I think i finally made a good one, its a single chamber hybrid reactor.
Cost: 411 copper, 160 iron, 16 gold
Running Cost: 8 copper per thorium cycle
Cost: 411 copper, 160 iron, 16 gold
Running Cost: 8 copper per thorium cycle
Remember the planner does the efficiency for hybrid reactors wrong. Actual efficiency for that design is 7.43, which is lowish for a 1.4.7 plutonium/thorium hybrid but still quite good considering the size limitation.
Just keep in mind that ther era of overscaling hybrids is coming to an end with 1.5+...
(Also, you can replace the overclocked vent in the lower right with a normal heat vent to make it cheaper.)
Saw this over on the FTB forums. I've been out of the loop for quite a while regarding IC2 reactors, especially IC2 reactors + gregtech, but having scanned backwards through the past few posts I didn't see many designs that were similar.
Eff: 5.11 Overall Eff: 4.83
Running cost: 156 UU
Came from this thread:
Cell value of 72, 506 million output -> efficiency 7.03. This isn't good for a full size hybrid reactor. It is also heavily unbalanced - if you run this off of a plutonium-producing centrifuge, you'll have 48 leftover thorium cells for every cycle this reactor runs.
This design from post #3 gives you 484 EU/t at efficiency 9.31, while being significantly less unbalanced (only 8 excess thorium cells per cycle).
I had an interesting idea concerning GT Hybrid Reactors...
Why hybridize? With the 1.5.x changes, there's no real benefit to them (unless you are just using the Thorium as a cheap Neutron Reflector). Particularly when you get into multi-reactor setups, I could easily see segregating the plutonium 'high output' reactor being set up in a CRCS system to take maximum advantage of the new heat-EU/t ratio curves, and the Thorium being put in something like an HVC system which can still produce a respectable power generation used to keep 'low but continuous power drain' systems like an AE network running smoothly and efficiently.
So you'd end up with something that resembles this quaint little setup for your CRCS 'primary' reactor, then several secondary reactors that use up your Thorium. For example, you could have 4x that look like this to use up all that Thorium. While each one may not produce a lot of EU/t, they've still got decent longevity (moreso with the one pulse every other second), and can require no automation (other than refilling thorium cells) so they can keep your other stuff running while your primary plutonium reactor runs your matterfabs
Indeed, multi-reactor setups push efficiency very high up. Theoretical maximum is isotope efficiency 9.2, using quad reflector double plutonium in one reactor (quad reflector quad plutonium is uncoolable, and triple reflector quad uranium is less efficienct) and quad reflector quad thorium in another. Another benefit is that if you're in the business of multiple reactors anyway, you can easily scale up EU/t even with high efficiency designs.
It doesn't even need CRCS to pull off. I made a concept of six dual plutonium + 4 single thorium reactors (+6 thorium each) paired with a single 3x3 quad thorium sink reactor (-36 thorium). I don't have the setups here to show off, but that should be pulling 1212 EU/t out of 7 reactors, with an isotope efficiency of 8.08 while being thorium neutral. It could be even more efficient by using real reflectors instead of single thorium cells, but part of the appeal of this system is that you can get that ridiculous number without investing in a single reflector.
However I shelved the idea after Greg killed the 1 uranium -> 8 depleted cells recipe, as such a system would require a constant stream of isotopes to centrifuge and now the only way to get them is running large amounts of uranium through reactors.
I was really looking forward to building a big plutonium CRCS system to take advantage of the increased efficiency. The removal of crafting for depleted cells is a pain in the arse.
Still, i'm determined to make it work somehow. I'll just have to build a bunch of uranium reactors as well, though I don't know where i'll get all the uranium from.
Alternatively, the bee people should add a plutonium bee.
EDIT: Just remembered you get 1/2 a plutonium dust from running a silk-touched uranium ore through an industrial grinder... maybe a plutonium setup wouldn't be a waste of time after all!
Well, and in all fairness, the isotope recipe nerf has a config option to restore normal IC2 behavior.
Still ambivalent about whether or not I'll set it in my next world. On one hand, it was always a little broken. On the other hand, I wanted to build a huge multi-reactor as well... decisions, decisions!
I didn't know it was configurable. I'm glad it is though, means I can carry on as originally planned.
