[Official] New Reactors design thread.

Lets look at some micro-cycle times:

120 seconds is the micro-cycle time for your breeder reactor. Then we bring up this cooling reactor, which has a micro-cycle time of 500 seconds even. Pushing that to 125 so it is an even 4 reactors is NOT safe, unfortunately, so you'll need 5 cooling reactors for this setup.

If you double-check the last page of the DDoS reactor thread, you can see a doubled 5 chamber reactor which can handle this in two reactors for an overall savings in materials expended.

As far as what you can do with 8700 U cells? Well, I answered that question right here and most especially here.

It is basic math. Lapis is a finite resource. Eventually, it will run out. You can't NOT run out if it runs long enough. Finite resource expenditure is ALWAYS better than negative resource flow.

Lapis is used in bulk when trying to make MFSU's, which is going to be necessary when dealing with the quantities of power that you start working with when playing with Nuclear. 10+ MFSU's is not an unusual number to set up in serial to be able to avoid choking your EU flow. MFSU's require Lapotron Crystals. LOTS of them. Trust me, if you start actually building the infrastructure you're going to need to support this, you're going to be spending through quite a bit of your lapis.

Tinkers Construct is a stand-alone mod which focuses on more 'low tech' tools. It has a different method of enchantment which consumes copious quantities of resources in order to put enchantments on the tools. However, it doesn't play nice with GregTech, the mod authors got into a pissing match, and installing one pretty much guarantees you won't be able to install the other.

Hello again, I believe I have created solid cheap safe breeder. (I'm going to use it fo sho)
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…eiiuvbrxnsetg16lnr6v9d5cj

It is faster but more expensive. Copper platings can always be replaced with regular ones. (amount of heating cells will go down as well, obviously)

Cheaper version: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…d7asky7nvwm9qng8cj1wf1rkj
Cheaper version gives almost the same results as the listed one, but uses one more plating (more heat !) and as a result of that, can handle extra heating cell. (faster !) It also costs considerably less copper, which is somewhat important. (at least to me)

Quote from ShneekeyTheLost

so you'll need 5 cooling reactors for this setup.

So to run just this one relatively modest breeder I'm going to have to build 6 reactors, one functional and five for cooling. If I built some monster that produces massive amounts of heat, and I'd have to to burn through all the U cells that I'll be producing, I'd need dozens of inert cooling reactors and all the attendant infrastructure to move coolant cells around. That's my central criticism of CRCS. Yes it works, yes, it saves resources in the long run, but it comes with a massive up-front price tag in the vast amounts of infrastructure that you have to build. It's a one-time cost but it's a huge bill.

Quote

It is basic math. Lapis is a finite resource. Eventually, it will run out. You can't NOT run out if it runs long enough.

Let's look at the basic math. Lapis is a finite resource, if I run out of world to mine. Uranium is also a finite resource. I *absolutely* have to mine Uranium. I can stretch it out using breeder reactors but I can't make it from UU-matter. My reactor cooks 870 DI cells into U cells so I have to mine 109 U to supply a single cycle. Using a miner with an OV card I get about 2 U from a 9 by 9 square plot so I'll need 55 of these to get enough U to feed the breeder. That works out to just over 17 chunks. According to the official Minecraft Wiki, lapis ore occurs at an average rate of 3.43/chunk, so while mining for the Uranium I'll come across about 60 lapis ore blocks. Each will yield an average of 6 lapis shards.

In mining the Uranium to feed the breeder I will also mine some 360 lapis shards and after deducting 235 lapis for LZH charging my stockpile will increase by about two stacks per reactor cycle.

Lapis is a finite resource but so is Uranium and Uranium is less abundant. Uranium is the limiting resource in the equation so long after I have spent the last of my Uranium I will have left-over lapis.

Of course all of this presumes that I don't have some other mod that allows me to produce lapis in some cheaper, simpler manner but that's outside the scope of just IC2.

