[OFFICIAL] List of good reactor designs

  • Very interesting designs, taral. Unorthodox, compact and effective.

    As for RockRaiderZulu's "Quadrants", by most standards of reactor building (better effectivity, less construction price) they are a failure. But may be they were built with something other in mind - like "how many diamonds can we fit into reactor hull?". Then they are quite good.

    They were built with operating costs, stability, and effective lifespan in mind. If it is build cost that you are worried about, then looking elsewhere is advised. As of right now, they are the only purpose built hybrids that guaranty that more fuel is made than burned.

    A Rock Raider trained as an Engineer, among other things.

  • Quadrant VI I beleive is what you named this one.


    It doesn't look like the heating cells are doing anything, too much cooling for it to work.

    You should be able to get it to be alot cheaper if you change some stuff around, also you will get better efficiency.

    Still 2 chambers on both of these, and both will create more uranium than they use.

    If you dont want to replace the cells mid cycle.


    And if you do want to replace them you can get some more eu/t out of it. . Has some extra room for plating so you can charge more cells.


    Edit: Second design with 1 less diamond. :P http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…y3m7942043j3sqk9mc520emac

    I'll think of one later.

    One of these days I will remember to edit everything I want to BEFORE I click submit.

    Edited once, last by Zombie ().

  • First post ^^

    I present to you my 1337 Mark I EB design:


    Some interesting things to note:
    * It has incredibly dense cooling.
    * It produces a full cycle 275 EU/tick at 3.67 efficiency.
    * It's powered entirely off of single cell uranium.

    I won't be using the dual or quad cells. Even after the ticking bug is fixed (which makes them pretty unusable), the copper consumption is rough. It's 8 copper per dual, and 40 copper per quad. 2 cycles with a reactor that has 4 quads in it uses more than enough copper to build a second reactor. If I need more power, I will just clone this one.

    I spent a good chunk of time on this, so I hope my design is appreciated :D

  • Possible replacement for Reactor 2:
    Mark I EB (0 Chambers, 5 single uranium cells)
    Eu/tick: 75
    Efficiency: 3
    Cost: Iron 100, Copper 85, Tin 32, Gold 16

    or this variant which is -6 Iron, +11 Copper, -1 Tin:
    Mark I EB (0 Chambers, 5 single uranium cells)
    Eu/tick: 75
    Efficiency: 3
    Cost: Iron 94, Copper 96, Tin 31, Gold 16

    Edit: Since it's a 0 chamber design, it can also be duplicated like this. This one could probably be greatly improved on. I didn't mess with it beyond trying to clone my design above across 6 reactor chambers.
    Mark I EB (6 Chambers, 15 single uranium cells)
    Eu/tick: 225
    Efficiency: 3
    Cost: Iron 276, Copper 343, Tin 87, Gold 48

    Nevermind, just saw that Reactor 3 is also 0 chambers, and produces more Eu/tick than mine and is more efficient.

  • A three chamber MK1 that puts out 140 EU/t for eight cells.

    80 tin, 88 redstone, 48 glass, 199 rubber, 22 gold, 195 iron, 8 diamonds, 2 glowstone, 2 ll, and an uncertain amount of copper (the planner says 388) goes into this unit. I'll keep tinkering around as I need compact HV MkI units.

    Right now , I might end up with 72 of these for what I am trying to do with them.

    A Rock Raider trained as an Engineer, among other things.

  • Hi, this is my first post in this forum so i dont know if this is the right topic.

    For me 4 single cells generate the full amount (12mio) of EU shown in the planer, while
    a single quad cell gernerates only half of the EU (6mio).

    So for quad cells the paner will show the double amount of overall generated EU.

    I know this is a known bug of the planer but may it should be mentioned in the first official post,
    for ppl who are looking for a reactor with highest EU output per cell.

    if its wrong threat pls delete this post :)
    so long muh0r

  • The planner is actualy working correctly its the game that is bugged.

  • http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…spcfiwdd26dn6m9xbmjveymf4

    Not the one I THOUGHT I had posted above, but performs the same trades tin and iron for copper, gold, diamonds, rubber, and I think glass. I'll keep trying to recover the one I should have posted, but didn't.

    Okay, here the one I think I tried before, thus giving my previous post here purpose:

    And it looks like that is about as cheap as it will get without going SUC(ks for purposes). :Extractor:

    Actually, I can't get SUC to work for this. Nevermined, I just did, and it costs more for EVERYTHING but uranium and glowstone.

    A Rock Raider trained as an Engineer, among other things.

    Edited 4 times, last by RockRaiderZulu ().

  • i dont know if this is a bug or what but with this breeder design http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…xyj44hb4tgmsz4pysfqbypkc1
    i can run infinte cycles like a mark 1, but the planner says its a mark 3... i run it in my world and have had 0 worrys

    It should explode its making excess heat. The cooling cells are getting cooled by 8 but they get 12 heat. So after 2500 secs they will melt. After that the reactor will explode after slightly more than 10 mins.

    EDIT: i currently dont have much time i check all those designs above this post later.

  • Quote

    Reactor 6:

    • Link: Mark I EA*
    • Eu/tick: 140
    • Efficiency: 7 (Uses neutron reflectors)
    • Cost: Iron 238, Copper 446, Tin 128, Gold 50
    • Credits: Rick

    I want see that one removed for mine .

    His - 718/128/238/50/43/64/20/2/2/4
    Mine - 550/96/117/46/43/48/20/2/2/4

    Mine's cheaper or equal on every resource.

    His is efficiency 7 vs my 6.
    So is 4 million EU worth 168 copper, 32 tin, 121 iron, 4 gold, and 12 Coal?

    It'd take more than a few cycles to generate the difference in UU with his reactor.

    Already posted it once, figured I'd do it one more time as the resource costs have been updated.

    Edit 1: Just decided to check the UU cost difference between mine and yours, its 226 UU.

    Edited once, last by Zinabas: Fun stuff added. ().

  • His is efficiency 7 vs my 6.
    So is 4 million EU worth 168 copper, 32 tin, 121 iron, 4 gold, and 12 Coal?

    imo, at least, that's why yours wouldn't replace it. Sometimes you care more about efficiency than anything else, and that reactor is the list's entry for that scenario.

    And if you're arguing based on UU-matter-equivalency, run the math on the neutron reflectors - they gain you surprisingly little, as their production consumes most of the EU they produce.


    My current favored reactor:

    250 EU/t, 4.55 efficiency
    706 copper, 104 tin, 327 iron, 34 gold

    The real gain, however, is that it only consumes 8 copper plates per cycle in the uranium - that's less than 2 quads would use, while producing more power at higher efficiency. If we use 400k EU as the cost of a copper plate (the cost of the UU matter alone, ignoring processing), that means we lose only 3.2m EU per cycle, yielding an effective efficiency of 4.25.

    Compare, for example, with the Reactor9 from the OP: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…adh05nlzbpykw84kwczan05q8
    280 EU/t, 4.67 eff
    769 copper, 99 tin, 331 iron, 64 gold

    That consumes 12 copper plates per cycle, or 4.8m EU, yielding an effective efficiency of 4.27. Once we include processing costs to make those plates, it would drop further.

    Edit - Total cost of a UU-matter copper plate is ~436.5k eu (using an Electric Furnace) rather than the 400k eu used above. With that revised number:
    * My reactor loses ~3.5m EU per cycle for an effective efficiency of 4.23 (4.228)
    * Reactor 9 loses ~5.2m EU per cycle, for an effective efficiency of 4.23 (4.230)