The downside of weed-ex is that it caps the plant's stats at I think 10.
But crops are so hard to grow at very high stats anyway.
There is the wiki
You need to have the appropriate number of exchangers for the HU output of your reactor.
I think one Heat Exchanger can handle 100HU/t when fully loaded with coils.
Reactors suck in the current version.
You should detect when something is wrong and have an auto-shutdown.
Luckily a fluid reactor generally won't explode. (It may instantly explode upon reassembly if you don't add plating, however)
I think we would need to see your coolant cycle setup?
All the reactor is supposed to do is to heat up coolant, after all.
Please mention which version of IC2 you are using and also include screenshots of your setup if possible.
And as shirolol mentioned, we doubt whether you needed to apply external heaters to the thermal centrifuge.
To be fair I was always annoyed that Thermal Centrifuges do not have a heat input, but they simply didn't last I checked.
Every EU packet loses some power per unit of distance traveled through a cable.
In an MFSU that sends energy through a glass fiber cable this is not a problem, but if you have a huge number of solar panels connected via HV cables, you will not get any EU due to this.
Wait does the Thermal centrifuge accept heat from heat generators now?
It used to run entirely on EU and take ages to warm up.
I assume you are not sending that power through very bad wiring?
Because if you send 140EU/t from 7 batboxes through uninsulated HV cable, it only travels a few blocks before losing power completely.
What did you try and how was it unsuccessful?
It's still new and I don't know anything about the Fabric ecosystem, I don't know any mods from there.
But I heard from some mods devs,
that Fabric may end up being superior to Forge in every way,
especially compatibility between versions.
Depending on circumstances, would IC2 for Fabric be something worth considering?
Long low-voltage lines waste a lot of power, but probably not all of it.
So the EU blocks near the turbines fill up, but the ones further down don't?
But what about the cropnalyzer slot?
The crop harvester isn't the same without it!
According to my experiments you can send ANY amount of Steam through there if your pipes can handle it.
But there is a limit to how much water can be condensed again and if your kinetic generator outputs IV+ voltage, something is going to explode.
What would speak against nerfing the costs of the reactor components, though?
5.3 copper ingots, 2 tin ingots, 8.5 iron ingots for a god damn basic B fan, really?
Yeah well that is one way of saying "Nuclear reactors are too weak for their material cost" :p
Or their material cost is too high for their yield
I don't know how a fluid reactor setup could possibly output more than 26880HU/s, but okay.
I did not use semifluid generators at all, because they are crap. I used liquid fuel fireboxes(or fluid heat generators) with steam turbines and kinetic generators.
I thought that you were using the heat from a fluid reactor to power the fermenters. Sorry about this.
Apparantly you don't know much about reactors, but if you want to compare other stuff with reactors I highly recommend that you have a deeper understanding of reactors first.
About the EU / fluid reactor efficiency: The following design can at most produce 140 EU/t in an EU reactor, but if you throw it into a fluid reactor it can produce 896 HU/t, which can be converted into 672 EU/t (with an volume of 288 blocks even counting the lever). If a MOX rod is used then it can produce 600+ EU/t in an EU reactor (which uses the exact same fuel rod configuration as the design that I mentioned in previous threads), while with a single MOX a single fluid reactor can produce 1279.68 HU/t (959.76 EU/t) on average. The fluid reactor provides a decent increase in efficiency given the same fuel (reflector) input.
The main reasons that I used EU reactors in my design was 1) they are significantly smaller than the fluid reactor generating the same amount of EU and 2) they are much easier to build than fluid reactors.
What I am really concerned about is the necessity to provide heat for the fermenters to get biogas - sure 32 liquid fuel fireboxes can produce 20480 HU/s, but in 1 second they consume 320 mB Biogas, which requires 3200 HU to ferment that many biogas. If you burn biogas to provide heat for the fermenters (which to me seems to be the most efficient way of doing so) then that gives you a net output of only 17280 HU/s, or 864 HU/t, which is already less than 32 HU/t less than what a quad U-rod fluid reactor can produce.
As I have only built a ~280 EU/t biogas based power plant in survival it would be helpful for me to see how things are scaled up if you could post something about your design (e.g. screenshots) so I could take a look at it.
No, I understand fluid rectors. I built one that outputs 1kEU/t.
Yeah, the fermenter powering is a bit of a flaw in my design, because if I only run a single block of the power plant, I get lazy and just use Electric Heaters, which, yeah, would mean I only get 608EU/t.
I do that mostly because otherwise I would need a station just for the biogas and quite some extra space, which is a problem for just a single block, but if I put 4 in a square, I should be able to get 3kEU/t quite easily.
But again, the space requirement and material cost of it is much lower than a comparable fluid reactor setup.
