I don't think that other mods are needed for your purpose. An automatic lapotron crystal charger & discharger, some double chests and some lapotron crystals can just do the thing you want to do.
This thread is about fluid reactors that have high outputs. If you are looking for beginner reactors or EU reactors, please refer to the Official New Reactors design thread. The designs here have a high build cost but their output is above 1200 HU/t. They are meant to be used for late game power generation. Thus, material costs will not be judged here.
Since that the original thread contains only a few fluid reactors that was submerged by other peoples' posts (because fluid reactors weren't added yet when that thread is created) and posting designs there will just be submerged by pages after pages of replies, I would like to share some here.
The currently highest output stable fluid reactor
This might be an improved version of Omicron's design, since his can output 1408 HU/t. The author of the current one is unknown, but it was recently posted by vlad[54rus]. If you know the author of this design, please reply so that I can put it here.
-Pros: highest output that currently can be obtained from a stable fluid reactor
-Cons: need an extra heat exchanger for just 7.74 HU/t
1407.74 HU/t, no reflector, efficiency 12.57
The second highest output one
-Author: KrisBigK (improved albijoe's 1376 design)
-Pros: high output without the need of an extra heat exchanger
-Cons: it uses hybrid fuel rods, making it difficult to automate
1383.78 HU/t, no reflector, efficiency 14.42
The reflector reactor
-Pros: a reasonable efficiency and good output
-Cons: need re-designing if you want to use MOX
1343.83 HU/t, 4 reflectors, efficiency 21
The third one
-Author: KrisBigK (improved albijoe's 1376 design)
-Pros: Only use 2 types of fuel rods, easier to automate than the second highest output one
-Cons: Comparatively low efficiency and a 8 HU/t lower output
1375.83 HU/t, no reflectors, efficiency 12.28
The following reactors need precise redstone timings in order to run safely, but have a higher output than the stable ones.
Warning: If you really really won't risk having a potential nuke in your backyard (although all reactors are potential nukes, blowing up one of these will also destroy your heat-related machines), then these designs are not for you.
If you made up your mind that you are willing to use these designs, be notified that if these reactors are left unattended and turned on, they will create a huge hole.
-Pros: has a higher output than previous ones
-Cons: somewhat risky
1451.79 HU/t, 1 reflector, efficiency 12.96, runs 8 sec on and 1 sec off, explodes in 289 secs (left unattended)
The highest output fluid reactor by now
This design is focused on having high outputs, not stability.
-Pros: seriously high output
-Cons: the lowest efficiency, really explosive
1777.69 HU/t, 3 reflectors, efficiency 11.11, runs 5 sec on and 4 sec off, explodes in 69 secs
The heat capacity reactor plating can be changed into any reactor plating or the component heat vent. It is just a place holder for easier automation.
Now you may ask: Why does this fluid reactor have the highest output?
To design a fluid reactor with a higher output (on average), here are some restrictions that I can think of:
1.Not a single vent can be removed to guarantee overall output unless there is a way to vent more heat per component
2.The reactor must run 5 sec on and 4 sec off for the OC vents to cool properly.
3.No fuel rods can be placed next to the vents, or the vents cannot be cooled down in time to produce more heat
4.MOX can't be used. They are not friendly to OC vents.
Among all the reactor components and features available (till this day), the overclocked heat vent has the highest venting speed, which is 20/s/vent. In comparison, a component heat vent can only vent a maximum of 16/s/vent. Since this is a pulsed reactor, the overclocked heat vents don't need to be surrounded by component heat vents as they can cool themselves down in the 4 sec cooling period. The cooling is maximized by stacking overclocked heat vents. If even 1 additional vent is added, it won't have enough fuel rods to generate enough heat for the vents.
I hope that this explanation helps!
The highest efficiency reactor by now (maybe)
This design focuses on high efficiency, and then high output.
-Pros: really high efficiency
-Cons: relatively low output, the most dangerous design
1277.43 HU/t, 4 reflectors, efficiency 39.92, runs 5 sec on and 2 sec off, starting temp >=6,000, explode in 13 sec (if it is started at a temp of >=6000)
Some notes: I made it to vent 640 heat in purpose. The total vent cooling displayed in the picture is a little bit off. If you calculate its venting, it is actually 640.
The highest efficiency MOX rod outputs 896 heat/s, and 896 has a factor of 128. 640 also has a factor of 128. This makes it easy to calculate the on/off cycle. I can't sqeeze in the rod and the reflectors to the current 704 design. Also, it uses unbalanced OC vents, which is impractical for MOX reactors.
yet more to come
If you have any questions about these designs or managed to made a better one, feel free to share it!
Okay, let me try to clarify: the exchanger is not "pulling" 80 heat from the rod, the rod is "pushing" 80 heat into the exchanger before the exchanger does its thing. This means the exchanger in question can theoretically be gaining as much as 152 heat per reactor tick when a rod is adjacent to it.