I think Omicron, it is kinda OP, but it shouldn't be removed completely. Maybe make it so you get say 3 depleted cells rather than 8 per uranium.
Of course, the biggest advantage of this recipe is that you don't have to use the bloody canning machine!
With the 1.5.x changes to GT, what are you guys using to simulate your new reactors? v3 of Talonmage's simulator isn't accurate anymore.
I've tried the GT Cube in game, but it is hard to use and I can't figure out how to tell it how many chambers to use in the reactor.
just dont use the last few rows, 1 chamber= 1 row
also we do it with simulating the heat in talonius reactor planner by using cells that produce more or same heat
Cell mockups in the planner work tenuously... you have to know how much heat your 1.5 setup generates, and then find something that roughly resembles it.
However, you may run into edge cases where the heat simulation in the planner ends up being wrong because there are different cell types emitting different amounts of heat at different times than what you actually want to run. So a setup that appears stable might still fail ingame. I discovered this the hard way.
So basically, no way to know if a design is going to explode until you try it in game. Well, that certainly makes it interesting...
no the gregtech cube is 100% accurate on this
you can allways be assured of that
I wouldn't say 100% accurate. The cube works great in 99.99999% of all cases, but it is not infallible.
For example, in 3.04c it reported a build as stable where even an amateur can see that it isn't: Bug Report
And now in 3.05g the simulation for any build involving thorium is wrong, because Greg recently changed some values but apparently not only didn't post a changelog but even forgot to tell his own cube: Bug Report
The only 100% authority on whether a setup works or not is the actual reactor in active operation.
While I'm at it: spreadsheet updated with latest values. Thorium +20% lifetime (30,000 seconds, up from 25,000); Plutonium, +20% power output (12EU/t base, up from 10 EU/t). Heat output remained identical. Didn't update centrifuge math because lazy. Suffice to say, the 20% across the board total output buff make GregTech fuels walk all over Uranium. Maybe a counterbalance to the disabling of the depleted isotope recipe? It certainly makes it more rewarding to breed the leftovers from your uranium reactors.
Increased output for thorium and plutonium? Nice. That'll make my future CRCS system even more powerful
Incidentally, since you now get 2 thorium dust for processing monazit ore in an industrial grinder, I could imagine you could just generate all your power with only thorium reactors.
I have a question: How do you simulate more than 1 heating cell in a GT computer cube? I tried clicking it multiple times. but it just cycles through the different possible components.
EDIT: Nevermind. I just tried right-clicking and it worked.
Spreadsheet updated again after more testing yesterday evening. Thorium is buggy in general (confirmed by Greg), ingame thorium reactors are stuttering and fluctuating in EU/t, and they're sticking hard and fast to 25,000sec lifetime (as opposed to the computercube, which sometimes does 30,000 and sometimes 25,7142.86). The overall effect is roughly equivalent to giving thorium +20% power output instead of lifetime, which is why I decided to represent it as such in my tables. Heat may or may not also be off, I can't say for sure as that is incredibly hard to measure reliably with an in-world reactor, especially one that is stuttering on-off-on-off constantly. If it is off however, then it is overally lower rather than higher, because none of my previously stable setups have shown instabilities. For this reason I'm leaving the heat values in the tables as they are, since they allow for building stable designs. Still, keep a very close eye on your thorium reactors during their first cycle, especially if you're cutting it close in terms of cooling. Also updated centrifuge maths. In a good setup you're getting nearly 80% more EU out of centrifuging your bred isotopes rather than turning them back into straight uranium. Now more than ever you should centrifuge! (And you really should leave the isotope crafting recipe deactivated because that would be very broken indeed.)
Fast thorium safe (no radiation damage) breeder:
Approx 2.5 minutes per 4 uranium cells.
Alternatively, with radiation damage:
Cheaper and slightly faster.
Oh, so there isn't a buff after all? Lame.
I was thinking: what if you made a hybrid system, running the plutonium in a CRCS setup (for better efficiency), while using some of your thorium as cheap neutron reflectors? Something like this. It has the advantage of avoiding the extortionate costs of iridium neutron reflectors, and it shouldn't overheat, but i'm not 100%. I can't try it on the computer cube since i'm not on 1.5.2 yet, could someone who is test it?