Alright, so: MOX reactor designs.

  • I made this reactor design interested in feedback.

    It has 19 eff, 950eu/t and uses 10 mox/run.
    Not the highest power possible and very close to, but not quite, the most efficient (without reflectors) but its a decent balance of both for people running a 6 chamber reactor.
    Let me know what you think :)

    I like it. Looks like you're riding the absolute threshold of how much heat can be moved away from a tightly clustered cell configuration. I'll add this to the list once I get back home and can access my price calculation spreadsheet.

    Its my best project of reactor. It makes 360 EU/t and do not blow up :P :Nuke TNT:
    I named it "R17M4" :D


    Well, if nothing else, this is an acceptable design for producing a lot of plutonium really fast, at the cost of grossly wasting all your uranium. I suppose if you play PvP and need the biggest nuke the fastest possible way...

    However, for uranium designs you probably want the other thread. This one is not about uranium reactors. And no, your design will not work with MOX.

    ...and neither will this. It's just bad, regardless of which fuel type you use.

    I'll give you the same advice I repeat to everyone new to reactors: Try your design out in a legit survival world first, for at least one full cycle, and monitor closely how it behaves (ideally with a remote sensor kit). You will quickly notice severe issues that the reactor planner will never show you. That's why I can instantly spot any "theory only" design I come across - it takes more than just making some reactor planner numbers look fancy to make a practical design ;)

  • Hey guys, I've been trying out those MOX reactors and I created a 4 chamber one very close to c4commando's (but his used 4 less components or so, so it's better :( ). I really like that one and I'll be using that as my lower tier reactor, thanks :)

    I've made a 6 chamber reactor design that maximizes cooling. (636 / 684) As long as you put fuel in there that produces more heat than this, it can be kept at a decent temperature by turning the reactor off for a short while. This lets the reactor cool down. Nuclear control makes it very easy to do this. The downside of this technique is that it can't be turned off and on all the time, because it will lose heat rapidly. This design is intended to run for long(er) periods of time. Just to show the different kind of fuel arrangements, I'll show two (but there are many more).

    Some components will adjust their temp to the core of the reactor, so starting at around 95% reactor heat, these components might break.

    Design with reflectors in the fuel compartment:

    This design produces 1600 EU/t, but needs to cool down for about 1/4th of the time, so around 1200 EU/t average.
    The eff is very high, at 5.33 * 5 = 26.65. Because this design produces a lot more heat than can be cooled, it starts up quickly, but does not produce as much average EU/t for the amount of fuel rods.

    Design without reflectors:

    This design produces 1575 EU/t, but needs to cool down for about 1/9th of the time, so around 1400 EU/t average. The eff is slightly lower, but still good, at 4.85 * 5 = 24.25. Because this reactor doesn't produce that much more heat than can be dissipated, the cooldown period is much shorter, allowing it to produce more EU/t than the previous design. However, this reactor also takes much longer to reach the desired core temperature.

    * Not sure why, but the avg EU/t in the planner is misleading at best :( Probably because it would have the reactor cool down all the way to 0 before starting again.
    * Also, the downtime is an approximation from in game tests. I don't trust the nuclear reactor planner for that.

    Thought I'd also post the one with the highest EU/t I could find:
    This design produces 1500 EU/t, but needs to cool down for about 1/25th of the time, so around 1440 EU/t average. The eff is in between the other two, at 5 * 5 = 25.
    This one also starts up very slowly (might be better to help it a little), but it produces a very high amount of energy at a very decent efficiency. It does consume 1 thick reflector per run though.

  • Not entirely convinced by the concept of microcycle MOX reactors, especially ones using overclocked vents. Almost all designs involving OC vents will see them melting when running at temperatures above 0, even if the design is perfectly stable at 0. The reactor planner may show them surviving one microcylce, but it needs to survive ALL microcycles to be useful. And that can be fairly tricky if the active period lasts up to 25 times as long as the inactive one. Personally I'd feel very uncomfortable running one of these anywhere near my base.

