[Official] New Reactors design thread.

Quote from NolanSyKinsley

Can't tell if trolling, but those reactors are horrendous and should never be put into operation.

Not trolling, but come on. Look at all the EU production!

come one 204 eu is nothing

just take ONE look at other reactors.

Herobrine_exodus, you've already posted multiple times in this thread, and each time your reactor designs have been shot down by multiple people.
I think maybe your problem is you keep trying to design multiple reactors at the same time.
I would suggest that you focus on just ONE reactor, perfect it, and then post it.
Remember that efficiency is good, and putting cells next to each other gets you more efficiency, so try to group your cells together instead of checkerboarding them.
and please just read the first page. Anything you've posted is outdone by some reactor on the first page.
If there's any chance that you listen to anything in this post, thanks in advance. you'd be saving skavier, omicron, and requia from saying the exact same things to you everytime you post.

A Gregtech Uranium reactor designed with compactness and uranium efficiency in mind above all else:

http://two66.com/reactorplanne…2d72ipkg6iiliaqyqm93sln28

Are you sure you want to spend that much on 60 EU/t? I mean, playing GregTech these four thick reflectors take 39 emeralds (or 64 ender pearls), 128 copper, 64 tin and 64 coal. And you have to replace them every two cycles, which generate only 24 million EU during that time - only about 1.5 UU-matter.

It's very uranium efficient, that's true, but you're paying for that efficiency with murderous running costs in other resources.

New spreadsheet link: https://docs.google.com/spread…VHhEZzUtX0dTZ3E2aVE#gid=3

Greg's changes from 1.4.7 to 1.5.1 seem more or less final now, as he hasn't made any changes in the last 3 or so updates. Though he hasn't explicitly acknowledged it, so keep that in mind. Here's the current rundown as of 3.03a:

Plutonium:
* -50% power output
* pulses twice per reactor tick (doubled scaling, doubled breeding potential)
* reduced heat (custom flatter curve instead of standard scaling, roughly equivalent to a one third reduction on average)
* removed hybrid scaling (bugfix)

Thorium:
* -50% lifetime
* -20% heat
* removed hybrid scaling (bugfix)

Overall a resounding nerf, even without counting the hybrid bugfix. Plutonium now gives far less EU/t no matter the configuration, and thorium's total EU worth has been cut clean in half. The buffs in heat scaling and efficiency don't make up for it. And of course, the bugfix completely destroys hybrids as we know it. It was fun while it lasted, I suppose...

Regarding the design of cooling systems, thorium and uranium now produce the same amount of heat for the same EU/t (though thorium's slower speed obviously results in less total EU). That means thorium is slightly better off in this regard than in 1.4.7. Plutonium, however, is much worse off now compared to cooling uranium. Even single cells run searingly hot as soon as you make any attempt at utilizing the improved scaling.

Mind you, plutonium and thorium can still allow you to turn a net energy profit if you centrifuge re-enchriched isotopes for them. Provided you use the resultant cells in at least a 2-neighbour configuration, you'll get more total energy out than if you were using uranium (although it never goes above a few percent, compared to 1.4.7's greater than 55% bonus even without abusing the hybrid bug) while saving a few pieces of coal dust compared to making uranium out of the same re-enriched isotopes. But of course you need to bother with running a breeder for that.

The advantage of using hybrid reactors now boils down to being able to hit a specific heat profile better by mixing a few low-heat cells with your high heat ones. Basically the same thing you were doing when you were pairing quad uranium cells with single ones because you didn't have enough heat capacity left for a double. There is no more EU bonus to be had through hybrid configurations. Also, as mentioned above, plutonium hybrids can no longer be compared by overall efficiency scores, since the exact scaling depends on the ratio of plutonium to non-plutonium cells.

As a bottom line, you can say that GregTech reactors are now roughly comparable to standard IC2 uranium reactors. They don't give you tangible advantages, but rather they give you new options to achieve the same result. GregTech's advantage now lies solely in allowing you to silk touch uranium ore for significant bonus yield.

Grrr, I was going to make a DDoS reactor with all this plutonium i've been stockpiling. Now I might as well just use uranium

EDIT: Hmm, just ran it through a computer cube. Apparently the doubled scaling more than makes up for the 1/2 reduction in eu/t. It says that a reactor configured like this should produce 5760 eu/t. Presumably that'll be halved to 2880 eu/t - still more than we're getting now.

That configuration will be running at efficiency 9, which is definitely very good. Plutonium is a prime candidate for cooland cell reactors because you can make use of the scaling, which is something internal vents won't let you.

