Also, Applied Energistics replaces most of the kludgy auto-crafting automation. While it may not replace 100% of your item transportation, it does solve most of your sorting and storage issues as well as auto-crafting, even with other mod's machines.
Well, fortunately as a mod pack compiler, I have the ability to edit the config files to bring it more in balance.
Atomic Science? Last time I messed with UE the whole thing was pretty much unusable.
Some of the UE mods have gotten more usable of late, Atomic Science is one of the ones that has gotten better. I'm considering including Mekanism in the 1.6 release of my mod pack.
And people wonder why I don't bother with GregTech...
If the power 'draw' is lower, the EU reader will pick up how much power is being requested rather than what is being produced. If your MFE/MFSU is full, and is running a few things that only eat up 84 EU/t, that would be the problem.
Also 18 diamonds...
Here is a Mk I reactor using only single uranium cells with an Eff of 3.0 and 240 EU/t.
Maybe I'm just Nuclear stupid, but try as I might I can't seem to get the eff7 version of this that's worth making... Mainly because this type of setup needs something to touch the fuel for it to work..
Is it just not possible?
Correct, it is impossible to create a CRCS reactor with an Efficiency of 7. However, you CAN hit Efficiency of 6 while still having an output of around 2kEU/t, which isn't too shabby.
Of course, if you don't care about Efficiency, a Tower of Power is probably going to be a better solution. CRCS reactors have been marginalized since the Tower of Power came out, because it pretty much beat it on every metric but efficiency. Better output, cheaper, easier to build, much easier to automate... just plain better for most uses.
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.
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.
its pretty easy tom make it better, just add more uranium
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.
What I meant is the copper costs of multi-cell reactors is made up for by the extra energy. If you used some of that extra energy to make copper out of UU matter then you'd still get more energy overall (at least I think thats what it means by overall eff). Of course in GT UU matter is more expensive so it doesn't apply there, but you can always centrfuge lava (though that can causes its own problems).
Also, spending UUM on Copper will reduce your effective Efficiency rating as you end up having less EU out of the cycle once you calculate in the EU cost of the UUM. And not everyone enjoys having to have a MassFab up in order to run a reactor.
Also, the second reactor was an attempt at making a budget reactor for my 'tower of power' build. Sure, 60 copper a cycle may not sound like much... until you multiply that by 40. Then you are looking at 2,400 copper per cycle. Ewwww. And it is the smallest viable zero-running-cost reactor design I've seen. I don't think anyone else has managed a single-chamber zero cost reactor that produces 120 EU/t, anyways.
Costs: 580 Copper, 46 Tin, 242 Iron 40 gold
Running Costs: None.
It's 5 EU/t less than the current contender for this slot, but has higher Efficiency and costs less to create. In particular, you save about a hundred copper and there's a significant savings in gold as well, although you'll see a reduction in everything. Also, it's only a five-chamber reactor, which helps explain some of the cost mitigation.
Costs: 260 Copper, 144 Iron, 40 Tin, 16 Gold
Running Costs: 0
This competes with both 0 Chamber Reactors in terms of power output and efficiency, but has zero running costs in exchange for a slightly higher initial cost. Very handy for penny-pinchers who want a budget reactor with no running costs.
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.
I'm trying to build some sort of cooling tower,which use core heat exchanger.
All the former cooling tower designs use compoent heat exchanger.so the heat need to be delivered via heat exchanger.That means this kind of super cooling module can't be turn into a cooling tower for DDoS systems,via common way.So I got my eyes on the core heat exchanger,which can exchange heat with the reactor hull,then with the OC vents.
I'm still working on it,but it seems that this can work.
Can this concept work?
In a word... no. Here's why:
You're still capped by the amount of transference the Component Heat Exchanger can pass to the Core Heat Exchangers. So since you only have four component heat exchangers pulling heat out of those cooling cells, which means you are actually only cooling a total of 40/t in that system, which is insanely inefficient compared to the 112/tic version.
Yes, core vents can transfer up to 72/t to or from the hull... assuming something can pass them that much heat. However you only have component heat vents passing them heat, and they are capped at 36/t.
Also, an OC vent needs 16 additional cooling or it will melt itself (due to cooling 20/t but pulling 36/t), which means it needs to be surrounded by component heat vents. So even if it DID work, you'd melt your OC vents before cooling the cells.
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.
(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.
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.
Sometimes it's better to spam smaller reactors than get one huge reactor. For example this little pocket reactor only has a single chamber, and still has decent power output. Which means you can stack the hell out of them.
You can literally build a nuclear tower using the same model as a water tower with four nuclear reactors every other block (the chamber being opposite the central glass fibre cable) for say 30 blocks.
Each 'ring' produces 470 EU/t, so for 15 rings, you are looking at 10,800 EU/t. More than sufficient for your needs.
EDIT: Ummm... going back over those numbers, and I may have beaten CRCS for EU output to resource cost ratio. CRCS still has a higher efficiency rating, but let's run those numbers again...
Mk I 'Pocket Reactor'
Now let's multiply by 4
Total EU output: 720
Compare to this pocket CRCS reactor
Total EU output: 800
Then the cooling towers. We can use this in pairs for 112 cooling/tic. Which gives me a cooling cycle time of 535. Which means you will need four of them.
Basic cooling tower costs:
So x4, and you start off needing over 3k copper.
So yea, cheaper than a CRCS setup, and Mk. I so no automation necessary...
I think I may have killed my own invention
Fuzzy Export Buses can also be redstone activated. Therefore, you can have a fuzzy export bus with cooling cell of choice set to only activate on restone signal, then have an MFR rednet cable connected to it's version of a timer. Then Precise Import Buses to only import full cells.
And for the cooling towers, you hook up a storage bus. It will then 'see' the cooling cells in the towers, and the precise import buses on your power reactor will only pull the full ones.
Not really. The changed recipes are usually actually cheaper, just higher tier.
Depends on the config options. Sure, some of them got less expensive if you have the proper infrastructure (which has a tendency to explode if a butterfly flaps its wings on a different continent), some of 'em got a lot more expensive.