Posts by Blackpalt

    A small suggestion i think would be kinda neat:
    It has always bothered me a bit that the ash we get from various sources in gregtech are basically carbon with very limited usefullness (i usually make carbon mesh from it). Realistically the ash from combustion should contain the trace amount of inorganic elements found in the fuel that won't volatilize. So basically solid ash consists of trace amounts of a lot of different inorganic elements which for coal and biomass should be mainly K, Na, Ca, Mg, Fe, Al, P and Si to name the biggest ones (sulfur and chlorine typically leaves with the flue gas).

    Wouldn't it be interesting for ashes to consists of trace elements of these elements rather than carbon as i think there are plenty of sources for that? This way it could also be a great source for the above mentioned elements through the electrolizer (and probably a few more aswell). If you wanted a bit more depth to it you could also make it so that you had three different ashes, one for coal based fuels, one for woody biomass and one for aggricultural biomass with varying content of elements based on the fuel type.

    I think another nice way to solve the low tech spamming of generators could be done with a more realistic implementation of steam in gregtech. Considering how steam is basically the backbone of the energy systems used i think it's a shame its not more realistic.

    I'm not a coder so i don't know how hard this would be to implement but the basis of my solution would be to add steam at different pressures. For instance low tech steam boilers would produce low pressure steam (say 10 bar). This steam could be used in all the bronze age steam machines and LV steam turbines. Then at medium voltage tier you would could use large steel boilers that produce medium pressure steam (40 bar), titanium High pressure steam (160 bar) and finally tungstensteel would produce supercritical steam (220+ bar, ic2 superheated steam?). This way you could restrict lower pressure steam from being used in higher tier generators due to the pressure difference being to small to run the generator. Also it should be possible to go down in pressure from high pressure stream to lower pressure steam with a substantial increase in volume. So lets say you have 1 bucket of HP steam you could convert this to 4 buckets of MP steam or 16 buckets of LP steam. If you really wanted to be realistic with this you would change the volume of the steam according to the density at the saturated steam pressure at each pressure lvl. I.e the volume increase between HP steam and MP steam would be the relative difference in the density of steam at 160 bars and 40 bars (density@40 bar/density@160 bar)

    This way higher tiers of steam generators would not only make it possible to use HV generators but also increase the energy density of steam which atm is horribly low. So for instance a railcraft tank of HP steam would contain 16 times more energy than if it was full of LP steam. Ofc this could also be based on the exergy increase of the steam at the different pressures.

    The pressure increase of the steam in the steam could be implemented in two different ways. A more simplistic way would be that the pressure of the new tier is 4x the previous pressure. A more realistic way would be that the pressure of the higher tier would have a exergy difference between the pressure and atmosperic pressure that is 4 times larger than the previous tier (meaning the work potential of the steam is 4 times higher than previous tier).

    Ofc you could also implement this how IC2 has done it where the pressure of the steam is decreased in increments. So that high pressure steam turbines use high pressure steam and output lets say 4x medium pressure steam and medium pressure turbines use MP steam and output 4x LP steam (as it is in the real world). Think his solution would be a lot harder to implement thought.

    You could also restrics what fuels can be used in different tiers by restricting what fuels can be used in the different steam generators. Say you don't want people to be able to use lava in HV tier you can just add a toggle for what fuels are allowed in the different generator tiers. Low difficulty allows all fuels to be used and harder difficulties would remove the possibility to use charcoal and lava in the higher tiers.

    TL DR: The generators of each tech tiers require steam at certain pressures which can be produced from steam generators from the tier in question. The steam should be possible to convert down in pressure to be used in lower tier steam turbines but not the reverse. The pressure difference between the tiers could either be based on a linear increase in pressure or on a linear increase in work potential of the steam.

    Do you guys/gals think this would be interesting and would it be difficult to implement in practice?

    Note: IRL, steam expands to as much as 110 times it's volume as water when heated

    This might be true for some pressures however for instance at 225 bars of pressure (as in the steam generator) the fluid is in a supercritical state which basically means you can't distinguish between gas and fluid and gas anymore. The volume it takes is basically the same.

