Good GT reactor designs.
- Thread starter Shakie666
- Start date
-
The FTB Forum is now read-only, and is here as an archive. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord
Plutonium, high effeciency, zero maintance
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyo...azjoneqlsftyey421h6z6tonx096012fqtyptu8pqvytc
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyo...azjoneqlsftyey421h6z6tonx096012fqtyptu8pqvytc
here is a fairly cheap one. zero maint. pu based reactor.
43e7lnzev1hdtcs2d5gm9lkxddq2m9gh9ztlp4ygtsyezw6dmp832rlckp8tzhy80l1yr7ur35p301s
Ps. if you already have the planner open. just copy paste the link name into the code field instead if clicking it unless you want yet another instance of the planner.
ETA: I played around some with a thorium setup. it's very efficient.
a8h8c3i64n5hjllwu42numx024kj9jf7ddkvtc0inl6zpksyjxdhkbvxypyfjj8hc6l5cbp3q1ziebk
43e7lnzev1hdtcs2d5gm9lkxddq2m9gh9ztlp4ygtsyezw6dmp832rlckp8tzhy80l1yr7ur35p301s
Ps. if you already have the planner open. just copy paste the link name into the code field instead if clicking it unless you want yet another instance of the planner.
ETA: I played around some with a thorium setup. it's very efficient.
a8h8c3i64n5hjllwu42numx024kj9jf7ddkvtc0inl6zpksyjxdhkbvxypyfjj8hc6l5cbp3q1ziebk
I don't get why people are so stuck up on efficiency, personally if I'm at a point where I can burn iridium into a nuclear reactor, I don't want to be getting less eu out of than I would out of a mark 1 uranium reactor. I personally feel Plutonium is useless without condensator rotations because you can't make a decent non-consuming reactor (by this I mean doesn't eat ANY parts other than the plutonium) because nothing can take the heat of those quad pieces stacked together from my playing.
To put it another way, plutonium reactors really are a disappointment to me. Short of burning tons of lapis/redstone to keep them running, I feel like I might as well stick to uranium for power and thorium for low-maintenance.
Edit: I would recommend people to use the gold components though in their designs unless they know they tend to be short on gold. Personally I find that my server has no use for gold in general compared to how much is mined by quarries + twilight ventures, and it allows a lot more powerful set ups for what is effectively nearly 0 increased cost for me
To put it another way, plutonium reactors really are a disappointment to me. Short of burning tons of lapis/redstone to keep them running, I feel like I might as well stick to uranium for power and thorium for low-maintenance.
Edit: I would recommend people to use the gold components though in their designs unless they know they tend to be short on gold. Personally I find that my server has no use for gold in general compared to how much is mined by quarries + twilight ventures, and it allows a lot more powerful set ups for what is effectively nearly 0 increased cost for me
Are you saying that pieces will melt regardless of what the reactor planner say?
i know that some pieces, like the overclocked vent will absorb more heat than it can disipate, but that is fixed by having secondary cooling helping them cope with the heat.
I've never actually built a major EU producing reactor before... I'm usually so stuffed to the brim with EU's that the ones i have built have been relatively simple uranium burning mkI's (with stacks of uranium filling up the old storage bin I hardly ever end up making any breeders either tbh). With gregtech being a real power glut tho, i might actually end up with a breeder this time around. all my planned designs are made so that they do not consume reactor components if i can help it.
It's condensator's (and reflectors have charges, technically - or use iridium. I have no idea if the iridium plates have charges or not as I've never used them but I hope not), the only way you can get significantly more EU out of a plutonium reactor (note: not efficiency, late game I hardly consider efficiency important and early game I doubt you are running many reactors to even bother with plutonium compared to uranium) is by using condensators. Condensators are pieces that are a void for heat, the heat goes in and disappears. They can absorb 100k's of the stuff, millions in fact I think. The problem is that they need recharging, with lapis/redstone. This means you need to have many more cells and a CCraft/redstone timer rotation (or some other form) to really exploit their usefulness, or you might as well have an on-off switch reactor that only runs while you're online anyway.