Well, I've just done a bit of testing with the design in my earlier post, and it definitely outputs 2880 eu/t (I just realized I got 5760 eu/t since I have the default nuclear output value doubled). That's 50% more than before, which was 1920 eu/t. However, with 360k cooling cells the micro-cycle time is down to 343 seconds - before it was 477 eu/t. That means i'll need yet more cooling towers *sigh*.

Of course Mr Gregory, you could always make plutonium give out the same amount of eu as before and still give it the doubled scaling thing; I won't mind ;).

Quote from Omicron

Are you sure you want to spend that much on 60 EU/t? I mean, playing GregTech these four thick reflectors take 39 emeralds (or 64 ender pearls), 128 copper, 64 tin and 64 coal. And you have to replace them every two cycles, which generate only 24 million EU during that time - only about 1.5 UU-matter.

It's very uranium efficient, that's true, but you're paying for that efficiency with murderous running costs in other resources.

Holycrap... didn't realize GregTech increased thick reflector cost too.

Back to the drawing board then... or with manually replaced single reflectors...

With a new reactor addon for IC2, I can't wait to see what new designs may arise. Problem is we need to wait for Talonius to update the reactor planner, which IIRC is outdated with the new GT changes.

you dont need the reactorplanner,
my first designs where only based on the components exact values.
granted they werent as complicated as the new ones as I couldnt check on the fly if they work.
and with the Heat values of Omicron you can definitly calculate yourself new designs,

also on a side note, i hope talonius is okay, he didnt log on a single time since 2012
he didnt post any thing since 2012, but logged on a few day ago

None of the breeder designs on the front page of this thread seem to be able to charge more than a few hundred isotopes per cycle.

Well, I've managed to create a quad-thorium-powered breeder (which will probably break with Greg's 1.5.1 nerf) that manages to charge about 1759 isptopes in one rather long cycle.

It runs at the highest possible temperature that a stack of heating cells can run. It will not cool down while burning thorium. It will, however, cool down (slowly) once turned off.

I'm not sure how long this reactor takes to charge one set of four isotopes.

There is VERY little room for error heat-wise. The heating cells will keep the reactor at 64000 heat, but at 64600 heat (only 600 more) the reactor will explode.

I've also created a completely maintenance-free thorium-breeder, using a single cell:
This one will go up to max temp (I added an extra heat-capacity plate for safety) and stay there until you remove the heating cell or the exchanger adjacent to it.

It will even heat itself up to max temp before you turn it on.

While running, the three reactor heat vents drain the exact amount of heat produced by the thorium cell. No temperature fluctuation at all. You could even add another chamber filled with heat-capacity plating and bump the heat a little higher by removing some of the heat vents, and it would stay there. That, however, is both dangerous and high-maintenance, which the reactor shown in the link isn't.

I couldn't manage to put in two thorium cells surrounded with isotopes without burning out the heat exchanger.

Applied Energistics have breathed new life into Breeders!

Attach an Import and an Export bus onto the breeder in question. The Import Bus pulls out Re-Enriched cells and the Export bus deposits isotope cells into the now vacant slot with lighting speed! Assuming you actually HAVE several hundred isotope cells stored in your applied energistics ME Network (quite feasible, with how it stores items, assuming you actually have acquired that many), they can be seamlessly re-enriched without needing any user input whatsoever!

I am looking into the break-points for the new Plutonium cells to ascertain viability in CRCS systems, however at this time it doesn't look very viable. The additional EU/t generated is nothing compared to the additional heat generated.

Case in point, a 'block' of four quad uranium cells in a square has an Eff 5, with 400 EU/t and generating 960 Heat. A block of quad plutonium cells has an Eff 7, with 560 EU/t and generating 2752 Heat.

For a 40% increase in EU/t, you net 287% increase in heat generation. That's not a cost effective ratio.

If you have a row of 8 quad-uranium cells with Neutron Reflector 'caps' on either end, you have an Eff 6 reactor producing 960 EU/t with a heat of 2688. First, let me point out that this is LESS than Plutonium was generating in return for 560 EU/t, then let's look at what Plutonium does in that same configuration. It has Eff 9, with 1440 EU/t, and generating 8448 heat.

Granted, you are now producing 50% more EU/t with Plutonium, but you're now generating 314% more heat. You will have less than a sixty second microcycle time... with 60k coolant cells. Even with 360k cells, you're only looking at a five minute micro-cycle. And even the best cooling tower I've yet devised, with a 110 cooling, has a cooling cycle time of 55 minutes. Meaning you're now looking at 11-12 cooling towers.

