[OFFICIAL]reactor designs for More Power

I think you overweight efficiency. Consider what a moderate efficiency breeder does to the equation.

At 28:1, every now becomes worth a whopping 7.71 cells. Building that breeder is worth more than moving all the way from efficiency 1 to efficiency 7. As such, copper consumables should be considered far more heavily than efficiency, since if you don't consume copper, you can build that breeder much more easily.

Competing resources. Efficient breeders cost upwards of 1000 copper, 2000 for the expensive ones (though I am becoming increasingly convinced that the 84:1 and 92:1 designs are pointless, as they produce marginal gains). If you're burning 200 copper a cycle saving up will not exactly be easy.

It might be a decent extreme long term plan (IE, long after the breeder is set up), though I've never seen a 7 that could get better than effective 140 EU/t, so you'd need a couple reactors to match a 265 Mark I (no continual resource consumption, low efficiency, good for 2.5 billion EU with my current uranium supply), which means even faster copper consumption (and the copper for a third reactor).

maximum Eff a Carc can have is 6,
also your use up entire chest of lapis, and space for the lapis condensers.
your designs are no where near to use and will explode if they dont got a potent coolant swapping system.

@epiclulz
where ist the importants factor of an entire generator?
OUTPUT!
maye also include
Cycles?

according to your system, my the Reactor (with the Highest output using Vannila (sounds weird to use on IC2 ^^) IC2 komponents) gets a rating
of 405. (with a CRCS system instead of a LHZs.)
and 279 without.
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/v3/reactorplan…quio6n0ugjjho8w

I have to agree that that rating system is not very good. It should gauge efficiency and output after accounting for cooling time and uum cost for maintenance. Instead of caring hhow many chambers it uses, it should account the total resource cost. (including cooling towers, if applicable)

Thought: Use the overall efficiency metric (can be found in resources needed in the planner) which takes into account the energy cost of using UUM (but not to create the scrap) to get uranium efficiency.

This creates a bit more balanced approach, The highest non maintenance cost Mark I I've found has a 3.87, the overall efficiency of a 4 quad mark I Comes to 3.46, a little less, but it gets 43% more power, so there's reason with this metric to consider it.

That sounds like a good general metric. I wonder if it might be good to also make a gregtech metric that is based on centrifuging lava? both in energy costs and opportunity costs, since uum costs way too much in gregtech to consider using for reactor maintenance.

I can't make heads or tails of the cost to turn lava into reflectors and dense copper plates via gregtech, but the formula is:

o=f(t-c)/t

o is the overall efficiency
f is the nominal efficiency
t is the total EU output for a cycle
c is the EU cost to get the materials to run a cycle.

Just ran some numbers. the energy cost of copper c=from a centrifuge is 16*30000 (potential energy generated) + 50000 (centrifuge energy consumption) /4 (the recipe produces 4) = 132500 eu per copper using lava. It also conveniently produces tin as well, in the proper ratio for producing neutron reflectors, so you can safely discount tin costs.

Quote from Kenken244

Just ran some numbers. the energy cost of copper c=from a centrifuge is 16*30000 (potential energy generated) + 50000 (centrifuge energy consumption) /4 (the recipe produces 4) = 132500 eu per copper using lava. It also conveniently produces tin as well, in the proper ratio for producing neutron reflectors, so you can safely discount tin costs.

That's 5.3kk for a quad cell.

And that takes the above 4 quad mark I all the way down to 1.31 overall efficiency? I don't think that's a fair measurement, given that you can still get copper the old fashioned way.

probably. especially since gregtech lets you triple your copper output. I guess gregtech users should just judge their own. Although, that still would be worth it, using a DDoS or HVC reactor, since you get much better efficency, or using plutonium.

Quote from Kenken244

probably. especially since gregtech lets you triple your copper output. I guess gregtech users should just judge their own. Although, that still would be worth it, using a DDoS or HVC reactor, since you get much better efficency, or using plutonium.

And being able to spin Gold out of Lava means the primarily rare expense of the HVC (gold) is largely mitigated. Although if you can spin out Copper and Tin as well, that would make DDoS more viable, once you get static costs taken care of.

Thorium is an interesting fissionable material, however it just... the EU/t output is so low that you might as well be using Geothermal.

Plutonium is good, though, if expensive. The Plutonium DDoS can generate 1920 EU/t, although it requires 13 of the gold-based six-chamber cooling towers, or 21 of the dual-chamber gold-based cooling towers. The upside is, of course, EFF:6, meaning you're at least getting good value for your Plutonium.

The plutonium reactor for the HVC would have to run on a one-second transfer cycle, so it would be very susceptible to server tic lag. It would also have a cooling cycle of 38 seconds, which means 38 OC vents per Quad-Plutonium, or 304 vents total. Which means 10 dual-chamber cooling towers, plus one additional cooling tower for the loose change.

plus 1 and bump for you i was looking for more power

Where did the [OFFICAL] tag come from?

Quote from Epic Lulz

Where did the [OFFICAL] tag come from?

I blieve it was added there by the creator of this thread.