Wasteless nuclear reactor design revisited

Don't know how to use a machine? Looking for efficient setups? Stuck in a mission?
Tertius
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1072
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2021 5:58 pm
Contact:

Wasteless nuclear reactor design revisited

Post by Tertius »

With the new fluid mechanic in Factorio 2.0, the classic steam buffer approach to delay inserting the next fuel cell only if the steam buffer is below some threshold doesn't work out well. It's because steam doesn't really flow in and out of a buffer but directly affects fill state. Since we we need a minimum amount of steam to bridge the time required to reheat reactors and heat exchangers, the buffers are already quite full and we don't have much space for excess steam with low power consumption.

We got the reactor temperature to read. But with the classic steam buffer approach, the reactor temperature is vastly changing. The more power consumption, the hotter the reactor needs to be to make enough heat reach all heat exchangers.

So I'm interested if you worked out a new approach that's now working as good or even better than with 1.1! How did you do it now?



My solution is to keep the reactor temperature above a threshold all the time, so that all heat exchangers always stay in the "working" state. However, it's not sufficient to just insert a new cell if the temperature is below that threshold. You still need a buffer, at least with some bigger multi-reactor setups, because without buffer the temperature would reach 1000°C with low power consumption very soon and the rest of the fuel cell is wasted.

So we need a steam buffer. Directly connecting everything (heat exchangers, storage tanks, steam turbines) doesn't work, because with this the buffer is full when we need it empty, and empty when we need it full.
We need a steam buffer control. A control that's operating as a valve between the heat exchangers on one side of the valve and storage tanks + steam turbines at the other side. The valve is an array of pumps, as many as required to overcome the 1200/s limit per pump.

Example:
01-17-2025, 17-24-48.png
01-17-2025, 17-24-48.png (2.32 MiB) Viewed 629 times
We want to keep the buffer fill state as little as possible. It's sufficient if the turbines run with full power, but not more.

We need the valve open, if the temperature is above our temperature threshold and we don't have enough steam.
This way we ensure the required minimum reactor temperature. But if there is low power consumption, the steam buffer stays empty and the reactor temperature rises.

So we need the valve also open, if the temperature is above a high threshold and it's about to go over 1000°C. Only now the steam buffer fills. This way the reactor is cooled and stays slightly below 1000°C until the buffer is full. This way we also make sure the heat pipes and heat exchangers get as much heat as possible to heat up and additionally buffer heat directly as heat. Only if the steam tanks are full, the reactor overheats and we waste our fuel. To avoid this, we need enough steam tanks.

We need a 3rd criteria for the valve. What happens if power consumption is above what the whole power plant is able to provide? The steam buffers eventually run empty, and in this instant (in the same tick!) all steam engines don't provide any power any more. The pumps we use as valve don't have power as well, so it's an immediate blackout (from 100% to zero) without previous brownout. You can provide alternative power to the pumps, but then it toggles between 0 and 100%. To avoid this, we add a 3rd valve condition that's opening the valve if steam is below a very tiny threshold, just big enough to make the turbines operate throttled, so we have our emulated brownout instead of the blackout.

I designed a 2x6 tileable plant, my thresholds are 750°C as minimum reactor temperature, 950°C as high reactor temperature, 1000 steam as regular buffer, 200 steam as brownout buffer (read from a single storage tank), 80 storage tanks as steam buffer. 80 tanks might appear excessive, but 12 fuel cells in a 2x6 setup provide enough energy to fill ~160 tanks! So half of it goes to the tanks, and the other half gets into the reactor and its components as heat. It's still not enough if you don't consume less than about 400 MW, but I would not build a 2x6 setup if I consume less than 400 MW.



If you use the map editor to explore, you just need to provide a bunch of logistics robots. The plant will bootstrap from zero and power up on its own.
The logic is a single combinator.
The low temperatur threshold is T=-750 in the constant combinator, the other thresholds are hardcoded in the combinator and have the -750 subtracted (sorry for that). The array of electric energy interfaces at the bottom are simulated consumers.