Most people don't use condensators. I don't bother right now. I might when redstone is in the pack and you can easily use timers to sort out the whole refreshing of them. Until then it's too much hassle.
If someone can make a plutonium MK-1 reactor with no parts that have to be replaced with over 400k, it'd be a start. Even then you're only just beating uranium which is 16x more abundant, and probably cheaper to run as well.
Also, MK1 is really the way to go at the moment. The old IC reactors with simple water and ice and what-not rewarded you for higher MK's, I honestly don't believe that the current reactors do. You'd be better off building 10 MK1 reactors than 1 MK5 that gives similar output even if you can control it in most cases... the only limitation these days is copper. If you use mystcraft dense ores (if this still gives copper), or twilight forest hill mining, or just generally a load of quarries, copper will be easy enough to get.
Most people don't use condensators. I don't bother right now. I might when redstone is in the pack and you can easily use timers to sort out the whole refreshing of them. Until then it's too much hassle.
If someone can make a plutonium MK-1 reactor with no parts that have to be replaced with over 400k, it'd be a start. Even then you're only just beating uranium which is 16x more abundant, and probably cheaper to run as well.
Also, MK1 is really the way to go at the moment. The old IC reactors with simple water and ice and what-not rewarded you for higher MK's, I honestly don't believe that the current reactors do. You'd be better off building 10 MK1 reactors than 1 MK5 that gives similar output even if you can control it in most cases... the only limitation these days is copper. If you use mystcraft dense ores (if this still gives copper), or twilight forest hill mining, or just generally a load of quarries, copper will be easy enough to get.
well. according to the gregtech wiki at least. the iridium reflectors aren't consumable, so i assumed that using them would make sense even tho they are expensive as shit.
PU does have a tonne of cooling issues tho... and i for one have a hard time making a stable mk II reactor with the coolant cells. (I am thinking a sprint reactor setup to provide the 90 mill EU's for a fusion start up should be able to run for a single cycle before needing an extended cooldown, or alternatively a new set of coolant cells..
Gregtech does not add any new active cooling options, so what we got is wat we got. also. advanced heat vents. damn those are expensive... a diamond each...
PU does have a tonne of cooling issues tho... and i for one have a hard time making a stable mk II reactor with the coolant cells. (I am thinking a sprint reactor setup to provide the 90 mill EU's for a fusion start up should be able to run for a single cycle before needing an extended cooldown, or alternatively a new set of coolant cells..
Gregtech does not add any new active cooling options, so what we got is wat we got. also. advanced heat vents. damn those are expensive... a diamond each...
From my experience most reactors work better with 2:1 or greater overclocked heat cells to advanced heat cells (ergo, just gold). It's a real shame because I think the advanced heat cells look prettier in the reactor XD But there are flaws in both IC2 and gregtechs nuclear plans I think.
Thorium I believe is fine. It does it's job (I can't get a low maintenance MK1 above 200 EU from my playing earlier today). It may be worth using iridium if you run enough quarries that you feel you will have the thorium to make use of them here, after you have all the iridium essentials. I really like how it works because it really feels noticeably weaker than uranium whatever I do with it. It makes me want to use uranium for power, but thorium for a "leave it and forget for a day".
I think the gold pieces in general are too strong. Most good reactor designs I've built use mostly gold pieces, ignoring diamond altogether, or at most using them to carry a huge charge to spread it a bit more (like 10 maximum). Diamonds should really be worth using in reactors, just like in almost every other part of most mod packs.
P.S. If you need diamonds (I haven't ever successfully made a mystcraft dense ores world so I won't recommend it myself, but I hear it's good), get a mining laser and shoot down the diamond stalactites in the twilight medium/large hills. I can easily get 100 diamonds in about 30 minutes using that method, but if you are going solo you will really want to bring armor (and a batpack of some level to add charge to your mining laser imo) as if you are like my you will spend most of your time looking up, and relying on sounds to kill anything that comes close. You can easily get half a dozen skeletons shooting on you and if you aren't in at least ironbark or greater armor you will probably die fairly quickly.