I looked up Tinker's Construct and it strikes me as a good way to burn through a lot of resources to add enchantments to your weapons and tools. I'm pretty happy with what I've got right now. You're certainly right about it burning through the lapis.

Quote from Speleomantes

So to run just this one relatively modest breeder I'm going to have to build 6 reactors, one functional and five for cooling. If I built some monster that produces massive amounts of heat, and I'd have to to burn through all the U cells that I'll be producing, I'd need dozens of inert cooling reactors and all the attendant infrastructure to move coolant cells around. That's my central criticism of CRCS. Yes it works, yes, it saves resources in the long run, but it comes with a massive up-front price tag in the vast amounts of infrastructure that you have to build. It's a one-time cost but it's a huge bill.

That's the price you pay for 7,200 EU/t to 32,000 EU/t.

Quote

Let's look at the basic math. Lapis is a finite resource, if I run out of world to mine. Uranium is also a finite resource. I *absolutely* have to mine Uranium. I can stretch it out using breeder reactors but I can't make it from UU-matter. My reactor cooks 870 DI cells into U cells so I have to mine 109 U to supply a single cycle. Using a miner with an OV card I get about 2 U from a 9 by 9 square plot so I'll need 55 of these to get enough U to feed the breeder. That works out to just over 17 chunks. According to the official Minecraft Wiki, lapis ore occurs at an average rate of 3.43/chunk, so while mining for the Uranium I'll come across about 60 lapis ore blocks. Each will yield an average of 6 lapis shards.

In mining the Uranium to feed the breeder I will also mine some 360 lapis shards and after deducting 235 lapis for LZH charging my stockpile will increase by about two stacks per reactor cycle.

Lapis is a finite resource but so is Uranium and Uranium is less abundant. Uranium is the limiting resource in the equation so long after I have spent the last of my Uranium I will have left-over lapis.

We have a basic, fundamental difference of play style here. I find myself using a crapton of Lapis on Lapotron Crystals for MFSU's. After all, with 7,200 EU/t, and each MFSU outputting a mere 512 EU/t, you'll need just over 14 MFSU's running in serial to keep the EU flow from choking.

Quote from ShneekeyTheLost

We have a basic, fundamental difference of play style here.

Looks like that's the basis of it. I can see why you'd value your lapis so much. If you don't mind me asking, what do you do with >7200 EU/tick?!? Build a fortress out of solid Iridium block?!? Shiny!

Quote from Speleomantes

Looks like that's the basis of it. I can see why you'd value your lapis so much. If you don't mind me asking, what do you do with >7200 EU/tick?!? Build a fortress out of solid Iridium block?!? Shiny!

It just kinda... happens. You know how it is... you mine out everything in a 2k block radius of each of your bases, and want to build some kind of mega-project in the holes... like say a monolithic fortress or something... and you find yourself wanting a whole bunch of power suddenly.

Honestly, I don't bother with Breeders, or nuclear in general, until I have that kind of demand. Lower level power generation is much more easily obtained through Geothermals or just regular Generators running on charcoal. It isn't until your power requirements are at that level that nuclear really becomes worth the 'entry fees', in my opinion.

CRCS was designed as the effective replacement for CASUC, only replacing the cooling cells and cooling them down periodically rather than just expending them.

Yeah, I can understand that. All my actual energy needs are being met by compact solars. I'm mostly trying to build a breeder for the challenge. Keeping a reactor hot but not detonating it and swapping the various different components in and out while running is a good trick.

The GregTech advanced buffers were the best solution I've come up with so far. They're fast so thermal spikes are rare and they keep the right components in the right slots. Unfortunately it's pretty ungainly. You need one buffer per component and the reactor geometry limits you to a maximum of 18. 17 if you want to ever access the reactor without tearing a buffer off and get any energy out. they're OK for breeders because most of the components are inert but wouldn't work for any of the really big power generators. Even with just 10 buffers attached the reactor becomes this clunky mess of buffers, ME cable and wiring. Effective but ugly.