To create a second tile, just place the blueprint (minus the simulated consumers) on top of an existing tile, with the reactors lining up. If you force-build, the overlapping entities just required for the initial tile are left out and it's perfect. Don't super-force. 2 more offshore pumps per tile.

Fascinating the new fluid mechanics is not a "dumbed down" version of the old one but instead has new and different challenges on its own.
Shins
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2024 10:32 pm
Contact:

Re: Wasteless nuclear reactor design revisited

Post by Shins »

You do not need a buffer at all. You should try decrease distance from reactors to jest exchangers, check what is minimal temperature when all of them will be supplied with jest and then load nuclear power plant with 1 cell od fuel when tenperature is lower than this value and fuel is equal to 0. I have setting 2x4, 112 jest exchangers and 192 turbines. No buffer, no problems with power.

In my setting I made minimal temperature 550*C, no possibility to reach 1000*C with 1 fuel cell, so nothing is wasted.
User avatar
Khagan
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Wasteless nuclear reactor design revisited

Post by Khagan »

Tertius wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:30 pm My solution is to keep the reactor temperature above a threshold all the time, so that all heat exchangers always stay in the "working" state. However, it's not sufficient to just insert a new cell if the temperature is below that threshold. You still need a buffer, at least with some bigger multi-reactor setups, because without buffer the temperature would reach 1000°C with low power consumption very soon and the rest of the fuel cell is wasted.

So we need a steam buffer.
We already have some buffering in the form of the heat capacity of the reactors and heat pipes. If we think that additional buffer space is needed, the simplest solution is just to add more heat pipes. Running a steam buffer is, as you have shown, not so straightforward. But let's see how much extra buffer is really needed.

I'm going to assume here a 'My First Reactor' design with 2x2 cores; larger power stations will have different numbers, but the principle is the same. The energy delivered by one refueling cycle is 480 MW x 200 s = 96 GJ. There are going to be of the order of 150 heat pipes; for definiteness I'll use 152 (my own actual design has 156). The heat capacity is 1 MJ/°C per pipe and 10 MJ/℃ per reactor, for a total of 192 MJ/°C. So if we could cycle all the way between 500°C and 1000°C we would (coincidentally?) have exactly the capacity required to store all the energy.

Empirical testing in the editor shows that at full load a power plant of this style has a stable core temperature of around 717°C, so to maintain full output when required our threshold temperature should be just above that; let's say 720°C. In extreme low load conditions we then have storage capacity for only 56% of the energy produced, and the rest is wasted.

Brute force solution (expensive): add another 150 heat pipes.
Near-ideal solution (slightly less expensive even for a small plant, and fixed cost independent of plant size): add an unpowered reactor as a thermometer at the far end of one heat line; using its temperature as the reference we can set the threshold to just a whisker above 500°C, and get the maximum (and sufficient) heat storage.
Cheaper but more complicated solution: use steam tanks, as in the OP (but note that once you have more than a couple of dozen cores, it's probably cheaper to use a spare core).

But how much fuel are we really wasting if we don't do any of these? 44% wastage sounds high, but that is 44% of the fuel used, and at extreme low load we are using hardly any fuel: 44% of nothing is nothing.

Ironically, the available heat storage actually goes up with load. Under full load the temperature when the fuel is inserted is 720°C at the reactors, but very close to 500°C at the farthest heat pipe. Taking the average pipe temperature as 610°C, we end up with storage capacity for about 73% of the energy. Interpolating linearly, we can estimate the fractional storage capacity as S = 0.56 + L/6, where L is the load fraction. There will be no wastage as long as this is greater than 1-L, which is true if L is above about 0.38.

