A list of good reactor designs (IC² v1.103 and earlier)

Quote from Rick

Breeder efficiency is the amount of recharged cells you get per used uranium cell in your breeder. (Btw talonius it would be epic if you can include that in the reactor planner!!). Having 4 depleted cells surounding a uranium cell at 9000 heat gives max possible breeder efficiency.

I agree with you on this. 4 Isotopes around a Uranium is the best config, and heat is a big factor on how quickly they recharge. However, I feel current measurements do not describe anything meaningful when it comes to breeding. Lets work with examples. These examples won't have cooling because all we care about is demonstrating breeding efficiency. They will all assume that we somehow keep a constant 9k heat through a cooling config. A few things are obvious. These are not maximum best cases. Some would not even really make sense. Some of them mix boosts to energy efficiency and breeding. One thing isn't obvious - how do they stack up against each other when it comes to breeding. I'll list them with current measurments, and then with measurements that make sense to me. Energy efficiency is obvious. Breeding efficiency is how much isotopes get bred into uranium, and enrichment efficiency is an average how how effectively each isotope is being enriched.

1)
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1k10101001501521s1r11r19
10eu/t Eff 4.0
vs

10eu Energy Eff 1.0 Breeding 12/20 Enrichment 4/20

2)
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1k10101001501521s1r11r19
40eu/t Eff 3.5 breeder
vs
40eu/t Energy eff 2.0, Breeding Eff 7.5/20 enrichment eff 5/20

3)
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1k10101001501521s1r11r19
20 eu/t eff 3.0
vs
20 eu/t Energy eff 1.0, Breeding 6/20, enrichment 6/20

4)
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1k10101001501521s1r11r19
20 eu/t eff 4.0
vs
20 eu/t Energy 1.0, Breeding 12/20, enrichment 6/20

5)
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1k10101001501521s1r11r19
40 eu/t Eff 4.0
vs
40 eu/t Energy 2.0, Breeding 8/20, enrichment 4/20

6)
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1k10101001501521s1r11r19

40 eu/t Eff 5.0
vs
40 eu/t Energy 2.0 Breeding 15/20, enrichment 5/20
Note: This is too hot to run at a constant 9k, it would have to be a positive breeder.

The measurements I am using let us compare breeders. The benefit of using these measurements is you get to compare non optimal breeder configs. We can see for example that numbers 3 and 4 on average enrich thier isotopes faster than a more efficient breeder would. We can see that 1 & 4 have the same breeding efficiency as each other, but the other 4.0 eff #5 has traded some of its breeding down for better energy eff. These measurements especially important in seeing the trade offs in energy efficient productive designs that choose to incorporate breeding. We haven't seen a lot of those designs, and my main guess as to why is because we have no way of measuring the trade offs. There are a few mark IVs with empty slots I see, where adding isotopes in the slots lowers the effective eu/t only slightly, but has the same enrichment efficiency as perfect breeding. With measurements that say "the efficiency improves, and the effective eu/t goes down" it doesn't make sense enough to make comparisons to other breeding configs. With measurements that say "Energy efficiency remains the same, enrichment happens as effectively as a perfect breeder, breeding occurs at x amount (defraying the cost of fuel) and eu/t goes down by y amount due to extra heat" it may make a lot more sense, especially when you can compare the time & cost of generating the fuel in the standard perfect breeder config. It will be obvious which is better.

1)
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…1k101010037ps011111101110
Design uncredited, but not mine. It's in the list. It's a Mark 4 with a cold start
Mk IV 330 eu/t active 67.79 effective eu/t 3.67 eff
2)[url='' [url']http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…1k101010037ps011111101119[/url]'] http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…1k101010037ps011111101119[/url]
My modification
Mk V 330 eu/t active 55 effective eu/t 3.67 energy eff, 2.22 Breeding eff, 5 enrichment eff.
You'd redstone this to pulse once and then cool down to maintain its temp hot. It's breeding efficiency doesn't matter that much, because efficiently breeding cells isn't the main thrust of the design. Its enrichment efficiency shows that at the same temps, these isotopes get enriched as efficiently as a perfect breeder. 2 enriched / cycle @ 9k heat an 5 enrichment efficiency means this design can enrich around 8 uranium while consuming 9.
You are trading 13 eu/t for almost ALL OF THE FUEL COST. For 13 eu/t.
Or if you use previous measurements, all you know is that eff goes from 3.67 to 4.11 and effective eu/t goes down to 55 from 68.

