Posts by Blackpalt

    both are supposed to work, i encountered the same problem with 1 mb. It happens when im out exploring. It exploded after i had a trip to the nether so im guessing it has something to do if the generator misses a tick or something. I do not need ejector upgrades in the steam turbines as im using steves factory manager to pull out all fluids. Iv'e tried using ejector upgrades but it makes no difference. My lava setup has been working without fluid ejector upgrades for at least 5 hours now without a problem. i could try increasing the pace at which steve's is pulling out fluids with i suppose. Right now im pulling every one second, maybe i should go with once per tick instead and se if that solves it.


    Superheated steam or steam is not supposed to be able to accumilate in the kinetic steam turbines, they should be consumed as soon as they enter the turbine however all of my problems stem from either steam accumulating in the second reactor (this is not so bad cause it only waste distilled water and the cooling still works) This happens almost every time i step through a portal. Then it happened with the first turbine which shut of the cooling to the reactor which quickly resulted in an explosion. At least i have proper safety measurements for my new reactor.


    Edit: Went to the nether and the same thing happened again, luckily the safety mechanism saved the reactor this time. For some reason the kinetic steam turbine bugged when i went throught the portal. This is strange considering ive chunkloaded my base. Really at loss at what could be the problem. This time the lava setup also failed so it seems to be steam generators/kinetic steam generators in general that has a problem


    I think i have made a safety that works


    http://prntscr.com/4qllew. I forcefully void all superheated steam and steam from the kinetic steam generators via steve's factory manager. This prevents the blockage that happens when i go through the nether portal and makes the process go smoothly. Since normaly no steam or superheated steam appears in the generator it does not affect its normal operation.

    Ive been having some problem with the stability of the steam generators actually. Sometimes they stop working for some reason when at 221 bar and 2 mb at 400 Hu. The strange thing is that it is only when working with the hot coolant. My lava setup works like a charm and ive never had any problem with it. To get it running i usuall have to get stable operation at 1 mb per tick and then increase it to 2 mb per tick or it just produces steam even when it has all the hot coolant it needs.


    Lava setup 300 eu/tick with ender io and buildcraft
    http://prntscr.com/4q9fcj


    Mementh: I think its an optimal setup using only ic2. If you use some other mod that is good at moving fluids you can make setups that inputs 400 HU per steam generator. which makes the setup a lot cheaper since you need only about half the equipment (still need as many liquid heat exchangers). Ive used both ender io fluid pipes and steve's factory manager to great sucess.


    My current setup looks like this using steve's factory manager:


    http://prntscr.com/4qgu4o


    I i use 1200 Hu in 3 steam generators and the remaining 144 heat is used in stirling engines. At first i had 6 steam cycles with 200 Hu per steamcycle but this is A LOT better as there is a large difference in running cost and initial investment. its also a lot cleaner.


    I prefer moving the coolant away from the reactor as i can then make a smaller reactor room out of reinforced stone and build the turbines outside. However if you like putting the turbines on the sides of the 5x5 you can also make a simular setup as you have done but with 400 Hu per side of the 5x5. Iv'e tested it in creative and it works just fine using ender io.


    Edit: Scratch the stability thing, there is now nothing left of my poor reactor, lucky i enclosed it in reinforced stone, only the reactor broke and not my base. The reason for the breakdown was this


    http://prntscr.com/4qj4yx


    For some unknown reason the turbine stopped processing the overheated steam and boom went my reactor. Anyone else having similar problems? Im leaning more and more towards using stirlings for 5x5. Both kinetic steam turbines and steam generators are highly unstable and unless you have a safety system on your reactor it might just go boom. I wont make the same misstake again.


    I also found another bug. As long as the steam generator is pumping water into blocks besides it (for instance 1 mb/tick of distilled water that is instantly put back) it will never loose heat. My steam generators stay at 375 degrees forever as long as i keep recycling distilled water.

    For those people trying to make a mox reactor mark 2-5 i made a very nice reactor design to work with. Im currently making some tests on it in creative. Il'e probably post some more about it once iv'e got my control system up and running.


    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…pbcurq980tcmzfs7pujc8faps


    If you want a more easily controlled reactor you can easily switch out 1 or 2 of the quad cores for dual cores and it will still work just as well. It will be less fuel efficient but the cycle time will increase a lot.