Thorium I believe is fine. It does it's job (I can't get a low maintenance MK1 above 200 EU from my playing earlier today). It may be worth using iridium if you run enough quarries that you feel you will have the thorium to make use of them here, after you have all the iridium essentials. I really like how it works because it really feels noticeably weaker than uranium whatever I do with it. It makes me want to use uranium for power, but thorium for a "leave it and forget for a day".
I think the gold pieces in general are too strong. Most good reactor designs I've built use mostly gold pieces, ignoring diamond altogether, or at most using them to carry a huge charge to spread it a bit more (like 10 maximum). Diamonds should really be worth using in reactors, just like in almost every other part of most mod packs.
P.S. If you need diamonds (I haven't ever successfully made a mystcraft dense ores world so I won't recommend it myself, but I hear it's good), get a mining laser and shoot down the diamond stalactites in the twilight medium/large hills. I can easily get 100 diamonds in about 30 minutes using that method, but if you are going solo you will really want to bring armor (and a batpack of some level to add charge to your mining laser imo) as if you are like my you will spend most of your time looking up, and relying on sounds to kill anything that comes close. You can easily get half a dozen skeletons shooting on you and if you aren't in at least ironbark or greater armor you will probably die fairly quickly.
Twilight forest + quarry.... need i say more? 
yeah. diamonds aren't as big a deal as i tened to think of them as. but the advanced cooling vent's just don't seem to be helping to cool the reactor better than the overclocked ones.. something is definately strange with the balance there.
i have been trying to pair overclocked vents with coolant cells... but the planner seem to imply that the heat isn't getting stored in the coolant without having to invest heavily in component heat exchangers. tthe only way to make the coolant cells accept serisou amounts of stored heat is to have them next to the fuel.. but that is where i want the neutron reflectors. also.... 4 quad pu cells = insta meltdown.. it's not possible to prevent the fuel from melting down, since it's not posible to move the heat out fast enough regardless of what you do it seems. either the hull melts, or you melt all the components you try to place next to the rod's
yeah. diamonds aren't as big a deal as i tened to think of them as. but the advanced cooling vent's just don't seem to be helping to cool the reactor better than the overclocked ones.. something is definately strange with the balance there.
i have been trying to pair overclocked vents with coolant cells... but the planner seem to imply that the heat isn't getting stored in the coolant without having to invest heavily in component heat exchangers. tthe only way to make the coolant cells accept serisou amounts of stored heat is to have them next to the fuel.. but that is where i want the neutron reflectors. also.... 4 quad pu cells = insta meltdown.. it's not possible to prevent the fuel from melting down, since it's not posible to move the heat out fast enough regardless of what you do it seems. either the hull melts, or you melt all the components you try to place next to the rod's
I'm having a really hard time coming up with a nuclear reactor setup that uses plutonium that doesn't break even or fall short on the UU matter cost.
It's...what, roughly 17M EU per UU matter? At least, with the default gregtech settings, anyway. So you need to generate more than 68M per quad plutonium over a plain quad uranium to break even. Seems to require 6 efficiency or so, and I'm unable to figure out a quad cell plutonium system that will actually function like that, needs 756 cooling if you use iridium reflectors. Suppose you could stick to dual plutonium, but then you're only getting 120 eu/t which could be replicated much cheaper and better.
It's...what, roughly 17M EU per UU matter? At least, with the default gregtech settings, anyway. So you need to generate more than 68M per quad plutonium over a plain quad uranium to break even. Seems to require 6 efficiency or so, and I'm unable to figure out a quad cell plutonium system that will actually function like that, needs 756 cooling if you use iridium reflectors. Suppose you could stick to dual plutonium, but then you're only getting 120 eu/t which could be replicated much cheaper and better.
If you're calculating it per UU cost, are you including the uranium and thorium in your EU production calculation? Or are you trying to go straight plutonium?
