Nuclear Tower of Power (7,200 EU/t)

  • First, I'd like to present to you a picture, just so you can see how compact this design is:



    Looks awesome, doesn't it? Let's go over what it has, why it has it, and how easy it is to automate.


    Now, there's two other mods in play here. The first is Applied Energistics. Attached to each reactor, there's a Fuzzy Import Bus and a Fuzzy Export Bus. The Fuzzy Import Bus automatically pulls the proper nuclear material into the reactor, and the fuzzy export bus automatically pulls out all depleted cells. This means full automation of nuclear material. This reactor design never needs to stop for a moment, assuming you need that much consistent power draw.


    Second is MFR. You see that red cabling in the corner? That's Rednet Cable. Among other things, it functions much like Red Wiring, in that it will transmit a redstone signal as long as you have the cable connected. Actually, it's more like Bundled Cable in that it can transmit up to 16 different color coded signals simultaneously, with no server lag because of no block updates, but we aren't using that functionality here.


    Now then, what you are seeing is ten segments of a ring of four Pocket Reactors. Each one produces 180 EU/t. In the center is the glass Fibre cable that runs to the MFSU behind the ME Control Unit. Obviously, the wiring can really go anywhere, I'm just testing this system out for viability.


    As you can see, this thing actually has a smaller footprint than most CRCS designs, and it is vertically modular, meaning you can literally build it as high as you like, keeping in mind the slight EU loss from the glass fibre cable for distances over 40 blocks.


    Basically, it's built like an old-school water tower, but it doesn't need a gap between segments for water, so it's even more space efficient. And at 720 EU/t per segment, it's got significantly more power output. It also fits in a 5 x 5 square hole, as deep as all attached segments plus two.


    This is a Mk. I setup, so it needs no cooldown. Hook it up to an autocrafting module and tell it to keep the twin uranium cells in stock, and this baby can run indefinitely. Best of all, it automatically pulls all of the depleted uranium cells, which can then be auto-crafted into re-enriched isotope cells, and if the ME network is hooked up to a breeder, can even automatically inject them into the breeder for your convenience.


    Much as it pains me to admit... this modular design pretty much kills CRCS, except in marginal cases where you want a higher Efficiency value (CRCS reactors tend to have a 5-6 efficiency rating, whereas this only has 3).


    But wait... it gets better...


    Did you know you can do this with two-chamber reactors? Sure, it increases the radius of the square by one, but entirely doable. Sure, the costs go up, not sure if it would be cost efficient to do so, but you could theoretically get even more energy out of this design.


    In conclusion, the CRCS reactors were an out-of-the-box innovation, but were never really all that cost efficient to begin with. This sort of modular system, however, pretty much beats CRCS reactors on every metric except efficiency.

  • (yes, I know its a stupid question) What could you have that needs that much power?

  • (yes, I know its a stupid question) What could you have that needs that much power?


    GregTech, I suppose. Someone just asked for a design capable of handling over 8k EU/t for a matter fabricator.


    Besides, it is completely scalable and modular. Each segment produces 720 EU/t. Just produce as many segments as you like.

  • I'm just waiting to put this inside several old 8x8 turtle quarry... It will look really good and epic with several towers of reactor producing a lot of power


    Dota 2 player at SEA server.


    For me nothing is OP. It just a mod for fun and I'm playing it for fun. Unless it created items from nothing. Automining not included, neither do in case of self replicating machine. However GregTech is still good, so:


    GregTech Documentation Task Force Needed!

  • Much as it pains me to admit... this modular design pretty much kills CRCS, except in marginal cases where you want a higher Efficiency value (CRCS reactors tend to have a 5-6 efficiency rating, whereas this only has 3).


    Efficiency does start to add up, though, at that scale, especially if you run in newer versions of GregTech without the uranium->8 deplete isotope recipe. 12-16 uranium ingots per ring is a good deal of equipment, and the full-size tower you've got there would run through a cell once every two minutes. For a couple cycles, it doesn't compare to the copper costs, true. But you need a lot of UU-Matter to rationally build a GregTech fusion reactor.


    On the other hand, if you really want to be a smart-ass, this general design can go apply to any single-fuel reactor system, and there are more than a few 1- and 2-chamber pure-thorium or thorium-plutonium reactors that can provide EFF4 or greater efficiency, albeit often at lower EU/t rates.


    In theory, proper usage of Storage Buses, level emitters, and either a crafting station and/or a second AE network can let you use a single ME Storage Bus per reactor instead of an export and import bus, which might make 0-chamber simple pocket reactors viable in this tower configuration. That gets very tricky, though, since the Storage Buses have counting problems with nuclear reactors to start with, and they'll only move items as they enter or leave the network. Cost reduction and space may be worth it, though.


  • Efficiency does start to add up, though, at that scale, especially if you run in newer versions of GregTech without the uranium->8 deplete isotope recipe. 12-16 uranium ingots per ring is a good deal of equipment, and the full-size tower you've got there would run through a cell once every two minutes. For a couple cycles, it doesn't compare to the copper costs, true. But you need a lot of UU-Matter to rationally build a GregTech fusion reactor.