    Ive tested it in creative and it works out really well if you have a control system that makes sure that the temperature does not reach to high temperature. I made it so it pulls an even 1000 Hu from the reactor core which makes it possible to produce either 500 mb of superheated steam for 750 eu/tick or 500 with stirling.


    The efficiency of the design is extrordinary. even at 0 reactor heat it produces 960*2 heating units which amounts to 960 eu/tick of fuel with stirling or 1440 eu/tick of fuel with superheated steam. The heat produced also increases by A LOT as the hull temperature increases. I'm not 100% sure but i think the increase in HU is linear with the reactor hull temperature (0% is default and 100% is times 5). If the heat increases linearly it would mean it would produce 0,55*960*2=4800 Hu at 50% hull temperature. with superheated steam that is an efficiency of 4800*0,75/8/5= 90!


    Also unlike regular cycled reactors this one produces power at a stable rate as it is always pulling heat from the reactor even when it is turned off. The only downside is that it produces "only" 500-750 eu/tick. However the mox fuel rods would last for a very very long time before they are consumed. if average is 50% heat it would be 4800Hu/1000 or 4,8 times it's regular lifetime.


    Overall i think this shows some great potential for mox in the 5x5


    Edit: for a stirling setup i would probably use something like this
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…lpn190uditwrwrksho009vr40


    Update: Ive tested the first reactor now and it works very well with some easy automisation from nuclear control.


    http://prntscr.com/4qga7x


    I'm using a not gate and a nor gate, with a remote thermometer and a lever. The reactor shuts of both if the lever is deactivated and if the temperature goes over 21000 (65%) the temperature varies between 64% and 78%. It is producing a constant 1000 Hu/s and has been working stable for some time now.


    60 seconds of fuel tics took a whole 5 minute and 28 seconds. which amounts to about 5,5 times more than its normal duration or 5500 Hu per fuel tick. This reactor has an efficiency of about 103,125 and would produce 825 million eu per cycle

    Ive tested a few different mox designs now in creative and as it is right now it does not work with single Mark 1 5x5 reactors. However i see some potential for mark 2-5 reactors.


    The mox reactors based on advanced heat vents does work when the reactor is at 0 heat. As soon as the heat rises then also does the heat produced. This causes the components to break as they are now able to pull more heat from the mox cores. These designs are not possible to make work with mark 2-5 reactors. Thus there is no gain from making one of these mox designs.


    The second type of mox reactor (overclocked vents) does not work at all as a mark 1 reactor. They naturally vary a bit in reactor temp as it puts excess heat from the heat vents is sent back into the core. This makes it unable to stay at 0% heat which makes it completly unstable unless you can control the temperature. The one i used exploded after roughly 30 seconds. However indirect overclocked vent designs work very well for mark 2-5 mox reactors but require some mechanism for controling the temperature in the reactor. (note that direct overclocked heat vent designs such as this http://prntscr.com/4pu6x2 does not work with mark 2-5 5x5 mox reactors for the same reason as the advanced heat vent versions dont work. Excess heat gets pulled into the vents and they are destroyed as the temperature increases)

    Here is my latest survival project, its a large superheated steam 5x5 reactor producing roughly 940-950 EU/tick. There was a lot of trial and error involved in making this reactor but it was a lot of fun and it took an immense amount of resources and time. The mods i used primarily is ic2 (ofc) steve's factory manager and also a bit of ender io. However ender io is completly optional and could be skipped completly. Im using the latest version of Bevos tech pack from the AT launcher


    The reactor is a standard 5x5 reactor with 2 liquid input/outputs in addition to the standard components. The design i used for the reactor is High power High running cost reactor made by SSD, which normally produces 420 eu/tick at an effiency of 3.
    Here is a picture how the setup looks when its running:
    http://prntscr.com/4pu6x2