    In short at 225 bars of pressure 1 kg of water and 1 kg of steam has roughly the same volume. And as the pressure decreases the steam will take more and more space untill at atmospheric pressure it will have a density of about 0,59 kg/cubic meter while water is around 1000 kg/cubic meter. So in those terms the volume increase from water to steam should be around 1700 times at normal pressure and temperature.

    The talk about 5x5x5 Mox got me thinking something like this should be a very nice 5x5x5 reactor.

    If it works it should be better than the one i sugested above. A bit more difficult to go with only superheated steam but damn is the efficiency good.

    Stats should be something like
    Eu/t: 628-928
    Efficiency: 44,8-64,8(it outputs 1792 Hu/s above 50% heat)

    Ile test it later, if it works it blows the previous design out of the water. Might actually make it worthwhile making

    You will find a pretty good discription of the difference in my reactor guide, but in short this is how it compares:

    High end Mox designs:
    Eu/t: 704
    Efficiency: 17,6
    Cost: 2 advanced alloy, 280 copper, 8 diamond, 32 gold, 512 iron, 2 lead, 8 mox fuel, 16 redstone, 48 rubber, 114 tin
    By: Dmitry Sharangovich

    Eu/t: 1320
    Efficiency: 13,2 [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 1 advanced alloy, 393,33 copper, 22 diamond, 24 gold, 828 iron, 1 lead, 20 mox fuel, 12 redstone, 36 rubber, 146 tin
    By: Dmitry Sharangovich

    And 5x5x5 mox reactors
    mox 5x5x5: Keep at 51%+ heat
    Output: 500-750 eu/tick
    Efficiency: 24-36 above 50% heat [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 11 advanced alloy, 411 copper, 52 gold, 461 iron, 4 lapis lazuli, 11 lead, 16 mox fuel, 8 redstone, 24 rubber, 134 tin
    By: Blackpalt

    So in short regular mox has higher output but a lot lower efficiency. It has to be noted that the difference in price and complexity for the different designs are HUGE in the favor of regular mox designs. In this case the price is only the price of the components and does not take into account the price of the reactor and hot coolant systems which is substantial. So while regular mox might look more expensive it is actually the other way around.

    On the superheated steam: You get 50% more eu/tick for your superhot coolant with superheated steam, however it is a lot more complicated and requires that the heat output is in multiples of 100 Hu/s. It is possible to do mixed stirling/steam designs but it requires pipes that can prioritize where fluids are sent. I.e the pipe prioritize sending hot collant to the heat exchangers heating steam generators over the ones heating stirling generators.

    You use more heat exchangers than necessary. This one should be cheaper

    Bonus uranium
    Eu/t: 140(448-672)
    Efficiency: 14 (44,8-67,2) [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 3 advanced alloy, 512 coal, 619 copper, 96 gold, 4 iridium reinforced plate, 314 iron, 3 lead, 14 redstone, 42 rubber, 600 tin. 4 uranium fuel
    By: Blackpalt

    Price is a bit scewed due to iridium neutron reflectors but if we change those it should be a lot cheaper
    With regular reflectors
    3 Advanced Alloy 64 Coal 367,000 Copper 96 Gold 314 Iron 3 Lead 14 Redstone 42 Rubber 152 Tin 4 Uranium Fuel

    Then this should be an improved gregtech version
    Efficiency (33,6-50,4)
    This is far better than any other mox design i might add

    So if i understand you correctly it would produce 1344 heat between 0-50% heat and 2688 heat between 51-100%?

    I might add this as a new type of reactor. Any good sugestion what the name of this type should be?

    Edit: Tested some more and they seem decent. The only issue i see is the cooling tower. They avarage in cooling of about 1130 or so while they actually pull 1152 from the reactor so they slowly increase in temperature over time. For the setup you are using you would need at least two cooling reactors (1920Hu/s) and mine would require 3 (2688 ).

    With 3 cooling towers and round robin on the cooling cells it should remove the need for a cooldown period on the cooling tower thought.

