Posts by krulin

    Okay the preface to my questions is, yes I have read the wiki on Windmills. I just want to verify some things that sound kinda weird.

    First off it says "If a wind mill produces more than 5 EU/t, it has a chance of breaking. If a wind mill's effective height is no more than 80, it cannot break."

    My first question is it says effective height, is that jus the straight y value minus obstructions? If so that seems kinda weird considering 80 seems to be sea level most of the time. Secondly, it has a "chance" to break if it goes over 5 EU/t and I want to know what exactly is "a chance"? Are we talking 50 percent, 2 percent, or what? My apologies if these seem like basic questions, but the wiki page for windmills isn't organized very well, at least not to me. Anyways thanks in advance.

    Actually, one of the more commonly used failsafes used in modern designs is an 'ice plug'. Basically, you've got a lake on top of the reactor. To this lake, you have a pipe. The pipe is cooled to below 0C (32 F) and creates an 'ice plug' which prevents the lake from dumping into the reactor. In the event of a runaway reaction, core temperature rises to the point where the ice plug is melted, and the lake dumps into the reactor chamber, flooding it, cooling it down and ending the reaction because the control rods are held up and out of the way via electromagnets. Electromagnets have a fuse which is temperature-controlled, when the temperature exceeds safe levels by a margin of error, the fuses blow and the rods automatically slide into place. Failure of power also causes the rods to slide down into place.

    When asked what if it fails, the response was "To date, in all of recorded history, we have never encountered a failure for ice to melt at high temperatures or things to fall down as a result of gravity. Should either of these things fail to occur for the first time in recorded history, we will have far bigger problems than a possible nuclear meltdown, since both of these things are required for our atmosphere to continue to exist." Strangely enough, there was no rebuttal.

    That still doesn't change the fact that pumping ice blocks into a reactor in Industrial Craft is weird.

    in fact a real nuclear reactors works with water at every step^^ they're nothing more than giant steam plants, vaporizing their cooling water to drive the generator.

    Yeah, but I'd wager they don't put the water in by bucket. I'd also wager that they don't just throw ice at it either (maybe in extreme circumstances where they need to cool quickly). But either way there has to be a more interesting way to setup the "nuclear reactor minigame".

    You can easily get 2020EU/t with a 9x9x8 bucket CASUC without a risk of a meltdown if you know what you're doing.

    True, but with all these technological machines, I find it silly that to cool a nuclear reactor, we have to pump buckets of water or ice blocks into it >_>. That's like the equivalent of owning a computer, but trying to fix it with a hammer every time it does something wrong.

    what do you mean with "earning" your power? i think i pretty much earn the power for the casuc i set up and cooling is infinite since we know water is a very renewable resource. it's a non-renewable generator because it needs uranium.
    i also think that the nuclear reactor in IC2 is better than a real one, since it does pump a ton of EU and contrary to a real reactor it doesn't produce radioactive waste for which we have still haven't found a way to dispose it.

    Read his post. He was saying that Nuclear power is more rewarding because you have to earn the power it generates and you just can't sit and collect energy like you can with solar panels. I was saying that there is a difference between having to put effort into making something work and having to babysit something because you're afraid if you turn your back for too long there will be a crater where your lovely base was. :pinch: Also true about the nuclear waste, that would be kinda overkill on the realism though. I guess I would have just liked to see a little more depth in the components. Maybe more tiers of components or something. Like having different levels of coolant cells or something. I kinda feel like the Nuclear reactor system is a cheesy puzzle minigame and that it doesn't have much depth considering what it is. On the other hand though I'm not saying it should be completely realistic, it just should have a bit more to the innards of it. It also shouldn't be so easy to just pump it full of Ice and let it go. No stratedgy in it, and that's about the only way you get those lovely 2k Eu/T numbers that are getting thrown around (at least if you want to keep them for extended periods of time without a meltdown). Don't really see a need for that much power generation either unless you're just mass producing UU-Matter, but even then, it's still overkill.

    On a side note, I like the idea of using the Nuclear reactor for power at a mine, since it won't matter so much if it goes boom there. I never thought of that. :thumbsup:

    For starters, there is a difference between, "earning" your power, and having to babysit the source of your power. Casuc reactors require some form of cooling and thus fall under the category of either non-renewable or having to have a long string of things creating ice blocks or some such to keep going. What I guess my main gripe is, is that in real life, nuclear power produces a TON of power and relatively safely now, but that's not the case for the nuclear reactors in minecraft.

    I've been playing around with nuclear power for quite some time now on a test world and lurking the forums here for good reactor designs, but I've yet to find a reactor design that beats having a solar panel farm. :S It just seems like nuclear reactors don't output nearly as much EU (once you get a decent sized farm together), and also have the disadvantage of having to replace the uranium cells every so often. The designs that do output a good chunk of EU and aren't horribly inefficient usually either have to be cooled manually with ice, water buckets, ect, or have to be so horribly micromanaged so they don't go boom. I know you can setup redstone timers for this as well, but then there's still the problem of the reactor having to cool for like 90 minutes before you can start it over again. So unless I'm missing something, there's not real point to nuclear reactors unless you're just in a place where you can't have a solar farm, or don't want an "eye sore" in front of your base. I guess if someone could point me in the direction of an amazing reactor design it'd help, but lurking on the forums for the past few months, I've yet to find one.