Like I said the reactor would be SEVERAL TIMES more expensive to build, so unless you can get 40000HU/t with a MK1, it is impossible for fluid reactors to ever be worth it compared to a biogas plant.
And I am pretty sure that my 26880HU/s reactor is about as powerful as it gets.
The internal components and the heat exchangers just completely ruin fluid reactors with their resource costs.
I wanted to get a better screenshot, but I couldn't locate the power plant in my testing world. lol So here is an old screenshot.
Using Thermal ducts because pipes weren't a thing
The whole replicator-based reactor thing is indeed intended for end-game renewable power generation, but in general I don't think reactors are poorly efficient.
To run a biomass-based fluid reactor that produces 20,000 HU/s (which is identical to what you mentioned and convenient to calculate), it needs 10 fermenters to consume all the heat at 100 HU/t each, which produces 4,000 mB Biogas in 2 seconds, which needs 200 semifluid generators to burn all of those biogas, as they burn 10 mB biogas every 1 second. In total you get 3200 EU/t.
The design that I used in my MOX array was a 4-chamber design with a single quad MOX rod and 4 iridium reflectors, running at roughly 82% heat and giving it a raw output of 600 EU/t each. Taking replication costs into account it outputs 427.668 EU/t on average. A 20-reactor array, which produces 8553.36 EU/t on average, has a volume of 12x11x35 = 4620 blocks. If a 20,000 HU/s design is more space efficient, the volume of it must be under 1728.44 blocks, which to me looks difficult.
Another thing is that your design doesn't scale up very well. I designed my reactors to be easily stackable, but if you want to, for instance, double you output you literally have to build everything again though some parts might be similar. Without overclockers in my fuel processing section, I would consider the thermal centrifuge to be the bottleneck of the maximum rate of fuel production, taking 25s to process a single item, thus taking 50s to process a single uranium ore. Replicating enough uranium ore (without scrap) to match this speed requires an input of 16,070 EU/t on average. Considering only 2872s/10000s of the power produced is used to replicate uranium, this would mean that it can take in 55,950 EU/t for the amount of time that EU is used for uranium replication, which equals to 93.25 reactors running simultaneously. If there are 90, they would have an average output of 38490 EU/t and a volume of 12x11x105 = 13860 blocks. If the 20,000 HU/s design is used then its individual volume should be no more than 1152 blocks.
In terms of building efforts your design would be tedious to build on a large scale, while mine should be much simpler.
As for the amount of machine blocks needed, my 20-reactor design needs 31 + 20 + 80 = 131 machines, while only one of yours needs 200+.
Also, don't forget lag, which is the most basic limiting factor of how large anything can be built. The more machines you use in a single build, the laggier it is, and in turn less of it can be built.
I currently have no idea about what your design is like, so that's what I can say for now. It would be great help for me to analyze exactly how much more efficient your setup is if you could post a world download.
I have no idea how you came up with your numbers for the biogas setup, because they don't make any sense at all. 200 Semifluid generators would produce 3200EU/t, but that's not what I am using, I am using 32 Liquid fuel fireboxes, which produces 1024HU/t or 20480HU/s. 200 liquid fuel fireboxes would produce 128000HU/s.
I am gonna do some maths now, but before that I can say that your design and its efficiency doesn't actually matter at all.
You are using EU-mode reactors. I don't know if they are more efficient, but if they are, that just makes the implementation of fluid reactors even more worthless, because this would mean that Fluid reactors are completely outclassed by EU-reactors even though they were designed to be way more efficient.
About space you have a point, that EU-mode reactors are very small, but you cannot build a fluid reactor that would be more efficient than a good biogas setup in both cost and size, which was my main point.
I am not intending to offend you, yet I really want to laugh at what you said.
I haven't played IC2 for quite a bit of time, but I believe more than a year ago I have already built a self-sustaining uranium reactor design making use of the replicator. Though that build is not completed (thus not entirely made public), it had already achieved the ability to run on its own with a large surplus of EU. If I remember correctly the fuel rods in it aren't even operating at max efficiency. In terms of the exact minimum efficiency required please refer to this.
As its output scales with the amount of reactors used, the only thing that makes this thing balanced (at least to me) is its incredibly high building cost, the biggest portion of which is the component cost. Once the cost of the reactor components are cut down it would be too OP for such a thing to be even theoretically possible.
You might have missed the point.
Sure you can build self-sustaining reactors.
But I can build self-sustaining biogas power plants that are WAY cheaper and WAY more powerful and probably also need less space.
Nuclear reactors are not balanced, they are pretty much worthless.
The only advantage of them is, if you intentionally build a lot of efficiency 1 reactors, you can quickly burn through uranium to get plutonium for RTG which is good for portable power plants.
Nuclear reactors are a lot more endgame, especially with an automatic replicator setup, so they should MAYBE also have endgame-worthy efficiency and not be completely outclassed by baby's first biogas plant.