    It also gave me the idea for this:
    Same concept but single 5x5x5 producing 1000 Hu/s instead of 4 5x5x5 producing 2688.

    1. MOX in a fluid reactor does not actually scale its heat output linearly with reactor heat. It doubles as soon as reactor heat goes over 50%, and further reactor heat doesn't help.
    2. MOX in an EU reactor at 85% reactor heat is actually 4.4x output (4 * 0.85 + 1), not 4.25.
    3. A few of the designs you listed don't have complete descriptions with eu/t and costs.

    1. Did not know that, could you give me a more detailed explanation? Does it produce normal heat untill 50% and then double from 50-100%? it seems kinda low.

    2. Good to know, will change it asap

    3. The bonus designs are a bit trimmed down because i was not sure how much space i would have. I will complement them later when i have time.

    The problem i see with this is that you won't be able to get higher efficiencies than 6 with this (cant have neutron reflectors on all sides). Wouldn't it be better to just make 2 seperate reactors with this instead?

    Would be higher in output, efficiency and wouldn't need nuclear controle.

    I forgot to add a mark 5 reactor without gregtech reflectors but something like that would also perform better i think. What is the maximum cooling capacity of that cooling reactor?

    Recomended reactor designs list

    Beginners or stacked reactors:
    These can be stacked for cheap and easy power early game and are quite good for the production of plutonium.

    Eu/t: 100
    Efficiency: 6,66[Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 123,33 copper, 36 gold, 117 iron, 4 redstone, 12 rubber, 28 tin, 6 uranium fuel
    by: Zombie

    higher output
    Eu/t: 120
    Efficiency: 6 [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 4 advanced alloy, 132 copper, 32 gold, 146 iron, 4 lead, 28 tin, 8 uranium fuel
    By Rick

    Full scale reactors:
    Eu/t: 320 (640-940)
    Efficiency: 8 (16-23,5) [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 4 advanced alloy, 474,66 copper, 136 gold, 452 iron, 4 lead, 16 redstone, 48 rubber, 110 tin, 16 uranium fuel
    By: Natesky9
    Also good for 5x5

    Eu/t: 420
    Efficiency: 6 [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 7 advanced alloy, 453 copper, 116 gold, 473 iron, 7 lead, 2 redstone, 6 rubber, 86 tin, 28 uranium fuel
    By: SSD

    Highest efficiency but mixed design
    Eu/t: 280
    Efficiency: 9,34 [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 4 advanced alloy, 437 copper, 108 gold, 468 iron, 4 lead, 14 redstone, 42 rubber, 128 tin, 12 uranium fuel
    By: Zombie

    Gregtech adds thorium as a fuel rod which produces small amounts of power but a lot of heat(the ratio between heat and output is higher). This makes it very well
    suited for fluid reactors.The output per fuel rod is still half of uranium with the same rod configuration

    Thorium beginners reactor:
    Eu/t: 84
    Efficiency: 3 [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 148 copper, 44 gold, 141 iron, 4 redstone, 12 rubber, 28 thorium, 15 tin
    By: Blackpalt

    Higher efficiency
    Eu/t: 64
    Efficiency: 4 [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 1 advanced alloy, 136,67 copper, 36 gold, 152 iron, 1 lead, 4 redstone, 12 rubber, 16 thorium, 33 tin
    By: Blackpalt

    Thorium Full scale reactors:

    Eu/t: 176 (580-830)
    Efficiency: 5,5 (18,125-25,9375) [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost:3 advanced alloy, 402,67 copper, 2 diamond, 76 gold, 539 iron, 4 lapis lazuli, 3 lead, 14 redstone, 42 rubber, 32 thorium, 132 tin
    By: Blackpalt
    Also very good for 5x5

    Eu/t: 208
    Efficiency: 4,33 [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 416,67 copper, 4 diamond, 60 gold, 613 iron, 8 lapis lazuli, 16 redstone, 48 rubber, 48 thorium, 140 tin
    By: Blackpalt