    Hot and cold cooling fluid is pumped in and out of the reactor using ender io's ender fluid pipes. They pump the fluids to one tank each (thermal expansion) as a middle storage so that it's easier to keep track of the amount of fluids in the system. The hot cooling fluid is then transported from its tank into 14 liquid heat exchangers and after usage is transported out of the heat exchangers and the other tank where it is again pumped into the reactor using ender io.
    Picture inside of the reactor:
    http://prntscr.com/4pu7rn


    as the reactor produces 1344 heat i used 1200 (or 12 heat exchangers) to heat 6 steam generators producing 600 mb of super heated steam. The remaining 144 heat is used in 2 sterling generators as they dont require even heat.
    Below is a picture of how the setup looks like:
    With Cables
    http://prntscr.com/4pw4p6
    Without cables
    http://prntscr.com/4pt7zl


    As one can see ive built a tower with identical layers for the turbine consisting of 2 liquid heat exchangers, 1 steam generator, 2 kinetic steam generators, 2 kinetic generators and 1 condensor. For the last layer you use 1 liquid heat exchanger and a stirling engine for each 100 HU remaining (1 if less than 100, 2 if between 100 and 200). This setup is easily modified to any size reactor by adjusting the height of the turbine tower.


    Here is a picture of the turbine layer in detail:
    http://prntscr.com/4pu90h


    To handle the distilled water in the system i used steves factory manager. It pulls the condensed distilled water from the kinetic steam turbines (including the superheated steam turbine as it gets a bit of regular steam at startup) as well as the rest of the distilled water from the condenser. Each condenser has 2 heat vents to be able to handle the amount of steam. The distilled water is pulled into a drum for middle storage so i can keep track that the amount of distilled water in the system is not decreasing. Steves factory manager then pulls the distilled water from the middle storage back into the steam generators. Each steam generator can take 10000 mb of distilled water so for this system a minimum amount of distilled is 60000mb. This part could be optimised by only filling a portion of the steam generator or supplying it with the same amount as is used , however that felt overly risky and complicated over making more distilled water. Each steam generator is set to 221 bar of pressure and 1 mb/tick. Distilled water can easily be created using a electric heat generator, 1 steam generator and a condenser however it requires the usage of 100 eu/tick. This could be decreased to 50 if you put it through a kinetic steam turbine first at the cost of a larger investment and higher complexity.


    The result is this
    http://prntscr.com/4pu7wy


    The steves factory program is quite simple and just contains 4 input and output loops
    http://prntscr.com/4pu854


    If this feels overly complicated each layer of steam turbines could be changed for 2 sterling engines (which is soooooooo much simpler and cheaper) this would produce about 630 eu/tick instead of 950.Also you consume the turbine in the kinetic steam turbine after a while which means it also has quite a large running cost of steel. Just the initial investment was 360 steel to create the turbines blades. I haven't tested for how many cycles they last yet.



    I recommend having a quarry if you are building this as it is extremly expensive. The complete number of components used was the following:
    1 acess hatch
    1 redstone port
    1-2 fluid ports (you could probably get away with one using steves factory manager)
    94-95 reactor pressure vessel blocks
    1 nuclear reactor
    6 reactor casing
    28 overclocked heat vents
    11 component heat vents
    1 component heat exchanger
    7 quad fuel rods


    as well as
    14 liquid heat exchangers
    140 heat conducter
    6 steam generators
    2 sterling engines
    12 kinetic steam generators
    12 steam turbines
    12 kinetic generators
    6 condensers
    12 heat vents
    As well as some piping and steves factory manager stuff.


    The easy version would instead use:
    14 liquid heat exchangers
    140 heat conducters
    14 sterling generators


    A good advice for building the superheated steam layers is to make just one layer that you run on lava(just remember to void the cold lava afterwards using buildcraft void pipes) When you have the first layer up and running on lava you replicate this layer for the other layers and connect the 5x5 generator. I do not recomend doing a lot of trial and error with a large 7 quad core reactor... :P


    The reactor has been working flawlessly so far and i haven't detected any problems however i will make some long term stability test to make sure im not loosing distilled water or coolant. I also have to check how long the turbines last before they need to be changed.


    What do you guys think?


    Edit: I had to change around the cables a bit as i think it was a bad idea to block the second kinetic steam turbine. the second kinetic steam turbine got filled with steam for some reason due to blockage. So far this seems to have worked as i have seen no problems now (for like 2 hours). It seems i might have a small leakage of distilled water however im not sure yet.