    There are some Uranium/Thorium reactors which would do well with this setup, sure. But I built this 'vanilla IC2' as proof-of-concept.


    Quote

    On the other hand, if you really want to be a smart-ass, this general design can go apply to any single-fuel reactor system, and there are more than a few 1- and 2-chamber pure-thorium or thorium-plutonium reactors that can provide EFF4 or greater efficiency, albeit often at lower EU/t rates.

    Quite true. I'd actually love to see some 1 or 2 chamber reactor designs and see what we can do with it. I just took the 360 EU/t reactor and cut it in half as a one-chamber reactor which had 180 EU/t. Maybe someone can improve upon that.


    Quote

    In theory, proper usage of Storage Buses, level emitters, and either a crafting station and/or a second AE network can let you use a single ME Storage Bus per reactor instead of an export and import bus, which might make 0-chamber simple pocket reactors viable in this tower configuration. That gets very tricky, though, since the Storage Buses have counting problems with nuclear reactors to start with, and they'll only move items as they enter or leave the network. Cost reduction and space may be worth it, though.


    The problem with storage buses is that if all of your nuclear material runs out simultaneously, it won't be reloaded since it no longer has any nuclear material in the storage area. That's why I use import/export buses. It makes certain that it will always run smoothly.


    If you use this reactor, you lose a bit of energy (only 480 EU/t/segment instead of 720), however it has far lower running costs (only uses single-cell uranium). Still has an Efficiency of 3. Also saves you some four hundred copper per segment as well.

  • Quite true. I'd actually love to see some 1 or 2 chamber reactor designs and see what we can do with it. I just took the 360 EU/t reactor and cut it in half as a one-chamber reactor which had 180 EU/t. Maybe someone can improve upon that.


    This probably isn't any cheaper in practice, since you have to fill in the spare slots to avoid automation problems, but it's an easy 3.5 EFF 140 EU/t without too much extra costs, and the running expenses are significantly lower for a purely IC2 box.


    Copper costs get killer for thorium-plutonium boxes, I'm finding, and the 3.0 nerfs hurt EU/t/copper investment here a lot. Cutting down on OC heat vents and quads helps, but that hits performance pretty hard.

    The problem with storage buses is that if all of your nuclear material runs out simultaneously, it won't be reloaded since it no longer has any nuclear material in the storage area. That's why I use import/export buses. It makes certain that it will always run smoothly.


    The trick would be to not have a generic storage area, or any internal part of the reactor's AE network with stored uranium cells. By importing them from a second network through a chest, or by crafting them on demand, you always have fresh nuclear material entering the storage network just seconds after a reactor drains a cell, unless you run completely out of the materials on your central network.

  • Copper costs get killer for thorium-plutonium boxes, I'm finding, and the 3.0 nerfs hurt EU/t/copper investment here a lot. Cutting down on OC heat vents and quads helps, but that hits performance pretty hard.


    Remember that if you have thorium/plutonium available, you also get GregTech's reduction in costs for multi-cells (all of them including uranium). Takes only 1/8th as much as in standard IC2. That way you can build a 3x3 grid of quad thorium cells emitting 204 EU/t for just 45 copper, which is only 5 copper more than a single quad cell costs without GregTech. And well, if you're short on copper, you can also use lead instead now.


    (EDIT: And those cheap thorium multi-cells will also last 2.5 times as long as uranium ones before needing replacement.)

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Omicron ().

  • Yeah, the reduced costs of quad and especially double-cell options make a lot of designs much more reasonable from a perspective of running costs. You can do some cool stuff with even a 0-chamber reactor* using those options, but it requires a lot of extra infrastructure to automate a mixed-fuel reactor.


    The hard part about high-efficiency spammable reactors is that the heat from even thorium quad cells can get out of control quick: that 3x3 block of quad thorium cells puts out 660 (GregTech 2.8) or 550 (GregTech 3.06) heat/tick. Even the newer, lower numbers take a theoretical minimum of 28 slots** of cooling, requiring an 4-chamber reactor and a crapload of copper startup cost. I don't think you can get a Mark I reactor higher than EFF4 without using (at least a dozen) OC Vents (EDIT: or reflectors, but that's even worse from a mass reactor spam viewpoint), and that's where a lot of the per-reactor cost comes from.


    *pre-3.0 GregTech only -- it's only worth 70 eu/t in current, and needs another layer of vents to not explode.
    ** In practice, probably somewhere closer to 40.


    Of course, since we're by definition talking about large numbers of cheap reactors, very simple microcycles start to become appealing.

  • Yeah well, I wasn't using that setup as a viable "cheap & spammable" design but rather just as a "truckload of quad cells" example to put the spotlight on the cost difference.