Quote from Speleomantes

Yeah, I can understand that. All my actual energy needs are being met by compact solars. I'm mostly trying to build a breeder for the challenge. Keeping a reactor hot but not detonating it and swapping the various different components in and out while running is a good trick.

The GregTech advanced buffers were the best solution I've come up with so far. They're fast so thermal spikes are rare and they keep the right components in the right slots. Unfortunately it's pretty ungainly. You need one buffer per component and the reactor geometry limits you to a maximum of 18. 17 if you want to ever access the reactor without tearing a buffer off and get any energy out. they're OK for breeders because most of the components are inert but wouldn't work for any of the really big power generators. Even with just 10 buffers attached the reactor becomes this clunky mess of buffers, ME cable and wiring. Effective but ugly.

if you want to save space use Advanced Regulators, they are essentially 9 advanced buffers in 1 machine, and I believe where designed with reactor automation in mind.

Quote from SirusKing

Anyone made up an Efficient reactor using MOX fuel? I beleive the hotter the reactor the more power you get out of it.

WHY didn't they got rid off that ?
I wish this was just a pre-calculated efficiency depending on isotopes, concentration of fuel and first pulses (and then, the not stable system would result in: explosion for too high rate of particles emissions, and efficiency one (radioactivity and very few fissions) with too low rate.

Quote from SpwnX

Thats still plausible (thermodynamics temperature difference), but making a reactor propositely extremely hot is a bit insane

If you mean that for efficiency, it would kind of work (E=Q/Th-Tc), but that's for EU GENERATION, and DEFINITELY NOT FOR BREEDERS. And that should only affect the steam generation, not the efficiency of the Uranium to heat itself, and it wouldn't affect that much and ... NP.
The issue was the exploitability

I've been tasked with setting up and automating reactors on my server, and I think I've got a pretty good plan, but I was wondering if anyone had any comments. Here is a screenshot of the layout for the automation:

The design inside the reactor is here (taken from this thread in fact, I believe. I am shamelessly stealing this design).

I tried getting it down to a two chamber reactor, but I am having issues cooling it.

Efficiency and number of chambers (for stackability) are my prime considerations, let me know what you guys think.

~edit~

I'm using FTB Unhinged, which is MC 1.5.2 and GT 3.11. I want to have a different design for uranium, and reading through the thread, I found this, but it appears to be for an older version, as my results in game on a Gregtech computer are very different. Not unstable, just way less power.

So, my question is, what's an efficient use for plutonium now? I had planned on squeezing every bit of efficiency out of it as I could, in one or two 6 chamber designs, but everything I design in game has terri-bad output.

~edit2~

Okay, I talked with someone on IRC who introduced me to the conveyor module, which can be used to completely replace the Electric Translocators. Do the conveyor modules have the EU cost to transfer items that other GT automation blocks like the Buffer do?

Quote from MatLaPatate

WHY didn't they got rid off that ?

To make things more interesting?

Quote from MatLaPatate

If you mean that for efficiency, it would kind of work (E=Q/Th-Tc), but that's for EU GENERATION, and DEFINITELY NOT FOR BREEDERS. And that should only affect the steam generation, not the efficiency of the Uranium to heat itself, and it wouldn't affect that much and ... NP.

I'm almost certain that reactor will (eventually) lose it's direct EU generation capability and will be producing steam exclusively for use in IC2 steam turbine.

Quote from steelstiletto

The design inside the reactor is here (taken from this thread in fact, I believe. I am shamelessly stealing this design).

I tried getting it down to a two chamber reactor, but I am having issues cooling it.

Efficiency and number of chambers (for stackability) are my prime considerations, let me know what you guys think.

Well, that was a refreshing challenge, thanks Here you go! 10% more copper-hungry than the 3-chamber variant, but it should fit your need perfectly.

Quote from steelstiletto

I'm using FTB Unhinged, which is MC 1.5.2 and GT 3.11. I want to have a different design for uranium, and reading through the thread, I found this, but it appears to be for an older version, as my results in game on a Gregtech computer are very different. Not unstable, just way less power.