For loads less than 0.38, the wastage rate as a fraction of the fuel consumed is w = 1 - L - S = 0.44 - 7L/6. The actual consumption rate has to increase to compensate, from L to R = L/(1-w) = L/(L+S) = L/(0.56 + 7L/6). As a fraction of the maximum fuel consumption of the plant, the wastage rate is W = Rw = L/(L+S) - L (i.e. the gross consumption minus the fuel that is actually used to generate the load). Skipping the gory details of the differential calculus, the maximum wastage is when L is about 0.16, giving a fractional wastage of ~0.25 and an overall wastage rate of ~0.054.

So in the worst case scenario, when the loading is 16% of maximum, the total wastage rate is only 5.4% of the maximum consumption rate (which is 72 cells/hour). That's about 4 fuel cells an hour. This is very different from 1.1, when steam tank monitoring was potentially saving wastage rates up to 100% of the maximum consumption rate.

Even pre-kovarex, when U235 is quite valuable, the average rate of return on investment of any of the methods to avoid wastage is IMO too small to bother with.
Shins wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 9:27 pm In my setting I made minimal temperature 550*C
I am sceptical that this is sufficient to maintain uninterrupted power at full load.
Jarolleon
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Wasteless nuclear reactor design revisited

Post by Jarolleon »

Khagan wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 11:29 pm
Tertius wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:30 pm My solution is to keep the reactor temperature above a threshold all the time, so that all heat exchangers always stay in the "working" state. However, it's not sufficient to just insert a new cell if the temperature is below that threshold. You still need a buffer, at least with some bigger multi-reactor setups, because without buffer the temperature would reach 1000°C with low power consumption very soon and the rest of the fuel cell is wasted.

So we need a steam buffer.
We already have some buffering in the form of the heat capacity of the reactors and heat pipes. If we think that additional buffer space is needed, the simplest solution is just to add more heat pipes. Running a steam buffer is, as you have shown, not so straightforward. But let's see how much extra buffer is really needed.

I'm going to assume here a 'My First Reactor' design with 2x2 cores; larger power stations will have different numbers, but the principle is the same. The energy delivered by one refueling cycle is 480 MW x 200 s = 96 GJ. There are going to be of the order of 150 heat pipes; for definiteness I'll use 152 (my own actual design has 156). The heat capacity is 1 MJ/°C per pipe and 10 MJ/℃ per reactor, for a total of 192 MJ/°C. So if we could cycle all the way between 500°C and 1000°C we would (coincidentally?) have exactly the capacity required to store all the energy.

Empirical testing in the editor shows that at full load a power plant of this style has a stable core temperature of around 717°C, so to maintain full output when required our threshold temperature should be just above that; let's say 720°C. In extreme low load conditions we then have storage capacity for only 56% of the energy produced, and the rest is wasted.

Brute force solution (expensive): add another 150 heat pipes.
Near-ideal solution (slightly less expensive even for a small plant, and fixed cost independent of plant size): add an unpowered reactor as a thermometer at the far end of one heat line; using its temperature as the reference we can set the threshold to just a whisker above 500°C, and get the maximum (and sufficient) heat storage.
Cheaper but more complicated solution: use steam tanks, as in the OP (but note that once you have more than a couple of dozen cores, it's probably cheaper to use a spare core).

But how much fuel are we really wasting if we don't do any of these? 44% wastage sounds high, but that is 44% of the fuel used, and at extreme low load we are using hardly any fuel: 44% of nothing is nothing.

Ironically, the available heat storage actually goes up with load. Under full load the temperature when the fuel is inserted is 720°C at the reactors, but very close to 500°C at the farthest heat pipe. Taking the average pipe temperature as 610°C, we end up with storage capacity for about 73% of the energy. Interpolating linearly, we can estimate the fractional storage capacity as S = 0.56 + L/6, where L is the load fraction. There will be no wastage as long as this is greater than 1-L, which is true if L is above about 0.38.

