Reactor efficiency, water cooling, and extra chambers.

  • Forgive me for not going into the math on this. I just dont feel like it. As such I have to say my opinion is theoretical at this point.
    Im going to throw this out here by example. Keep in mind the designs aren't optimal. So for sake of argument, there may come a certain point in eu/t vs efficiency that its more productive to increase our chamber size. But for the resources used and the optimal output im going to argue that multiple single reactors is the way to go. The designs I will be throwing out are going to be pretty crap mark 2's.

    Take this low efficiency single chamber design for instance:…XXXXXXXCHCHCHUCUUHUCHCHCH

    now take this 6 chamber design for instance:…XXXXXXXCHCHCHUCUUHUCHCHCH

    Its an exact duplicate of the first, except this one cant keep up with the heat at all without filling the other 3 chambers. We could fill those chambers, and make it a little more stable:…HXCXCXCCHCHCHUCUUHUCHCHCH
    For 9 extra coolant cells and 3 extra hd's.

    At this point i would like to point out that I understand that the design of these reactors, nor the cooling is optimal. MUCH LESS the efficiency of the uranium.

    lets drop a chamber:…HXCXCXCCHCHCHUCUUHUCHCHCH
    add a few coolants, its still relatively stable.

    instead of 3 chambers, we can save a chamber and use the 2 others plus some easy resources to make a whole new reactor, encase it in water, and end up with a reactor that still doubles our eu/t and has FAR less heat.

    Here's the issue, the 33 external cooling of the water is only good for one reactor, so we still end up with a larger cooldown time as we add chambers and uranium. The runtime drops, the cycles drop, and there's no good reason for it as far as I can see.

    There are some really awesome designs out there right now, but uran efficiency isn't really that big of a deal, especially with a separate breeder. Whats the point of chambers vs single reactors?

  • First off I'll say I agree/disagree with you. I believe multiple smaller reactors are better then 1 large reactor (because you only get the cooling effect of exterior water once).
    Second: Somberled's Design

    I feel 2 chamber reactors are the best for a few reasons:
    1) 2 chambers gives you a place to put cables (for power output) as well as redstone input (in case you want to stop the reactor) without sacrificing any of the external cooling water blocks.
    2) You can pack them into a smaller area (vs big six chamber reactors [or really 3 or more chambers]) because they can share water cooling blocks efficiently.
    3) Cheaper to produce then either a 6-chamber reactor, or 2 single reactors.

    But honestly, it all comes down to personal preference. Some people prefer Mark II-1 reactors where they can just drop in some uranium and they'll get lots of power in the meantime, and won't be back before it cools off anyway. Others like Mark II reactors that can run as many cycles as possible before needing to cool down. Then there's people who would rather run a mark III and use complicated redstone circuits to turn them on/off to get more out of their uranium. (and we won't even mention the CA-SUC reactors)

    So basically everyone is different, and so are their nuclear reactor needs, but thankfully the IC2 nuclear reactor code is dynamic enough to allow people to use it as they see fit. Unlike in IC1 when you'd just drop in uranium and get 40 EU/t and just had to cross your fingers that your reactor wouldn't explode. IC2 > IC1 :)

  • I have been theorycrafting a bit about this.…XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    This reactor hooked to a 1/7 clock is mk.1, with only 1 chamber and 20 eu/t at 3.5 efficiency. To compare a full-blown 6-chamberer mk.2 with square setup is barely cheaper, with same eu/t but worse efficiency.
    And yes, I have accounted for the fact that either redstone of cable has to interfere with external cooling. Putting the power line trough the water and it still works :)