Low on budget? Try this one

    As far as I know, this is best non-CASUC design there is (0.2EU/iron/t). And there's nothing that gives more EU/t per used resources.


    Currently I use only:
    CASUC reactors, capable of putting 3.7EU/iron/t
    Geothermal plant, 1.2EU/iron/t
    Coal plant and automated tree farms, 0.8EU/iron/t
    Wind Farm, 0.2-0.3EU/iron/t


    I think that 100% safe non-CASUC reactors should also be affordable and usable for those who want to use their uranium, but don't want to play with redstone or fear of explosion.


    I have a Mk II-1 Class C (2.33) 0-chamber that averages 0.25 EU/iron/t and is 0.33 EU/iron/t during operation. The one in the OP is hardly the best, most efficient, or most powerful budget reactor out there.

    That's a very nice output for a 0-chamber reactor, and no doubt an incredible output relative to the resource cost. But DAMN, it runs hotter than I like for my own purposes.


    The one in the OP needs no shielding, just a 3x3x3 pit pull of water to put it in. You could literally build it right under the floor of your house. There's something to be said for that.

    Quote from HeadHunter67

    That's a very nice output for a 0-chamber reactor, and no doubt an incredible output relative to the resource cost. But DAMN, it runs hotter than I like for my own purposes.


    The one in the OP needs no shielding, just a 3x3x3 pit pull of water to put it in. You could literally build it right under the floor of your house. There's something to be said for that.


    Both the OP reactor and the one I linked require to be water submerged. Complexity of both are identical. The only difference is you need to let the more efficienct one cool off for about an hour after use. Then, even still, it has higher total output than the reactor in the OP.

    Indeed - but then you need to either make the pit deeper or elevate the inflow of the cooling water so that it continues to be submerged even at its maximim heat output. Not difficult, to be certain, but also not as simple to implement.


    If I'm going to use a 3-cell reactor, I can use MJEvans' 2-chamber design which has the same output and efficiency and runs completely cool. Sure, it requires more cooling cells and heat dispersers, but at that point, budget is not so much of a concern.


    This other reactor is more efficient, of course, but Rick's design is basically "set it and forget it" and as such, is well suited for a first reactor.

    Quote from HeadHunter67

    This other reactor is more efficient, of course, but Rick's design is basically "set it and forget it" and as such, is well suited for a first reactor.


    Highlighted the important part.


    If we're talking about that, then both reactors are on equal footing. Elevating a water source block by 1 level is very easy to do ... I'm pretty sure anyone capable of installing IC2 can also figure out how to place a source block of water anywhere they want to. Once the reactor configuration in space is set, you don't have to fiddle with it.


    Sounds like set it and forget it to me. I'm not sure why you're thinking this is a MkIII design or something. It is capable of a full cycle run without any observation.

    As I said, all Rick's reactor (and MJEvans' 3-cell, 2-chamber design) require is a 3x3x3 pit. You could cover the top and sides with wool, if you wanted. You could put it anywhere, work near it and there's never a risk of radiation damage or fire.


    Continuing to apply source water to a reactor that's at 7500 heat doesn't change its environmental effects - it only keeps it from overheating further.

    Quote from HeadHunter67

    As I said, all Rick's reactor (and MJEvans' 3-cell, 2-chamber design) require is a 3x3x3 pit. You could cover the top and sides with wool, if you wanted. You could put it anywhere, work near it and there's never a risk of radiation damage or fire.


    Continuing to apply source water to a reactor that's at 7500 heat doesn't change its environmental effects - it only keeps it from overheating further.


    Rick's reactor will explode if not submerged in water. So, both reactors have environmental installation restrictions. One will survive in a 3x3x3 pit, the other in a 5x5x5 pit. Since the discussion at hand is all about efficiency on the cheap, I would think that someone truly concerned about efficiency would take the time to install a more efficient reactor into a slightly larger pit. Honestly, I don't think clearing a 5x5x5 hole is really that big a deal ... but who knows.


    EDIT: In the end I really believe both these reactors are really nothing more than academic curiosities. By the time someone in an IC2 game has the resources to build either of these reactors, they've in all likelihood already got an operational 32 EU/t or bigger solar flower installed, making the tiny nuclear reactor pointless. Personally, I've never found a use for Mk-I reactors of any size. Far easier to go straight from solar flowers to a Mk-V CASUC or a Mk-IV redstone timed pure IC2 reactor.

    Rick's reactor doesn't risk harming nearby objects or entities at any point in its cycle. That's a GOOD thing for someone's first reactor. Let's be honest, all of the reading and checking out other people's plans is no substitute for hands-on experience. A safe reastor is far more forgiving of mistakes than one that runs very hot.


    Remember, EVERY reactor starts out with a core. Chambers can be added gradually and at any time later. So a design that runs cool and safe lets someone learn the ropes while building the rest of a larger plan.


    Personally, I've got a 2-chamber MkI-0EC in my basement workshop and a 33-panel solar wing on my roof. The solar is for teleporter power and mass fabrication, the reactor runs my machines. It's capable of filling an MFSU faster than the solar, so it's hardly useless - and it 's more compact and doesn't need a view of the sky.


    I'm not saying the other reactor is "bad", so I'm unsure why you seem defensive. I'm simply explaining why a safe reactor is a better bet for someone on a budget.