance the heat inbetween them. It has the advantage to be simple(aka hard to mess up) and on all the time, while still producing a decent chunk of power.
like here (i hope the link works, the browser version doesn't work for me)
What version of Minecraft and build of IC2 are you using? The official design thread has a Mark I design that produces 420 EU/t, both active and effective, and I'd be surprised if you could get your effective EU/t that high with a Mark V. However, if you're using MC 1.7.10 and a recent build of IC2, and are willing to deal with the complications and hazards of a fluid reactor, you might be able to get higher output EU/t (even via Stirling generators) and efficiency with a Mark V design, since it continues to heat the coolant fluid even during the cooldown periods.
What version of Minecraft and build of IC2 are you using? The official design thread has a Mark I design that produces 420 EU/t, both active and effective, and I'd be surprised if you could get your effective EU/t that high with a Mark V. However, if you're using MC 1.7.10 and a recent build of IC2, and are willing to deal with the complications and hazards of a fluid reactor, you might be able to get higher output EU/t (even via Stirling generators) and efficiency with a Mark V design, since it continues to heat the coolant fluid even during the cooldown periods.
sterlings are about 1/2 of what a full steam setup can get out sadly!
a fluid reactor can give alot more though 2x the EU/t!
sterlings are about 1/2 of what a full steam setup can get out sadly!
I know. That's why I said "even" using Stirling generators, which are quite a bit easier to set up than a stable superheated steam setup - I've watched some of the tutorials on the latter, and still don't feel confident in my ability to do so. (iirc, using non-superheated steam produces about the same amount of power as a Stirling generator)
or you go for biomass. that requires lots of plants and lots of fermenters and liquid heat exchangers, but apparently it gets a lot more power out than steam, and you don't have to deal with calcification from what i've gathered.
According to the old planner, it gets up to 8524 heat (shown as a tooltip where it says "Mark V EA*") before the time limit stops it (or 9172 according to my newer planner), which is enough for the "lava" effect, which according to the wiki is:
QuoteBlocks within a 5x5x5 cube have a chance of burning or turning into lava ('moving' lava only, no source blocks).
I would not have guessed that reinforced concrete blocks could be affected that way, but the only way I can think of to avoid it is to shorten the time it's kept running, so that it doesn't get quite so hot, which should also reduce the cooldown time needed. According to the old planner, using a 25-second on/30-second off timer will be safer and give a slightly higher effective EU/t of 254.5 instead of the 252.3 of your 28/34 timer.
I know. That's why I said "even" using Stirling generators, which are quite a bit easier to set up than a stable superheated steam setup - I've watched some of the tutorials on the latter, and still don't feel confident in my ability to do so. (iirc, using non-superheated steam produces about the same amount of power as a Stirling generator)
superheated steam is not hard to setup.. 221 bar 1 mb/tick 200 hu/t each generator..
however its not "fun" it uses a TON of mats and does not feel like its worth it in the long run
or you go for biomass. that requires lots of plants and lots of fermenters and liquid heat exchangers, but apparently it gets a lot more power out than steam, and you don't have to deal with calcification from what i've gathered.
a 9x9 ( with 5 squares not used for transport) was getting about 1-1.2k EU/t biomass.. Gonna redesign since i sorta gota confused on my design after a while ( was trying to see how much biomass/energy a single macterator and canner could do.. and it was near the 1.2k limit.