    Gregtech also adds iridium neutron reflectors that enables higher efficiencies for both thorium and uranium reactors. These are the best fluid reactors by a large margain but also work as regular reactors

    Iridium Neutron reflector designs
    Eu/t: 136 (532-782)
    Efficiency: 6,8 (26,6-39,1) [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 1 advanced alloy, 1024 coal, 994,33 copper, 5 diamond, 60 gold, 8 iridium reinforced plate, 522,5 iron, 16 lapiz lazuli, 1 lead, 34 redstone, 102 rubber, 20 thorium, 1155 tin
    By: Blackpalt

    Eu/t: 240 (672-976)
    Efficiency: 12 (33,6-48,6) [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 512 coal, 793 copper, 4 diamond, 84 gold, 4 iridium reinforced plate, 558 iron, 20 lapis lazuli, 44 redstone, 132 rubber, 655 tin, 8 uranium fuel
    By: Blackpalt

    Bonus thorium (efficiency 7 (28-40,5) but lower output
    Eu/t: 112 (448-672)
    Efficiency: 7 (28-42) [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 1024 coal, 923,67 copper, 76 gold, 8 iridium reinforced plate, 358 iron, 14 redstone, 42 rubber, 16 thorium, 1118 tin
    By: SSD

    Bonus uranium
    Eu/t: 140(448-672)
    Efficiency: 14 (44,8-67,2) [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 3 advanced alloy, 512 coal, 619 copper, 96 gold, 4 iridium reinforced plate, 314 iron, 3 lead, 14 redstone, 42 rubber, 600 tin. 4 uranium fuel
    By: Blackpalt
    Best efficiency possible for 5x5x5

    Mox reactor designs:

    Eu/t: 704
    Efficiency: 17,6
    Cost: 2 advanced alloy, 280 copper, 8 diamond, 32 gold, 512 iron, 2 lead, 8 mox fuel, 16 redstone, 48 rubber, 114 tin
    By: Dmitry Sharangovich

    Eu/t: 1320
    Efficiency: 13,2 [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 1 advanced alloy, 393,33 copper, 22 diamond, 24 gold, 828 iron, 1 lead, 20 mox fuel, 12 redstone, 36 rubber, 146 tin
    By: Dmitry Sharangovich

    Higher output and more expensive but with mixed rods
    Eu/t: 880
    Efficiency: 17,6 [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 393,33 copper, 22 diamond, 48 gold, 747 iron, 10 mox fuel, 24 redstone, 72 rubber, 150 tin
    By: BlackPalt

    Mark 5 reactors using nuclear controle.
    Keep above 0% heat
    Eu/t: 400 (624-936)
    Efficiency: 10 (24-36 [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 2 advanced alloy 402,33 copper, 2 diamond, 76 gold, 536 iron, 2 lead, 6 redstone, 18 rubber, 140 tin, 16 uranium fuel
    By: Blackpalt

    With reflectors
    Eu/t: 119 (on avarage) (500-750)
    Efficiency: 14 ( 44,8-67,2) [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost:7 advanced alloy, 768 coal, 823,667 copper, 3 diamond, 64 gold, 6 iridium reinforced plate, 444,5 iron, 16 lapis lazuli, 7 lead, 38 redstone, 114 rubber, 900 tin, 8 uranium fuel
    By: Blackpalt
    Best efficiency possible for 5x5x5

    mox 5x5x5: Keep at 51%+ heat
    Output: 500-750 eu/tick
    Efficiency: 24-36 above 50% heat [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 11 advanced alloy, 411 copper, 52 gold, 461 iron, 4 lapis lazuli, 11 lead, 16 mox fuel, 8 redstone, 24 rubber, 134 tin
    By: Blackpalt

    With gregtech reflectors 51%+ heat
    Eu/t: 500-750
    Efficiency: 33,6-50,4
    Cost: 9 advanced alloy, 512 coal, 679 copper, 52 gold, 4 iridium reinforced plate, 447 iron, 4 lapiz lazuli, 9 lead, 8 mox fuel, 8 redstone. 24 rubber, 646 tin
    By: Blackpalt

    On/off reactor with vanilla redstone controle
    Mixed design
    Eu/tick: 300 avg (800-1200)
    Efficiency: 10,94 (28,8-43,22) [Meu/fuel rod]
    Cost: 6 advanced alloy, 595,33 copper, 160 gold, 452 iron, 6 lead, 40 tin, 30 uranium fuel
    By: BlackPalt
    Runs 10 seconds on, 17 seconds off.