So, my question is, what's an efficient use for plutonium now? I had planned on squeezing every bit of efficiency out of it as I could, in one or two 6 chamber designs, but everything I design in game has terri-bad output.

The hybrid reactors like the one you linked posted the numbers they did because of a bug in GregTech in 1.4.7. It was fixed in v2.90+. After trying some alternative scaling systems in the early 3.0x versions, Greg ultimately settled on returning the values to something similar to 1.4.7, just without the hybrid bug and with minimally reduced heat. He said he can't do what he wants with the current ractor system and instead postponed toying with it until a future total revamp (which, incidentally, seems to now be coming in base IC2's experimental branch). You can see the values appropriate for your GregTech version in my spreadsheet.

There's a few things you can do now - the pride of my work, for example, is an uranium/plutonium hybrid with an insane 720 internal cooling, together with a so-called thorium sink reactor that just tries to burn through the gigantic amounts of thorium that you get on the side as fast as it can. With the plutonium hybrid at +32T/20k and the sink at -36T/25k, the thorium balance isn't perfect - you'll generate sightly more thorium than you can consume. But you could let the plutonium reactor skip a cycle here and there to let the thorium sink catch up. The pair runs at 360 + 204 EU/t when both are active, and if all thorium is consumed it posts an incredible isotope efficiency of 5.831, which is more than a full number above the best of uranium reactors.

The downside of course being that you now have a pair of six-chamber reactors that really can't be stacked in close quarters. But you could use the same concept to implement a smaller, more modular multi-reactor system, or try to build a singular thorium-neutral thorium/plutonium hybrid of a stackable size. The online reactor planner won't help you much with that, as it reports the wrong EU/t and the wrong heat values for hybrid systems, but it can still be used to design cooling systems with a more comfortable interface than the computercube.

In general, uranium is slightly more suitable for high EU/t numbers, while plutonium lends itself a little better for high efficiency builds. The plutonium hybrid I have up there is actually on the low end of the efficiency spectrum, with two single-neighbor quad cells... I just wanted to cram as much output as I could into a mere three fuel cell slots, while also making use of that gigantic cooling system

Quote from steelstiletto

I've been tasked with setting up and automating reactors on my server, and I think I've got a pretty good plan, but I was wondering if anyone had any comments. Here is a screenshot of the layout for the automation:

Display Spoiler

The design inside the reactor is here (taken from this thread in fact, I believe. I am shamelessly stealing this design).

I tried getting it down to a two chamber reactor, but I am having issues cooling it.

Efficiency and number of chambers (for stackability) are my prime considerations, let me know what you guys think.

Display More

Well, you can always try this one:

Vest Pocket Reactor
Chambers: 1
EU/t: 180
Efficiency: 3.0

It's the reactor design I've been using in my Tower of Power builds these days (see Tower of Power thread for details). At only a single chamber, this baby is quite compact, and at 180 EU/t, beats the reactor design you are using for the same efficiency. It does have some running costs unfortunately, due to the dual-uranium cells.

If you don't mind a lower output, you can use this build/

Chambers: 1
EU/t: 120
Efficiency: 3.0.

No running costs due to using only regular uranium cells rather than doubles, but at a noticeable output drop. Still has the same efficiency rating, and a higher effective efficiency rating if you plan on using UUM to offset the copper involved in the dual cells from the previous design.

Daaaamn why is that first 1-chamber not on the frontpage. It exploits a rarely-used feature (direct heat transfer from fuel rods to cooling units) in a way that allows you to get away with much less components than commonly needed.

The second though isn't really that good considering we have this for a 0-chamber: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…d83b78y8enonfoolys5g23280

Quote from Omicron

It exploits a rarely-used feature (direct heat transfer from fuel rods to cooling units) in a way that allows you to get away with much less components than commonly needed.

Yeah, people there tends to be fan of Components + Overclocked ... I personally prefer Mk I that run only 5 minutes thanks to Cooling Cells, they have much more efficiency, output, and it's way funnier to mess with