    Ps: This is a large post so some errors are bound to have sneaked in, feel free to point them out and i will fix it.

    Been to long since i made some reactors!


    I liked the basic concept for The full scale high power high cost reactor by SSD so i wanted to make a few smaller scale versions. I'le see if i can make a few more of the same kind


    5 chamber
    efficiency 3
    quad cells: 6
    output: 360 eu/tick


    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…90srqy0cqb4cggj5kyqujuhog


    4 chamber
    efficiency 3
    Quad cells: 5
    Output: 300


    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…f4xucd3tyys9fl4ruaufjicqo


    Tried making a few smaller ones however the design isn't well suited for tight spacing.

    I haven't browsed through all the pages but anyone else than me found a little power dupe that can be done with the new recycler.
    Using some simple automation and cobble gen i could get a net gain of 160-180 eu/tick by feeding the combined recycler with cobblestone (ca 7 eu/tick) which in turn produced enough scrap to supply 18 or so generators. i assume that the combustion value of scrap didn't have the efficiency of the combined recycler in mind.


    Maybe the combustion value of scrap needs to be reduced or removed?


    Im using the latest version of bevos techpack which uses Advanced Machines 1.7.10 and IndustrialCraft 2 2.2.646

    A big problem right now is that the reactor designer doesn't seem to work with this designs very well. Would love to see an update on it as it's lacking in quite a few aspects now.


    I assumed the second one would work since its stable in the planner. But now that you point it out i also noticed that it should not work. it should draw out 32 heat per second that has nowhere to go in the middle.


    Problem with putting things in the middle is that it reduces the amount of heat you can remove since the middle is the most efficient place to place the overclocked heat vents. i prefer to try to place them in "voids" where you cant easily place other cooling components.


    In theory i dont think it should make any difference how long away the oc vents are away from the reactor heat vents. i mean regardless of the temperature of the core as long as there is a surplus suply of heat in the core it should always pull the same amount of heat through the overclocked heat vents. ofc the maximum lenght you can do this depends on how much heat the heat vents can move. Have you tested it and know it works like this? maybe omicron can shead some light on it


    I do think these designs has a place in the list, however it should be in its own section. also unless they update the reactor designer they would need to be tested in game to make sure they work properly.
    I have no problems seeing that people would be interested in this type of reactor. It is a bit harder to use but it pays of in designs with higher efficiency and higher output for a same size reactor. I'm quite sure i could make some pretty good designs with this if i put some time into it.

    Recently started in a modpack with gregtech so im gonna try this silly little thing. (TPPI)


    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…um8uig02iqw1bljxg6e0lzpek


    Just a rough first version. Will probably do some in game testing late. According to the simulator it cools down just as snahsnahs reactors however as it should be heat stable as it only cools as much as it produces and puts rest back into the core. Should work nicely with iridium neutron reflectors.


    Played around with it a bit more, you can do some pretty interesting stuff with these types of designs


    High output (1800) efficiency 3, 6 chamber
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…dtxzl3ldx6ah0iw47nmdjfa4g


    1600 efficiency 4, 6 chamber
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…induw17h8rdymzh4rammz0cu8


    gregtech shenanigans, output 1000, efficiency 5, 4 chamber
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…d59rghiyem9nyr2a3iextfsow


    I'm gonna test them all later however im still quite far away before im where im able to produce reactors like this. Been playing around with mekanism x5 and big reactors 3.0 alot lately but i will update this as soon as i get around to it.

    This has been extremly informative i must say. I just assumed the progress bar on the components where damage and not the temperature on the components. Does that mean that the designs i posted are stable and could possibly work in game?


    I have to admitt i dont fully understand how to use reactor heat exchangers effectively. However when i try to simulate your reactor it cools down for some reason during the cycle. However if it works as you say it does it would make for some interesting designs as you can actually pull out more from the reactor than you are producing with overclocked head vents (which are awesome) and then just put it back in. that is you overshoot on the core heat and then go for exactly 640 cooling and the rest goes back into the core.


    The thing about the size of the reactors was just an assumption from my part. the effectivness of the overclocked heat vents are best utilized on the middle of the design when you have only overclocked heat vents and component heat vents which usually require quite a lot of space since you need at least 1 free slot away from the edge. The edges are a lot less effective space wise so i just assumed they where not better when compared to the regular design since they dont have as much "middle space" to work with.