The only advantage to the plutonium is that it produces so much more EU per cycle due to higher efficiency rating. Which just means you'll be chewing through fewer cells.

Unfortunately, Import Buses tend ignore damage values entirely, and simply look at the item ID. This means hooking up import buses to cooling towers to pull out only full cells doesn't work, because it will pull expended ones as readily. I hope the rumors of a 'fuzzy bus' are not mere speculation, because they would revolutionize the CRCS industry.

Shneekey, i'm i'm playing with GT in the ftb ultimate pack 1.02... has the plutonium output been nerfed since that version? Because it has the reduced throium lifetime, but the plutonium output seems to be much higher than what you're saying (exactly double, to be precise). I guess i'll have the halved plutonium output when this pack gets updated to 1.5.1. Thanks a bunch Greg

Even more than in 1.4.7... how, though?

Plutonium has the same cell lifetime as before, but gives 50% less EU/t. That means over the entire lifetime of the cell, it will produce exactly half as much as a plutonium cell did in 1.4.7, given identical efficiency. On the flip side, if a plutonium cell in 1.5.1 runs with twice the efficiency as one in 1.4.7, it will produce the same EU/t and total EU.

So hypothetically, the doubling in efficiency scaling that plutonium received should completely equalize the two sides, right? Well no. Heat output scales linearly off EU/t, but exponentially off efficiency. That means that if the new plutonium needs twice the efficiency to achieve the same output, it will run much hotter even if its base heat output was half of what it was in 1.4.7.

Unfortunately the base heat is not half of what it was, it's higher. It went from a base 9 standard curve, to a custom spread that roughly matches base 8 at the lower efficiencies and approaches base 5.5 in the upper. Also, the new plutonium cannot match a flat doubling of efficiency values, because cells without neighbours start at 1/2/3 respectively instead of 1/3/5 or 2/4/6.

Therefore, in all possible scenarios, plutonium is either a.) producing less EU/t than in 1.4.7, or b.) running significantly hotter than in 1.4.7, or c.) both at the same time.

Quote from Someone Else 37

None of the breeder designs on the front page of this thread seem to be able to charge more than a few hundred isotopes per cycle.

Well, I've managed to create a quad-thorium-powered breeder (which will probably break with Greg's 1.5.1 nerf) that manages to charge about 1759 isptopes in one rather long cycle.
...
I've also created a completely maintenance-free thorium-breeder, using a single cell:
This one will go up to max temp (I added an extra heat-capacity plate for safety) and stay there until you remove the heating cell or the exchanger adjacent to it.

It will even heat itself up to max temp before you turn it on.

While running, the three reactor heat vents drain the exact amount of heat produced by the thorium cell. No temperature fluctuation at all. You could even add another chamber filled with heat-capacity plating and bump the heat a little higher by removing some of the heat vents, and it would stay there. That, however, is both dangerous and high-maintenance, which the reactor shown in the link isn't.

I couldn't manage to put in two thorium cells surrounded with isotopes without burning out the heat exchanger.

Display More

I haven't played with gregtech, but I did put some time in my high output breeder. If you looked at that, you'd see the preheating and cooling config was superior. I suggest this as an improvement. It's just my cooling config (minus one component) on your gregtech fuel config. It is self regulating temp wise, and there is room availible for cheaper plating and/or increased cooling (for temp stability) by adding the 8 cooling compenent vent back in.

Your second design can be optimizedto remove a chamber.

This is a cold start breeder, does not retain heat. I feel it fills an empty niche, the dirt cheap...
Starter breeder
Efficiency: 88.4%
Speed: 1315.8s/uranium
Cost: Copper 265, Tin 32, Bronze 8, Iron 83, Gold 8
Credit: Gorzak

Upgrades from 4 to 12 heating cells
Efficiency: 93.7%
Speed: 671.14s/u
Additional Cost: Copper 88, tin 2, iron 8

Please Replace current:

Stable Cheap Breeder
Efficiency: 96.8%
Speed: 358s/uranium
Cost: Iron: 127, Copper 647, Bronze 24, Tin 49
Credit: Gorzak
(cost incorrect)

with slightly less expensive

Stable Cheap Breeder
Efficiency: 96.8%
Speed: 358s/uranium
Cost: Copper 636, Tin 54, Bronze 24, Iron 125, Gold 8
Credit: Gorzak