You all don't have to adopt these measurments if you don't want to, I am just pointing out that when breeding is included, current measurements fall short of describing things meaningfully.

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…1l101010037ps011111101116
Mark I - O EB
40 eu/t active & Effective. Energy Eff 2.0, Breeding Eff 3/20, Enrichment Efficiency 3/20
This reactor produces it's own fuel, enriching as much as it consumes, potentially more. Note that there is a preheat, if you fail to preheat, you do not come close to breaking even on fuel.

Quote from albijoe

I have two more in-depth questions on breeder reactors:
1. Do Multiple Uranium cells surrounding depleted isotopes charge them faster?

2. Is the production of uranium from depleted isotopes a constant process, or a random process?

Side: Could there be a reactor type created for reactors that "create their own fuel"? I thought would be a good idea and worth a new reactor type.
Maybe a "cycle" reactor because it creates its own fuel during a cycle, as opposed to a "breeder" reactor that creates more fuel that it uses? It could also be labelled a "UD" reactor if it has greater than 1.0 efficiency, for having Uranium and Depleted. The relevant stats would not just be efficiency / output / time before meltdown, but also ratio of fuel used to fuel produced (assuming infinite depleted cells available). Therefore you could have a true "breeder" that has low power efficiency and high fuel ratio, all the way to a full production reactor that has high efficiency and 0 fuel ratio. Along the way would be things like a 3U-1D reactor that might produce .5 fuel because the D is next to 2U.

1. According to the sim, it does. My tests in game confirm
2. It is a random process, that I don't fully understand yet. Isotopes do not finish at the same time, or predictably, but because of the large number of random events that go into their enrichment, you should not get a lot of outliers (especially early or late), and they should be predictable within a range with some good degree of accuracy.

Quote from Rick

you need 9.625 uranium per cycle for your reactor (9 uran cells and you need to craft 0.625 ore into 5 depleted cells you get 3 depleted cells back from those 9 uran cells each cycle). You get 8 uran cells back with breeding thus you consume 9.625-8 = 1.625 uran per cycle instead of the 9 you normaly need. So thats a 5.5x increase in efficiency.

Further each cycle makes 9*3.67*2 = 66.02m eu. This means 1 uran cell makes 40.6m eu which is a efficiency of 20.3 which is nice but nowhere near a max efficiency breeder combined with a 3.67 eff reactor. It would be somewhere over 30 efficiency in that case.

Again, I have to agree with part of what you are saying, but point out something that changes the conclusion. The hybrid design is an energy producing design, it is not meant to be a net gain in uranium, but an energy efficient means of consuming uranium

Basically you are comparing the net loss hybrid with losses shored up by raw uranium with the lossy energy only config with losses fed by a perfect breeder.
What if you compared my net loss hybrid with losses fed by a perfect breeder with the lossy energy only config fed by perfect breeder?

I crunched numbers for an hour over this. I came up with this result. The method you suggest is better yeilds 92.127 million eu per raw uranium. The design I suggested is, as you state worse at 86.226m per raw uranium, which came as a surprise to me, I expected better. I thought the better energy efficiency on average while breeding would outweigh the more time spent in the lower efficiency breeding config. Then I realized I wasn't measuring efficient production, only efficiency of consumption. So I spent like THREE HOURS comparing methods, and came to this conclusion. Existing configs require:

12857.143s (1428.5s per ucell) @ 10 eu/t for 2.571m energy

48571.4285s consuming 9 bred ucells at 69 eu/t for 66m energy

68.571m in 61428s @ 55.814 effective eu/t

my suggestion

1428.5s @ 10 eu/t for .286m energy
55556s consuming 1 bred ucell @ 59 eff eu/t for 66m (the sim disagrees on the eff eu/t, i think because the dispensers are overwhelmed by more and it assumes continuous runtime, this is for both configs)
56984s to generate 66.286m @ 58.162 eu/t

The differences in consumption efficiency are slight ~-5%, effective production slight ~+5%, so its roughly equivalent overall. In practice, the method I brought up has one breeder run with a checkin halfway at the Hour and 50 min mark to replace finished isotopes and 8 long production cycles, with a checkin halfway around the 7 hour 45 min mark to replace isotopes. The tried and true method I'm comparing it to has 9 breeding runs with checkins every hour and half, and 8 long runs with no checkin for isotopes. Because they are roughly equivalent, you could use either option, whichever suits your playstyle... but one is not significantly better than the other when compared on equalish footing.