    It is true that my design isnt asymtotical with two separate cooling systems. However it is stable as far as i know as they actually have a little bit of excess cooling on each side of the cooling system. (644 instead of 640) Im gonna go into creative mode and test it in game and se if it works as soon as i get the time to do it.


    Could you explain how you automate it with hoppers? i would be really interested in learning a few ways to automate mox reactor design with different mod packs. Ive only used thermal expansion item ducts so far with whitelisted items, However that only works for a few reactors. How do you replace specific fuel rods and place them in the right spot? feels like most automated system cant put items in specifik slots. Only factorisation routers can do that afaik. Maybe you know a thing or 2 about this omicron? :)

    Have you actually checked if they are heat stable. They arent according to the simulator. The 19 overclocked heat vents draw out 684 heat from the core of the reactor while only 640 is produced. While the actuall heat vents can handle 640 heat only this means that when the reactor is at a higher temperature it will pull out more heat that it can handle, damaging the components in the process, and cooling down the reactor. So when i crank up the heat for your reactor it will be down to low temperature with several damaged components before the cycle is over. However if you tried it in game and it worked i guess it must be something wrong with the simulator.


    As i understand it, for these designs to work you need 640+ heat vent. As long as it is more it does not matter. However the amount of heat drawn out of the core needs to be exactly 640 heat. Or the reactor will cool down and in worst case scenario (as in your case) will also damage the components since the heat pulled out of the core does not match the cooling capability. it works well as a regular reactor thought.


    This is a modified version of yours that is heat stable. However it still damages the components for some reason and i can't figure out why. Feel free to give it a go. ive tried some different setups but havent solved the problem. If i get the time i will try it in game, however if someone got some time on their hands feel free to do it and tell me how it goes.


    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…n6s3lb3l11burdmyr6b1huezn


    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…m50f305v6y1zukydiwk08dw85


    first one has 17 overclocked heat vents, 5 heat exchangers and 1 advanced heat exchanger which gives 17*36+5*4+8=640 heat taken from the core with a venting of 644. ive played around with the heat exchangers a bit however i haven't found a setup so far that doesn't damage the components. the second instead has 3 advanced exchanger and 1 normal 612+24+4=240. However the problem stays the same. If someone can answer why i would be happy


    Although I'd wish you would make a category for them, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one browsing this thread who is playing with more than just IC2 (gregtech would definitely suffice).
    Blackpalts first attempts into that field don't really use the full potential of core heat transfer reactors.


    Since Omicron hasn't accepted that type of design i havent really put any effort into constructing them. The ones i posted above was just a quick work, proof of concept perhaps :)


    As far as efficiency go they are a lot cheaper material wise than using vents and advanced vents and generally need larger reactors to efficiently use the overclocked heat vents which is the reason why they are interesting.

    Omicron, i dont mean for it to replace efficiency, but something you add to besides the standard efficiency. It would also point out the scarcity of plutonium for people new to building mox reactors so i do think it has its purpose beyond what you can calculate with it.


    Something like this perhaps
    Efficiency: 20 (0,74)


    It should be easy enough to explain the numbers at the start of the reactor list. Its usefull for calculating stuff and gives information about what is different between regular reactors and mox reactors so i think it has its place on the list.


    Regarding the temperature thingie i would love if you hade some ups and downs with different temperatures. Now you just keep it as high as is possible because it is just better. However if they made it so each level, 2,3,4 and 5 had different effects on the reactor. All managable but presenting an increasing difficult in managing the reactor that would be awesome. So if you wanted a bit easier mox reactor you would only manage to make perhaps a x3 reactor but if you really put in some effort into making the reactor chamber you could go to x4 and perhaps even x5. But it would require a lot more effort into prepping the area around the generator. At the top of my head something like that you would need to put a shield (some kind of lead based block :D) around the generator or it would irradiate everything in a large area surrounding the reactor. maybe just a visual effect on x2, at x3 you would nead 1 layer of shield and at x4 you would need 2 layers. For the last level you would also have to ad some cooling system to stop the sheild from melting like needing at least 1 layer of water between the reactor and the heat shield so for x5 you would have the generated surounded by water, followed by 2 layers of shield.