    This is support to service as a short guide and reference thread for the wonderfull topic of nuclear power in industrialcraft 2. (Designs in post 2)

    Some other important concepts that are important to understand is how you measure the efficiency of a reactor. Here it is designed as the average amount of eu you get from each fuel rod during a complete cycle
    divided by one million [Meu/fuel rod].So This means a efficiency 5 reactor design with a total of 12 fuel rods will produce 12*5=60 million eu before you need to change fuel. Depending on fuel type this will be either
    10000s(mox), 20000s (enriched fuel) and 50000s (gregtech thorium).

    How to get into the design list:
    1. it needs to be either better or cheaper than current design (motivate why it is better)
    2. Only the best and commonly used designs are presented, ie 0-6 chamber reactors compete on the same playing field
    3. Should follow the template used in the design list
    4. State which mods are used to make it work
    5. Should be easy to automate, this means it's should not mix fuel rods. (they can still be added as a bonus design thought)
    6. The reactor should preferably be tested in game to make sure it's safe
    7. Bonus designs are reactors that fit a specific niche or mixed fuel rod designs that perform better than the non mixed designs.

    Nuclear power comes in many shapes and sizes and there are several different types of reactors each with it's perks and downsides. First is the reactor itself which is a modular multiblock
    structure which modifies how much space you have to play with when building the reactor core.Depending on if you have only the nuclear reactor or an additional 0-6 reactor chambers it will cost:
    iron 33-81, Lead 48-72, copper 2,Tin 2 1/3, lapis 2, redstone 8, glowstone 2, rubber 7

    The basic reactor:
    The regular reactor produces power directly and does not need further machinery to produce power. The easiest ones are the Mark 1 reactors. These are low risk reactors which does not require
    extra controles to avoid a crater where your base once was.These are the baseline for comparison with the other reactor types. Depending on the core design these are based around balancing
    efficiency vs power output. High efficiency means you get more out of your nuclear fuel but the power output will be lower than a lower efficiency reactor of the same size. Basically the
    higher the efficiency the larger the ratio between heat produced and power produced.

    Mark 2-5 reactors:
    These reactors produce more heat than they can handle and will explode if left on. This is solved by turning the reactor on and off to give it time to cool down.On average they will produce about the same power as
    the basic reactor but at a much higher efficiency. There are two ways of Controlling these types of reactors. The first way this is done is through the nuclear controle mod.This allows you to automatically turn the
    reactor on and off based on the reactor temperature.This also happens to be the only way to run mox in 5x5 reactors.
    The second way is to turn the reactor on and off at controled cycles (example: 5 seconds on, 4 seconds off) which can be done with a redstone clock and redstone repeaters. The redstone clock should be set
    to emit a redstone pulse once every complete mini cycle (9 seconds). You then extend this redstone pulse to the desired time you want the reactor on (5seconds).
    Redstone controle example:

    Fluid reactors (or 5x5X5)
    The fluid generator is more complicated, more expensive but is a lot more efficient and will in most cases produce the most power of all nuclear reactors (Mox can sometimes produce more). Instead of producing power directly you pump coolant fluid into the reactor which in turn turns into hot coolant in the reactor. The hot coolant can then be sent to heat exchanger that heat either stirling generators or steam generators.Stirling generators produce power directly at a 50% ratio while the the steam generator produces superheated steam (with distilled water) which can then be sent to two steam turbines to produce power. A condensator is used to turn the remaining steam into distilled water again and it is sent back. This produces power at a 75% ratio.
    Tutorial for superheated steam setups
    The amount of hot coolant that is produces from the reactor is twice the amount of heat that the reactor produces. Since the ratio between power and heat increases at higher efficiencies this means that the efficiency of 5x5x5 actually scales more than linearly (a 7 efficiency regular reactor would actually have efficiency of 42 with superheated steam). And since the power output is based on the cooling the high efficiency designs are just plain better than low efficiency designs. So a good fluid generator design is basically a regular design but with as high efficiency as possible.
    It should also be noted that thorium designs and reflector designs are extremly well suited for fluid reactors as they don't loose power output and gain even more from the increased efficiency than regular reactors.

