Nuclear questions

[zOldBulldog]

I am still very much a Nuclear noob, so please be patient if my questions are stupid.

1) I understand there is a bonus from putting multiple reactors next to each other, and that it is the reason why most designs place then in 2x rows. By looking at the designs it is also obvious that the layout gets more complex and by necessity pipes get longer with more reactors, eventually resulting in losses due to distance. Logic would seem to dictate that there is a maximum number of reactors beyond which it is no longer good to add reactors, but it would instead be better to just duplicate the whole nuclear power plant setup. What is the ideal number of reactors for that ideal power plant size that maximizes the bonuses but avoids degradation due to the sheer sise of the plant? 4, 6, 8 reactors?

2) In past run-throughs I evolved in the following order:. Steam, Bots, Solar, Yellow Science, Kovarex, Nuclear, Launch rocket. My next run through's main goal will be to get the no-solar achievement. Is it easier/faster to do it with only Steam or to go Nuclear as early as possible? If Nuclear, what is the best sequence to follow? For example, mine ore early, minimal nuclear, then Kovarex and efficient nuclear? Or is that too wasteful of Uranium and I should rather wait for Kovarex before making a Nuclear power plant?

[Loewchen]

The neighbour bonus makes the biggest setup the most efficient, there is a limit to how big you can go as at some point the temperature of the heatpipes will be below the minimum steam temperature, but there are setups with 8 reactors that do not show this problem yet.

[zOldBulldog]

The neighbour bonus makes the biggest setup the most efficient, there is a limit to how big you can go as at some point the temperature of the heatpipes will be below the minimum steam temperature, but there are setups with 8 reactors that do not show this problem yet.

Thank you, from looking at how many 8 reactor blueprints are out there and how few over that, I suspected that 8 reactors might be the "perfect number". It is good to hear confirmation.

I take it then that the best power-hungry setup would then be multiple 8-reactor plants?

[mrvn]

Due to the neighbour bonus the reactors at the end of each chain are less efficient. So one long chain is better than 2 smaller ones. Less ends.

The neighbour bonus come only from direct neighbours. So a reactor in the middle of 2x4 or 2x1024 gets the same bonus. That also means the same heat production and need for the same number of heat exchangers and turbines. So past the first few reactors the setup simply repeats. You can make a setup where all the heat from a reactor is used in the width of the reactor meaning you simply blueprint reactors to the end of your chain whenever you need more power.

[Lav]

1) I understand there is a bonus from putting multiple reactors next to each other, and that it is the reason why most designs place then in 2x rows. By looking at the designs it is also obvious that the layout gets more complex and by necessity pipes get longer with more reactors, eventually resulting in losses due to distance. Logic would seem to dictate that there is a maximum number of reactors beyond which it is no longer good to add reactors, but it would instead be better to just duplicate the whole nuclear power plant setup. What is the ideal number of reactors for that ideal power plant size that maximizes the bonuses but avoids degradation due to the sheer sise of the plant? 4, 6, 8 reactors?

If your heat pipes are too long you will lose heat, yes. However it's still perfectly possible to squeeze everything into available space for an arbitrarily long reactor chain. So no, there's no maximum beyond which effectiveness would be decreased. It's mostly your ability to supply water to heat exchangers that imposes a limit on your reactor size.

2) In past run-throughs I evolved in the following order:. Steam, Bots, Solar, Yellow Science, Kovarex, Nuclear, Launch rocket. My next run through's main goal will be to get the no-solar achievement. Is it easier/faster to do it with only Steam or to go Nuclear as early as possible? If Nuclear, what is the best sequence to follow? For example, mine ore early, minimal nuclear, then Kovarex and efficient nuclear? Or is that too wasteful of Uranium and I should rather wait for Kovarex before making a Nuclear power plant?

Unless you have a dire shortage of uranium, you can easily start your reactors without waiting for Kovarex.

[zOldBulldog]

Thank you guys, so summarizing:

- For a large nuclear power setup: Choose a good tileable design that allows placing future reactors in an ever growing line, of course with all the other goodies like steam storage and logic to avoid wasting fuel. The biggest issue will be water supply.

- Early nuclear start is viable:. Mine and process uranium ore as early as possible, storing the U235 and U238. Once I can, make a limited number of fuel cells (saving the rest of U235 up to 40) and a small 2 or 4 reactor powerplant. Do not worry about using U235 so soon since I'll still produce more than I consume. Once I get Kovarex set it up and expand to anfull "large power plant" setup.

I hope I got all that right.

[Lav]

Thank you guys, so summarizing:

- For a large nuclear power setup: Choose a good tileable design that allows placing future reactors in an ever growing line, of course with all the other goodies like steam storage and logic to avoid wasting fuel. The biggest issue will be water supply.

- Early nuclear start is viable:. Mine and process uranium ore as early as possible, storing the U235 and U238. Once I can, make a limited number of fuel cells (saving the rest of U235 up to 40) and a small 2 or 4 reactor powerplant. Do not worry about using U235 so soon since I'll still produce more than I consume. Once I get Kovarex set it up and expand to anfull "large power plant" setup.

I hope I got all that right.

That's correct. Though most people don't bother with infinitely expandable nuclear designs. Even I rarely do, and I actually designed one of those.

Generally, if you build two 2x4 power plants, you get an equivalent of 56 reactors out of it. If you build a single 2x8 power plant, you get an equivalent of 60 reactors. That's a mere 7% higher output, and will never go beyond 14% even if you build an infinitely long reactor chain. Is the improvement worth the extra hassle, that's the question.

[zOldBulldog]

Generally, if you build two 2x4 power plants, you get an equivalent of 56 reactors out of it. If you build a single 2x8 power plant, you get an equivalent of 60 reactors. That's a mere 7% higher output, and will never go beyond 14% even if you build an infinitely long reactor chain. Is the improvement worth the extra hassle, that's the question.

Excellent point. 2x4 plants are reasonably compact and can be easily placed where convenient. Also not much worry about water, if you need more... put the next one near a different lake.

The flexibility of 2x4 would greatly outweigh that 7% productivity improvement. I'm sold!

Thanks!!!

[mrvn]

Generally, if you build two 2x4 power plants, you get an equivalent of 56 reactors out of it. If you build a single 2x8 power plant, you get an equivalent of 60 reactors. That's a mere 7% higher output, and will never go beyond 14% even if you build an infinitely long reactor chain. Is the improvement worth the extra hassle, that's the question.

Excellent point. 2x4 plants are reasonably compact and can be easily placed where convenient. Also not much worry about water, if you need more... put the next one near a different lake.

The flexibility of 2x4 would greatly outweigh that 7% productivity improvement. I'm sold!

Thanks!!!

What? Your nuclear reactor doesn't run with water trains or water barrels?

[zOldBulldog]

What? Your nuclear reactor doesn't run with water trains or water barrels?

LOL, I'm not megabasing yet.

[mrvn]

What? Your nuclear reactor doesn't run with water trains or water barrels?

LOL, I'm not megabasing yet.

Try it. It's fun. A large reactor running a 100% duty cycle needs something like one fluid tank of water per reactor every 10 seconds (can't remember the exact figure but thereabout).