Strictly talking plutonium here. And yes, the uranium was part of it. At 5 efficiency(2 reflectors), a quad uranium generates 20M EU and a quad plutonium generates 80M EU. 60M difference < cost of 4 UU-matter, so it's an overall loss.
At 6 efficiency(3 reflectors), quad uranium generates 24M EU, and quad plutonium generates 96M EU. 72M difference > cost of 4 UU matter. Problem is it doesn't seem to be possible to cool the reactor enough. Maybe I'm doing it wrong though, I really cannot tell.
Thorium is great and all, but for the low ass EU generation I could just build something else out of all those resources. Maybe 50 plain old generators or something?
The only 6 efficiency plutonium reactor have used condensators. Some people made CCraft systems to cope with teh constant switching and charging, personally I will wait for redpower if I bother at all. I can't find any way of making stacked plutonium (even with reflectors) do both a) not break an adjacent piece and b) not overheat the entire generator (mark3=>)
Heck I could only really make a couple designs where I the attached pieces didn't burn up and break the entire system. As far as I'm concerned gregtech NEEDS stronger heat exchangers.
I like them as they're a good source early-midgame, given how cheap reactors are to make these days.
metastable quad pu efficiency 7 design is possible. have to put a timer on it tho. one minute on, and one minute off.... otherwise there wont be any reactor to worry about all that long.
enjoy this one. I wouldn't build it myself outside of a test world, but ymmv
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyo...sha8ocnajli3h1lkt7tiyriexgxbn6c7gjzql715czz0g
Fair enough XD I meant constant running ones, but that reactor falls under the same issue as before... It's a quad plutonium and 4 iridium plates to do what dual uraniums can do without plates >< Props on the efficiency though, in a world of theory it's a good build (or if you happen to just need a reason to burn plutonium efficiently)
Yeah. it's a senseless beast. since you can get as much or more eu/sec from a uranium one without having to pulse it. but efficiency 7 was noted as a requirement for possibly making an over unity machine with mass fabs and reactors....
I've done some experiments with 360k coolant cells. the efficiency is lower, but it's possible to make a power beast making over 2k eu/t that can run for as long as 20 minutes before you have to cycle out the coolant cells for cooling them. (you can transfer them over to another reactor running on a single thorium cell and lots of heat exchangers and cooling vents to cool the coolant cells back down for re-use.
power beast: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyo...16s7agq6oohrm3kr0nl3g3tf6vwpd4m05vwyh4vc2xvk0
cooling kit: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyo...o5ykyaecgzp6jxu3rhhms2zh76jm548s5d16uoktapc74
The cooling kit is unable to keep up with the heating being done in the power beast... so you would need several of these to keep up with the maintenance needs of the power beast. not to mention all the manual work doing all the swapovers every 20 minutes...
Having not attempted a reactor setup yet, I am sure there is a reason for constant running. However, why not wield Nuclear Control and generally copy the 3-point interrupt that DW20 did on Forgecraft?
Max EU output potential under temp control protection. Also, anyone have a link to a reactor design archive or something? It would be much appreciated.
Max EU output potential under temp control protection. Also, anyone have a link to a reactor design archive or something? It would be much appreciated.
Here, have a monstrously powerful and efficient reactor. 2 plutonium cells and a lot of thorium, 388 EU/t output, no maintainence except replacing cells.
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyo...mlu2u4lruuplu6y5uu6i3pttakzn7kmzkvlzli8h0tngg
And if you want to breed some replacement cells it's trivially easy to swap out a little and still keep a nice 222 EU/t output with 1 plutonium.
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyo...mlu2u4lruuplu6y5uu6i3pttal7bqj8p3i5frbd16bcw0
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyo...mlu2u4lruuplu6y5uu6i3pttakzn7kmzkvlzli8h0tngg
And if you want to breed some replacement cells it's trivially easy to swap out a little and still keep a nice 222 EU/t output with 1 plutonium.
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyo...mlu2u4lruuplu6y5uu6i3pttal7bqj8p3i5frbd16bcw0