Obviously going wider instead of longer is a benefit and using any tile left over can't hurt.foamy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:29 pmI don't have math, but what I did with my 2xN layout was to have every single tile not strictly being used for something else (fuel in/out & power supply) be a heat pipe. Because of the tiling requirements I needed a horizontal bus *anyway*, and I simply made that one tile wider than needed in order to gain a lot of buffer capacity without a major lengthening of the heat exchanger rows.
Images here: viewtopic.php?f=208&t=87432&p=504270#p504270
Your heat exchangers are further away from the reactors compared to my setup though. I just have one line for inserters and one for underground belts and buffer chests and then a water hole for the offshore pump. The belt is half fuel cells and half spend fuel cells, doing double duty. Getting them nearer to the reactor increases the temperature range one can use. So my thinking is that the extra heatpipes would be better on the other end, between the heat exchangers and the turbines.
But your design touches on a question I have about the best layout of the heat exchangers. I have a single line of heat exchangers per reactors. Don't even have them cross connected with heat pipes at all. You have double line of heat exchangers, potentially a more dense design. But then you waste one tile between heat exchangers where the steam comes out. (I do too because it aligns to each reactor for me and I don't have to cheat by landfilling the offshore pumps then). But a denser design should give more heat capacity if one goes for the optimal setup.