    Also note: you won't get the full x5 multiplier because you're never actually at maximum heat (the automated temperature control will switch off when you get close). So the EU/t and efficiency you get out of them will be less than what you calculate.

    Then there's the issue with on-demand power generation. These designs aren't heat stable, meaning that if you don't continuously run them, they will cool down to 0 eventually. This introduces a re-heating period everytime you need a bit of power, and depending on how much or how little you need and the heat profile of the reactor, you might never be running above 10 or 20 percent heat. And that utterly kills your output and efficiency. And even if it's on all the time, it needs complete and full automation of fuel rod replacement, because running out of fuel also makes it lose all of its heat in short order.

    Also keep running costs in mind. If you place reflectors against quad cells, they will degrade twice as fast as if you put them against dual cells. So your first suggestion actually eats two full thick reflectors every cycle. Obviously the boost is also bigger, but it's starting to get quite expensive.

    Finally, the reflector-less variant can be improved with 8 extra cooling power by rotating the fuel rod setup by 90 degrees and adding a reactor heat exchanger like so: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…edavrsyoxwh53u2ssfs0erwn4

  • None of the components will melt, because this reactor is designed to either cool all the excess heat from the OC vents, or lead it back to the reactor core. The advanced heat exchangers are meant to transfer heat to the core (and to a vent). That's why these components will adjust their heat level to the core of the reactor, because they can't transfer their heat to the core if it's hotter than the component itself. I've ran this reactor without any failures, for a couple of full fuel cycles, around 92 % heat (just to be safe).

    Not only will this reactor not reach 100%, I don't recommend running it near it because it may melt some of the components. Up to 95% is safe as far as I can tell. That being said, i usually run my reactors at 84% anyway to avoid some of the nasties. Even if the components should fail, however, it will never melt down, because it will just shut down based on the temperature. However, if you manage to mess up that simple redstone circuit (it's a thermometer, a redstone wire and a not gate, ffs... ), then god help you.

    And yes, if you need on-demand power, don't use this reactor. It's fairly unsuited unless you use one that creates far more heat than it can dissipate :) . Personally I recommend c4commando's 4 chamber design for that. If you must, however, you can just put 4 (or even 6) quad cells in there and the startup time will be around 40 seconds (or 12), which is ok, and goes automatically. With 6 quad cells at 85% heat: effi: 21.20, avg EU/t 1020 (cooldown 3/5th of the time), it is still better than any design without OC vents running at 100%, and starts up in 12 seconds according to the planner (Generation time). While heating up, the cooldown cycle isn't needed and the reactor will produce more power anyway. So during starup it actually has an avarage eu/t of 600 * 4.25 / 2 = 1275, ranging from 600 to 2550 (but the efficiency still takes a hit). Additionally, your fuel should last longer than a normal continuously running reactor (around 4.5 hours, not trusting the reactor planner). To avoid shutting this thing down every 2 seconds you can just add some mfsu buffers and draw from those when the reactor is offline, then let them fill up when it's online. Another bonus is that swapping only one kind of item is alot easier to automate. In fact, I like this one, think I'll use this myself :love: .

    I'm not saying that it's a new kind of reactor that should replace all others, but I think it's the best option in some cases.

    Nice catch on the added heat exchanger, that should work :)

  • Omicron: Nuclear control allows you to 100% automate reactor heating and cell swapping esp. when combined with GT, so microcycle MOX can be doable as long as you math component levels to a point where they do not melt.

    If that is now the case, then it should also be able to handle CRCS swapping for far higher outputs.

  • You don't need any other addons than nuclear control for micro cycle reactors, which is not an intrusive addon (and I recommend it for anyone using ic2). CRCS reactors require some more intrusive mods/addons that not everybody might like (such as gregtech or computercraft). It can also be done by more complicated systems (that are even possible even in vanilla), but these systems have a much higher chance of derping somewhere and blowing everything to bits. I suppose the creator of the topic should decide for himself which ic2 addons are reasonable to include in this thread :)

  • So I built the below design exactly to spec. For some reason I am only getting 64 EU/t (which is exactly what the planner says)

    I am brand new (obviously), what am I doing wrong?