First, I think pulling heat from the rod and pushing heat to the core heat exchanger makes no difference. To my understanding, the core heat exchanger is like a “heat capacitor” that vents/pulls heat from the reactor. If it gains 152 heat, it cools the reactor down and basically doesn’t do anything because a few ticks later (or less) the reactor will be cooled enough for it to vent back the 72 heat pulled from the reactor in the beginning. If it is touching the rod, it takes damage at a rate of 80/s and heals at a rate of 8/s. Once its damage percentage is greater than heat percentage of the reactor, it will start to vent 72 heat into the reactor, thus not destroying itself.
Let's put that to a side, but the core heat exchanger can vent heat at 8/s wherever it was put, right? Then why does one place work while the other one doesn't?
I think I can answer a couple of your questions:
It isn't obvious from the IC2 Wiki, but unless this has changed in newer versions of IC2, the reactor heat exchanger accepts heat from adjacent sources (such as that dual fuel rod near the upper left corner). Thus, if you remove the exchanger or swap the rod's position with the reflector, the dual rod will be pumping all its heat directly into the reactor instead of the exchanger.
I know that components can accept heat from adjacent sources, but all the components that I used can pull heat from the reactor, so the total venting should be the same regardless of how the fuel rods are placed. Then what's the difference between pulling 80 heat from the rod then give 72 to the reactor and pull 72 heat from the reactor and vent 8 heat? I can't see any difference in that.
I just designed a high output but unstable fluid reactor. I haven't tested it in-game because I'm running out of time today but I'm quite sure it will work.
1451.79 HU/t, 1 reflector, efficiency 12.96, runs 8 sec on and 1 sec off
When running without redstone control and cooled off completely before doing so, the first vents will overheat at 242 seconds, and the reactor WILL explode at 289 seconds, so use it at your own risk.
I also have some questions about it.
1.Why does replacing the top-right core heat exchanger with a reactor heat vent causes the average heat output to drop to 1450.01 HU/t while the reactor is still stable?
2.Why does removing the top-left core heat exchanger causes the reactor to explode within a cycle but doing so on the right one doesn't?
3.Why does 0223130C0D0C0D0C1303030C0D0C0D0C0D0C030C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C not work despite it generating the same heat and having the same rods/reflector, the same heat vents?
4.Is a fluid reactor with a higher average output than this one possible? I'll be glad to hear about it.
Note: I tested whether a reactor is "stable" by using Pulsed Automation with no component automation selected and suspending & resuming temperatures in Pulse Configuration is set to 10001.
1383.78 HU/t, no reflectors, efficiency 14.41
Wait wait wait, you might've mixed up Hu/t with Hu/s
Hey, I can't get the reactor planner working, your design seems like something I'd need, could you post a screenshot of it instead? Thanks!
The 2.2.1 version of the reactor planner is a little buggy. Sometimes pasting the code doesn't make the components show up. Restarting the planner might solve the issue. Here is the screenshot, anyway.
I got another one. I just added a core heat exchanger on albijoe's design and it runs a full cycle. I also changed a few components to make it cheaper.
1375.83 HU/t, no reflectors, efficiency 12.28
I was messing around with the fluid reactor designs and I got two high HU/t and stable reactors by slightly changing the fuel rod/reflector arrangement.
1367.8 HU/t, 3 reflectors, efficiency 19
1359.83 HU/t, 1 reflector, efficiency 13.08
I recently got an idea about extending the usage of the comparator, since the comparator has a wide range of usage. It's the ability of using the comparison mode (default mode) of a comparator to detect how full a reactor is and the subtraction mode to detect how much heat a reactor has. These features would be really helpful for reactor safety and its automation.
Feel free to post your ideas!
A short lived type of reactor design relied on heating up coolant cells (or vents for tighter timings) in an EU reactor then cooling them down in a fluid reactor to effectively double the energy production. In stopping that, damaged reactor components will now claim to not be usable in a fluid reactor once damaged.
Since I don't think it is necessary to create a new topic for posting my ideas about the type of reactor that Chocohead mentioned, I'll post my ideas about this reactor here.
To my knowledge, the type of reactor that Chocohead mentioned is still possible, just with more manual work. The player can break the pressure vessel of a fluid reactor, turning the fluid reactor into a EU reactor, thus being able to put the heated coolant cell in, and then repair the broken pressure vessel to get a heated coolant cell in a fluid reactor and generate double the energy. I can't think of a simple way to fix that though.
I think this type of reactor is quite balanced overall. Although this type of reactor can produce more energy per fuel rod, it is much more expensive than a conventional one and meant to be used in late game to save precious uranium/plutonium when not duplicating uranium/plutonium via uum (I'm not sure if I got that right). As you know, using this type of reactor requires an eu reactor, at least 1 fluid reactor (perhaps 3-4 to dissipate the heat in time), a bunch of things associated with the fluid reactor, and an optional logistics system to transport the coolant cells around automatically. Therefore, it is only achievable in mid-late game when resources are plenty enough. As a consequence of high power generation by using mutiple reactors and getting the components in and out of the reactors in time, this type of reactor is quite risky since it is much more likely to lose a component and any one reactor meltdown will cause devastating destruction. Also, designing such a fully automatic safe-running reactor complex is a difficult and interesting challenge, too. I'm curious why they are removed and I hope they can be re-implemented.