    Right now i dont really think there is an actuall tradeoff in keeping the reactor at extremly high heat as long as it doesn't destroy the enviroment. I think you could do something really fun and challanging with introducing some kind of progressive difficulty in keeping reactors at higher and higher heat(and making runaway reactors even more dangerous :thumbsup: ).

    You can calculate it from standard efficiency however that is standard efficiency *5/27


    Since i dont use gregtech i can't use the industrial grinder. So that route isn't available to me. It's a lot different if you only have IC2 experimental which i think is the major focus for this thread. The only way i can get plutonium is to centrifuge spent fuel rods, and then i only get 1 small pile, with 9 needed for a full amount. The way i see it is that they are different sides of the same coin however plutonium efficiency better describes the limiting factor when building mox reactors. it is also easy to calculate other informative things from it such as how much power and power output you can generate with the amount of plutonium you have.


    If you have a limited amount of plutonium that is what will limit the amount of power you can generate. And the amount of new plutonium you can generate with your mox is also capped by the amount you already have. If you have exactly 4 mox rods its not gonna generate more plutonium regardless if you have efficiency 3 or 4. however efficiency 4 generators will generate a lot more power. and since mox reactors are so much stronger than regular reactors it's well spent resources compared to making more regular reactors.


    And yes, for regular reactors it is a good tactic to make really low efficiency reactor initially so you get enough plutonium to start making small mox reactors early

    I propose that we add another factor to evaluate mox designs, Plutonium efficiency. This is because mox fuel is so scarce due to the time it takes to produce plutonium which is porly reflected by the current factor: (with regular reactors you can almost assume that people have as much fuel as they want which is why this isn't a problem with regular reactors)


    total eu output/ total amount of plutonium used per cycle = Efficiency/27 (efficiency=million eu/fuel rod, 27=plutonium per fuel rod)


    for example my 0 chamber reactor: 20/27 which is roughly 0.74 million eu/(small pile of) plutonium. Ofc this is linearly dependent on efficiency so all efficiency 4 reactors will have a value of 0.74 and all efficiency 3 reactors will have the same value also (15/27). This factor better discribes how much bang for your buck you are getting for those few plutonium scraps you have managed to gather than efficiency.


    For example: In the case of omicrons Heart of the mountain plan we can simply divide his intended output by his plutonium efficiency and he would realise that maybe this isn't such a good idea: (intended output/plutonium efficiency


    19,3/27= 0.7148, 5400/0.7148=7554. Meaning before he could use the heart of the mountain at full capacity he would have to go through 7554 fuel rods (either mox or regular).


    Similarly we can also evaluate the power potential of the plutonium we have produced thus far: Power per cycle= plutonium efficiency*small piles of plutonium, power output=power per cycle*5


    Simply multiply the plutonium efficiency of your intended reactor design with the number of small piles of plutonium you have and you will know the maximum power per cycle you can produce with that amount of plutonium or the power output by multyplying the power per cycle with 5(example: 108 small pile of plutonium, the maximum power using a efficiency 20 reactor is 20/27*108= 80 million eu/cycle, or power output: 20/27*108*5=400 eu/tick).
    All in all i think it is a great tool to plan your mox reactors on a server on what is feasible under a certain time frame.


    So efficiency discribes how well you use your U-238 (the late game restricting factor) and besides that my proposed plutonium efficiency which describes how well you use your plutonium (the early/mid game restricting factor):


    1 Chamber Mark 1 EA
    EU/tick: 400 eu/tick
    Efficiency: 20 million eu per rod
    Plutonium efficiency: 0.74 million eu/ small pile of plutonium
    etc etc

    Did a similar but better 0 chamber reactor previously however i dont think omicron likes that kind of reactor :)


    I did one run with it and it worked really nice. Its actually the only mox reactor iv'e used (much funnier to create them in theory). If you have a lot of tin and copper its a really nice cheap alternative to regular reactors. However you still need 2*3*9 fuel spent before you can make it. However this is a LOT quicker than waiting for the bigger ones and it has really nice efficiency. It is probably the first reactor i will make every time since i can get it going quickly.