    0-Chamber Reactors


    • EU/tick: 300
    • Efficiency: 15
    • Building cost: 91 copper, 47 tin, 168 iron, 12 lead, 8 gold, 2 diamond, 12 redstone, 2 glowstone, 2 lapis, 19 rubber
    • Running cost: 24 U-238, 2 copper, 1 iron per cycle
    • Designed by: Omicron
    • Safely tileable: Yes, 2 or 3 chambers
  • Heat the reactor. MOX reactors output more EU/t at higher percent hull heat. Obviously don't heat it too much or you'll have a nuclear crater.

    Am I supposed to be using MOX instead of regular uranium fuel rods?

    "heat the reactor"? Not sure how to do this? I assumed heat was generated internally?

  • Am I supposed to be using MOX instead of regular uranium fuel rods?

    Yes, since this is a MOX reactor design thread. The reactor planner is not updated, so it doesn't have MOX fuel yet.

    "heat the reactor"? Not sure how to do this? I assumed heat was generated internally?

    Remove heat vents adjacent to your fuel rods, turn it on, it will gain heat gradually; turn it off before it explodes, put the heat vents back in, turn the reactor back on. Most MOX designs are heat-stable and will remain heated forever thereafter.

  • As an addition:
    You can see the reactor heat level directly in the GUI nowadays, in the form of a colored bar. It starts green and gradually grows red. If the bar maxes out, your reactor explodes. If you have Nuclear Control installed, the information panels combined with remote sensor kits can show you the exact temperature numbers (and more). Rightclick a remote sensor on the reactor to receive a card which can be inserted into an info panel.

  • Since Mox is created from depleted uranium, is there a "basic" 0-chamber reactors I can look at?

    I don't have any depleted uranium to convert to MOX yet :-p

  • All posted MOX designs here work fine and safe with regular uranium, albeit at 1/5 the EU/t and efficiency (since they don't get the MOX multiplier).

    Alternatively, Requia's stickyed reactor designs thread in this subforum has a large number of good uranium designs, including 0-chambers.

  • Hi guys! I did some testing and here are my setups:




    I tested both of them ingame.
    Since the components equalize around the same % heat as the core, I suggest being careful when heating it up and not to run it above 4,75 multiplier, unless you want to risk losing components and blowing up your base.

  • Keep in mind that with these reactors the heat generated will be gone within a few seconds after turning the reactor off, this makes it hard to keep temperature stable reactors using OC vents at a decent temperature. (Although you just gave me an idea there, so thanks :) ). Another thing to keep in mind is that those single reflectors will only last 1/4th of the complete cycle, and adding 4 thick reflectors is quite expensive copper-wise.

    Also, I find it fishy that the core temperature is (very slowly) going up over time. If the reactor really was cooling all the heat, this would not happen. I suggest you test this design in-game first for a couple of cycles and see if the core temperature is stable.

  • As I said, I tested the first one. It definitely works. There is a small amount of fluctuatuon, since the components are essentially a second buffer.
    But if the temperature continually (10>seconds) goes one way, you have done something wrong.
    You're right about the shields and the heat loss when the fuel runs out though, you need fast automation :D or extra work.

    Edit: The second one works, too. The temperature definitely doesn't go up if you do it like in the planner.

  • I was running a test of my own because I wanted to try something anyway, and the temperature does seem stable (too lazy to fully test it :p ). Seems like the planner was lying once again :)

    The automation of this reactor will be fairly complex though, but for a manual reactor it could be an option.

    EDIT: Yea the buffer thing is annoying sometimes, takes ages to adjust temperature ;p Had this problem in my own designs at least. On the other hand it does give my reactor a huge burst potential :)

  • I'm going to use 4 routers to automate the 2nd design. you can access individual slots with them (3 input, 1 output). You need item filters though, otherwise they insert multiple rods in one place. That's expensive for 1 reactor, but you can automate a whole tower with those 4 :)