    The issue with cheap reactors is that they're often not terribly efficient, or hardly put out any EU/t. In fact, the three key factors of power output, efficiency and price are probably best described in a triangle. Your reactor can be anywhere inside that triangle, but as you move towards one of the ideals, you move away from both others. The cheapest reactor will be terribly inefficient and have next to no output (a single uranium cell and a single basic heat vent in a 0-chamber reactor). If you bump up output it's automatically going to cost more, but still be terribly inefficient. If you focus on increasing the efficiency at the same price, power output will be going down. As such, you need to find an equilibrium somewhere, ideally one that matches your particular outside factors (like, if you only have a limited uranium income you need efficiency if you want to keep up the operation).


    (P.S.: cooling a 3x3 grid of quad thoriums in a 4-chamber reactor, good luck... I couldn't make it work with anything but 6, despite the lowered heat in 1.5.2. :p Though if you can manage a 5-chamber variant, I'm interested in your tricks...)

  • The issue with cheap reactors is that they're often not terribly efficient, or hardly put out any EU/t. In fact, the three key factors of power output, efficiency and price are probably best described in a triangle. Your reactor can be anywhere inside that triangle, but as you move towards one of the ideals, you move away from both others... As such, you need to find an equilibrium somewhere, ideally one that matches your particular outside factors (like, if you only have a limited uranium income you need efficiency if you want to keep up the operation).


    True, but there are certain places on that triangle that make more sense than others, and to a certain degree, cleverness lets you bend the rules a bit. That's especially the case given the high cost of the initial reactor, which heavily weighs EU/copper and EU/iron around. Finding the good spots is the tricky bit, though, and I'll admit not someplace I'm terribly skilled at.

    Quote

    (P.S.: cooling a 3x3 grid of quad thoriums in a 4-chamber reactor, good luck... I couldn't make it work with anything but 6, despite the lowered heat in 1.5.2. :p Though if you can manage a 5-chamber variant, I'm interested in your tricks...)


    40 slots puts it just into the first space on a 6-chamber, I'm afraid : the best I can do with a 5-chamber is 8min up/2.5min down cycles before a component melts. OC Heat Vents are just too easy to fry.

  • Can anyone come up with a 0-2 chamber reactor with better EU and Running Costs than the one I have posted in the OP? I don't know if it is possible to get higher efficiency with the same or lower running costs, since you're pretty much blowing copper on higher efficiency rating, but I'd like something with low to no running costs with good EU/t output.

  • http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…fayxow2eisv8muypui3qgopog




    this maybe?


    or this`?


    its pretty easy tom make it better, just add more uranium


    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…1prvozdrflcxvvu9lg29tjhfk

    Change the scheme, alter the mood. Electrify the boys and girls if you'd be so kind.


    [b][i][u][url=' [url='http://forum.industrial-craft.net/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=7745']HAYO CORP: Nuclear Power (FREE: Reactor Blueprints)


  • Those are good, however it makes automation much more difficult because you now have different types of uranium cells you are inserting. However, you give me an idea... hmmm....


    Something like this might work. 200 EU/t and no upkeep costs. Sure, it's a three-chamber reactor, but that's easily doable in a spiral configuration. It'll push the radius of the Tower of Power out to 7x7 but 800 EU/t per segment and no running costs is a compelling argument. After all, you are looking at spamming the hell out of the cells, so your running costs are multiplied by a factor of 4*(number of segments), which adds up REAL quick.

  • I've made a 140 EU/t two chanbered no running cost reactor. The efficiency is 3.50 which is the absolute highest you can get with 8 normal uranium cells which is very useful in combination with GregTech without the use of reflectors.


    Thoughts?


    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…77v9j46fx85otquhyi1s352ps


    Not bad at all. My three chamber reactor has lower efficiency, but outputs 200 EU/t. However, this is very competitive, being that it is only a two-chamber reactor, zero running cost reactor. My only problem is the diamond in the advanced heat sink. Yes, I know you can't put an OC vent there because it'll start overheating and borking the whole system, so it is absolutely necessary, but still... that diamond is going to get painful if you start building them en-masse.

  • Wow nice job! ;)


    One more design here, it's decentish in my perspective, the output is relatively high and there's no running costs but the efficiency is really low.


    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…cbjd95o3vg3o9anlk8s0vuk1s
    2 Chambers
    170 EU/t
    14 Uranium cells
    2.43 Efficiency
    No running cost


    If someone can improve it please do so :D

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Qwe1rty ().

  • I've come up with a much more compact layout for the tower itself.
    Each 6x6 layer contains 8 RedNet cables, 4 glass fiber cables, and 12 separate 1-chamber reactors.
    This design doesn't leave any room for AE stuff though- but it works quite well using Factorization Routers to insert uranium cells and extract depleted cells. You'll need an item filter to prevent the second router from pulling the wrong stuff, which is a hassle to make, but two routers and a logic matrix PER TOWER are probably cheaper than all the AE components used by the OP. Even if you don't already have any Factorization infrastructure at all.


    If you stare at my avatar hard enough, you'll notice that it consists of three triangular rings, interlocked in such a way that if you were to remove any one of them, the other two would be free to float apart.