    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…x9iaoe1cken1m8l9j0cfprz9w


    When it comes to reflector designs i believe it is better to try to not have it on 3 sides, running cost kinda runs away, For a 1 chamber reactor i would probably do something like this
    Edit: This one is actually really nice, due to the setup it keeps a really high effieciency while still having a pretty low running cost (for its type). I)f you compare running cost with the power you are getting this is twice as effective as the previous reactor and even more than the one under it. it produces 80 million eu per cycle using only 4 basic reflectors compared with the one above using 4 for 40 million. Or the one below producing 50 million for 6. All in all i think this one should be on the list for the early efficiency freaks. If you compare it to the effiecieny 5 four chamber reactor designs its even better. That one produces 100 million eu for 8 basic reflectors. so all in all, this is a great starter reactor and probably the most feasible reflector designs for standard ic2 experimental.


    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…tguovuhm0tm2egtxarqloqst0


    If you do want to do your design i would go to a 2 chamber design like this (design with 3 surrounding reflectors). Because of symetri you can make it much cheaper and skip on most of the advanced vents. The running cost on these kinds of reactors are somewhat excessive so its nice to have a very low initial cost to go with it.


    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…8zbtngkc7xoyj6oat5pklh3dg


    The 1 chamber reactor got me inspired for this one.. It uses 2 standard reflectors per run, produced 600 eu/tick at efficiency four with only 2 chambers. 120 million eu for 2 reflectors at efficiency four in my opinion is as well spent tin and coal you are gonna get with reflectors. Since it is quite small the cost for building it is probably not all that bad. Only problem is that you could probably go for my reflecorless 3 chamber design with efficiency 20 however this one should be quite a lot cheaper initially.


    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…8od8hxf6gc4hme3b146cn3h3o


    My oppinion is that the optimal route for mox is probably start upp with the 0 (2 rods) chamber reactor which you upgrade into the 1 chamber reactor (4 rods) and after that you turn it into the 2 chamber reactor or my 3 chamber reactor (6 rods, lower intitial cost vs lower running cost). After this you should be able to start working with the larger reactors where you get efficiency 4 with no running cost such as my 4 chamber reactor. As far as efficiency vs power output i would say that the efficient reactors wins out most of the time since they generate more power/plutonium which in reality is the biggest restricting factor (not the u-238 cost, you have loads of that shit by the time your making mox reactors). However going higher than efficiency 4 is rarely worth it cause they are just slighly better than efficiency 4 but have extremly high building and running cost.

    Bonus 4 chamber reactor


    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…nutmop4wvacj5gufqayzw3z0g

    I ran into a similar problem myself, by the time i was actually getting enough mox fuel to run a mox reactor i was pretty much done with the server. Which is a bit of a problem in itself, the time to get started with the plutonium is way to long for the mox reactors to actually be used.


    The nice thing about big reactors is that you use a small big reactor setup to produce power to your first TE things, using its ores (similar to uranium), which when spent can be refined into bluetonium ingots. Which happens to be able to replace a piece of plutonium when making mox fuel. producing roughly 100 rf/tick for a few hours have given me enough plutonium/bluetonium to start with a small mox reactor already. Im thinking of playing around with forrestry for a few hours and then i will make radioisotope reactors with my first bluetonium to get me started with the IC2 machines and as soon as all that is upp and running r make a decent size mox reactor with the bluetonium for my first mass fabricator (quantum suit says hello).


    If you do some quick calculation on mox fuels: The smallest reactor on the list used 5 mox fuel, that amounts to 5x3x9 small plutonium ore or 195 regular fuel rods. If we use that in a decent regular reactor (efficiency 3), by the time you have enough fuel for the smallest reactor you would have produced 585 million eu in the regular reactors at least. By this time the additional 425 eu per tick isnt that interesting cause you will probably have built anything requiring a high amount of eu (like quantum suit) with the power you produced with the regular rods.


    Using only IC2 i think mox reactors needs a bit of rebalancing because simply it takes waaaaaaaaayyy to long to produce enough plutonium for mox reactors to actually be usefull during a server. At best it would be in the end game where you could have just produced a shitton of other eu producing structures instead of waiting for the plutonium since you would have so much resources anyways.