I made a MOX reactor that works pretty well... but outputs only a similar heat to the same reactor with quad cells. This does not make it more efficient to me.
IC2EXP Reactor Planner Code:
0505230C0A140D0C0A05230C0D0C0D0C0D14050C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D140D140D140D140D14
I have never made a 5x5x5 reactor, or anything other than a Mk I variant.
So, the idea to me - of making a MOX reactor as a fluid reactor is somewhat of a contradiction: MOX reactors run efficient when they are kept at a constant (hot) temp, and that implies using components that do not cool the reactor chamber.
Designs like this EU reactor achieve a running efficiency of 16x when preheated to 7500 / 10000
090C090C0C090C09001409140A0A14091400090C0A05050A0C0900090C0A05050A0C09001409140A0A14091400090C090C0C090C0900
producing 128MEU from 4 dual MOX rods, where the simulator says your design does 7M "heat". I don't know the factors that govern the translation of heat into steam into EU, but if the simulator listed efficiencies are anything to go by, the EU reactor design is outperforming your fluid design which would be embarrassing if true.
So, the idea to me - of making a MOX reactor as a fluid reactor is somewhat of a contradiction: MOX reactors run efficient when they are kept at a constant (hot) temp, and that implies using components that do not cool the reactor chamber.
MOX works slightly differently in fluid reactors, it gets a 2x bonus when the reactor is at 50%+ heat, and nothing otherwise. It means designs are a little more predictable despite the heat fluctuating.
MOX works slightly differently in fluid reactors, it gets a 2x bonus when the reactor is at 50%+ heat, and nothing otherwise. It means designs are a little more predictable despite the heat fluctuating.
That seems a bit contrived. But then I guess most of the reactor mechanics are rather contrived. While - on the surface - it would seem to simplify the use of MOX in fluid reactors the low (2x) efficiency multiplier would seem to make it even more difficult for a fluid based reactor to outperform a plain EU output design?
That seems a bit contrived. But then I guess most of the reactor mechanics are rather contrived. While - on the surface - it would seem to simplify the use of MOX in fluid reactors the low (2x) efficiency multiplier would seem to make it even more difficult for a fluid based reactor to outperform a plain EU output design?
You get twice the output from it being a fluid reactor rather than normal straight off, which is a big boost. Providing you use superheated steam for the hotcoolant processing too, it shouldn't be especially hard to get a higher output. Whether it becomes all worth it in the end is another matter, fluid reactors are expensive setups for the boost they provide.
I made a MOX reactor that works pretty well... but outputs only a similar heat to the same reactor with quad cells. This does not make it more efficient to me.
In the classical sense, efficiency would be a measure of fuel used to total energy output. The easiest way to mathematically compare two reactors total running efficiency would be to take the total heat generated over a cycle, divided by the number of fuel rods in the reactor.
Of course, if uranium is relatively free, but your big expense is in reflectors or some consumable component, then that might be a more meaningful measure of efficiency.
Its really not clear from your post what you are asking...
MOX works slightly differently in fluid reactors, it gets a 2x bonus when the reactor is at 50%+ heat, and nothing otherwise. It means designs are a little more predictable despite the heat fluctuating.
Hrm... this seems somewhat... sub-optimal. Better than exponentially increasing heat which would cause the reactor to blow, but not nearly as beneficial as the EU reactor MOX system. What if instead of doubling the output at 50%, the core temperature exponentially increased the lifespan of the fuel? Then you get constant, predictable output, but the longer life leads to greater efficiency.
If I might suggest an improvement to MOX cells -
Go back to the original idea of making their efficiency based on absolute heat (which I would think is the natural progression of 'heat = efficiency'). But instead of giving you insane multipliers because you can shove in a ton of heat plating, simply work with a larger scale to begin with. That's honestly how I expected it to work in my fluid reactor when I started heating it up, and found 0-50% was 1x and 50.04-84.92% was 2x. "Oh," I said to myself, "they just want you to put in heat plating, to get to the larger absolute numbers!" So I did, and lo and behold, even with my maximum heat tripled and pushing 84.95%, I still never got above 2x.
Assuming a 10K reactor heat limit, why not just increase the multiplier once every 5K heat (or some other, possibly higher number)? Since each Heat-Capacity Reactor Plating increases your maximum heat by 2K (based on my calculations and that assumption), and <85% is the most heat you can maintain in a fluid reactor without your casing melting, the way things currently are there's no reason to even use heat plating - well, at least not in a fluid reactor.