    Mox reactors.
    Mox fuel increases its output as the temperature of the reactor increases. For regular reactors this means that at higher temperatures it will produce more power. The higest safe temperature a reactor an be without melting the enviroment is 85% which increases it's output by (0,85*4+1)= 4,4 at the most. This enables extremly compact reactors than can produce large amounts of power while being relatively inexpensive. The mox designs are built so they pull no heat from the core but only from the fuel rods. This means that the reactor won't cool down over time. By removing one or several of the heat vents closest to the fuel rods the reactor can then safely be heated up into the desired temperature at which point you put them back again. The reactor will then keep this temperature and produce power at a much higher rate.
    Fluid mox generators behave differently than the regular generators as it doubles it's het output when it goes over 50% heat. This means a reactor that produces 600 heat at 0-50% heat will producel 1200 heat at 51-100%. Because of this fluid mox designs must use the nuclear controle mod and use a design that only pulls heat from the core. Theoretically It could also be made by using advanced heat vents able to handle the output above 50% heat as a regular mox design however this would be quite low in output.

    The new reactor simulator can be found here
    By: MauveCloud

    I guess just stating the hot coolant output is okay with the simulator. However i will be bringing all the things above to the thread im working on. I will also do a short description of how all the numbers are calculated and add a transformation quote for the different processing steps. So 0,5 for stirling and steam, 0,75 for superheated steam and so on for every different way you can use the hot coolant.

    Just because it is in the wiki does not mean its the best way to go about it. Something tells me that their version of efficiency comes from when there was only one type of fuel rod. The reason we use efficiency or output to begin with is to be able to compare what you gain and at what cost (and when the rods where 10000s previously their definition actually was the same as mine). And for comparison purposes knowing how much energy you will get from your fuel rods is a lot easier to wrap your head around rather than how efficient the tics are. It also makes it easy to estimate how much power you can generate from a certain amount of fuel which has a lot of use on its own.

    By your definition the efficiency is just an arbitary scale which just gives a general indication for how efficient something is. This works well enough when you have just one reactor type and fuel rod but it does not work at all when this is not the case. Because it does nothing to help you compare a regular reactor with a fluid reactor. In short why should we use a definition of efficiency that is not actually based on how efficient the fuel gets used and that cannot be used to compare different reactor types?

    The reason why it's good to indicate the power output for the fluid reactor is for the same reason as above. You need it to be able to compare the reactors at glance. Most people won't be able to estimate the power output or how efficiently the fuel is used in a fluid reactor. There really isn't that many ways of producing power with hot coolant as you believe. There is stirling which gives you the 0,5 ratio. Then there is the superheated steam which gives a 0,75 ratio(this is the one mementh used, he feeds back coolant, not hot coolant). the third way of producing biogas is actually not as good as it sounds. Using all the heat from a reactor to produce biogas and then use the gas to produce power will only increase the efficiency of the overall system by a few percent compared to a superheated setup (yes ive tried this in detail) and then it also consumes large amounts of biomass and cost A LOT more to make. So while you can do it this way it really isn't the best way to go about it.

    However this is beside the point. When you choose a reactor you will want to know how much power it produces and how efficent the cost of running it will be fuel wise. And using stirling and superheated steam makes sense as it is the default way of processing it. As long as you state what method you have used to calculate the efficency and power out (stirling/superheated steam) you are really just giving people a great tool for choosing which reactor design suits them the most. Because in the end that is what both the output and efficiency stats are all about, giving people the information to make a intelligent decision about what reactor design they wanna use.