hello all,

i took 5 minutes and improved an design on the first page by 0,01 effective eu. (i know LOL)

Quote

2. http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.…7ps011111101110 Needs redstone timing to function properly. After running for 229 secs it needs to cooldown for 2992 secs. Makes 820 eu/tick active and 58,30 eu/tick average @ 4,1 eff. Made by me

origional design by: Rick

improved design: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…1k101010037ps011111101110

it can now generate for : 223 seconds (i know, 6 seconds les)
cooldown period : 2913 (improved by 79 seconds)

hello all,

this is an mark 2 reactor.
eff: : 2.5
effective eu : 95,62
total eu/cycle :20 mil (good for 2 MFSU's exact)
total cycle's row : 15,6 (concidered mk1)

now in adition to the new post requirements:
needed resources:
iron : 340
tin : 394
copper : 669,5
uranium : 4
lapis : 48
redstone dust : 146
glowstone dust : 48
rubber : 145
stone : 8

hope this design qualifies for the list

You may want to add link to your reactor design.

Quote from Rick

Mk1:
2. http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1o10101001501521s1r11r10 The upgrade to the starting reactor it outputs 80 eu/tick at 2 efficiency. Cost wise its better to upgrade your starting reactor to this than to make a 2th starting reactor. It can run 25 cycles in a row if you somehow instantly refuel it. So its pretty much only possible in theory that this reactor blows up. First gen (24,75 cycles) made by me then later on slightly improved by raGan (24,94 cycles) and then improved again by me (25 cycles).

Near infinite cycle reactors (mk2 E):

Reactor #:
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1o10101001501521s1r11r10

• Eu/tick: 80
• Average Eu/tick: 78.19
• Efficiency: 2
• Cost: Iron 180, Copper 347 and Tin 208.5
• Cooldown per cycle 3 min 52s

I consider this a slight upgrade to the quoted reactor. Slightly higher average eu/t, slightly faster cooldown time, slightly cheaper. It can do 23.87 cycles vs the originals 25, which is still effectively infinite.

I just finished making my reactor. I designed my own that has a little better EU/t then the 3 efficiently one. I chose this design because I have relatively a lot of Uranium to use right now.

Reactor (MKII):

• Eu/tick: 140
• Average Eu/tick: 97.55
• Efficiency: 2.33
• Cost: Iron (Dust) 340, Copper (Dust) 669.5 and Tin (Dust) 394
• Cooldown per cycle 72 mins 32 sec
• Credits: Khaos9999

Note: Uses 6 Uranium Cells

Link to Reactor Layout

Quote from Khaos9999

I just finished making my reactor. I designed my own that has a little better EU/t then the 3 efficiently one. I chose this design because I have relatively a lot of Uranium to use right now.

Reactor (MKII):

• Eu/tick: 140
• Average Eu/tick: 97.55
• Efficiency: 2.33
• Cost: Iron (Dust) 340, Copper (Dust) 669.5 and Tin (Dust) 394
• Cooldown per cycle 72 mins 32 sec
• Credits: Khaos9999

Note: Uses 6 Uranium Cells

Link to Reactor Layout

Display More

Upgrade. http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…k101010037ps01121s1111110

Quote from raGan

Upgrade. http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…k101010037ps01121s1111110

Thanks! Spent a few hours coming up with a ton of configs that was my best one.

At least it was not TOO bad

seems i forgot the link to my design. must re make it "sigh" hold on

2 chamber, 2.5 eff. MK II- 1 EC . Has prretty long cooldown, but highest eff. two-chamber reactor can achieve. Possible upgrade to Rick's starting design.
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1o10101001501521s1r11r10

I also improved one of mine: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1k10101011111521s1r11r10

And not sure if it counts, but i touched Cake's design a little (no, not flipped) and i came up with 0.01 better eff. EU. http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1k10101001501521s1r11r10

hello all,

i believe i already attempted this design before, but wasnt able to pull it to an mk2 class, but here it is. mk 2

eficiency is :2,6
uranium cells :5

some small notes, the heat disperser setup is not realy the best out there, i am not proud of it. it has alot of cooldown time, can somebody take an look and posibly upgrade it?
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…k101010037ps01121s1111110

also, this reactor is dificult to make right, has the tendency to burn throu coolant cells if set up unproperly