For loads less than 0.38, the wastage rate as a fraction of the fuel consumed is w = 1 - L - S = 0.44 - 7L/6. The actual consumption rate has to increase to compensate, from L to R = L/(1-w) = L/(L+S) = L/(0.56 + 7L/6). As a fraction of the maximum fuel consumption of the plant, the wastage rate is W = Rw = L/(L+S) - L (i.e. the gross consumption minus the fuel that is actually used to generate the load). Skipping the gory details of the differential calculus, the maximum wastage is when L is about 0.16, giving a fractional wastage of ~0.25 and an overall wastage rate of ~0.054.

So in the worst case scenario, when the loading is 16% of maximum, the total wastage rate is only 5.4% of the maximum consumption rate (which is 72 cells/hour). That's about 4 fuel cells an hour. This is very different from 1.1, when steam tank monitoring was potentially saving wastage rates up to 100% of the maximum consumption rate.

Even pre-kovarex, when U235 is quite valuable, the average rate of return on investment of any of the methods to avoid wastage is IMO too small to bother with.
Shins wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 9:27 pm In my setting I made minimal temperature 550*C
I am sceptical that this is sufficient to maintain uninterrupted power at full load.
It's pretty simple at the 4 core stage once you consider that heat exchangers have the same heat capacity as pipes, and vent 2 GJ of heat over 200 seconds, effectively making them 2.5 GJ buffers. So the 76 GJ of output not buffered by the reactors themselves can be done with 20 HEs and 46 pipes or some similar combination. High-quality HEs can make the design more compact, and the amount of steam storage capacity you need to make it work is:

((# of HEs)*10MW-Power consumption of base)*200s*10300 steam per GJ

So for a 20 MW base with 20 heat exchangers I would need (20HEs*10MW/HE-20MW)*200seconds*10300=32GJ*10300Steam/GJ=329600 steam, or about 15 storage tanks, which at 75 steel, 300 iron is dirt cheap at that stage of the game. This way you don't have to worry about long heat pipe routes, the heat gets to the HEs in seconds, so you can start from 501 C every time steam is running low, something controllable with 3 conditions in a single decider combinator and inserters with stack size overriden to 1.

I haven't tried bigger setups but I assume it is the same principle, perhaps with min steam threshold raised to account for lag time (a few quick calculations shows that 6 reactors could adequately vented by 8 pipelines of 5 exchangers each). As for why you'd like to conserve such an abundant fuel source in this way, consider its alterative uses. You could use the U-235 for biolabs, nukes, and (indirectly) portable reactors, you could use the U-238 for ammunition rather than Kovarex enrichment, you could have just one centrifuge and 2-3 miners, leaving the red circuits and sulfur for other purposes.
User avatar
Khagan
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Wasteless nuclear reactor design revisited

Post by Khagan »

Jarolleon wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2025 5:55 pm
Khagan wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 11:29 pm
Shins wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 9:27 pm In my setting I made minimal temperature 550*C
I am sceptical that this is sufficient to maintain uninterrupted power at full load.
It's pretty simple at the 4 core stage once you consider that heat exchangers have the same heat capacity as pipes,
I completely forgot the heat capacity of the heat exchangers. So the total capacity of the design I considered is 240 MJ/°C, not 192 MJ/°C, which with a threshold of 720° can store at least 75% of the energy of one fuelling cycle, not 56%. Even completely ignoring the increased capacity at higher loads, the worst case scenario drops from 5.4% wastage to about 1.6% (12.5% of 12.5%): about 1 fuel cell per hour.
15 storage tanks, which at 75 steel, 300 iron is dirt cheap at that stage of the game
I would call it a very high price to save a maximum of 1 fuel cell an hour (even pre-kovarex).
This way you don't have to worry about long heat pipe routes, the heat gets to the HEs in seconds, so you can start from 501 C every time steam is running low
550° was already implausibly low for full power; 501° is absurd. Consider a single line of 12 exchangers (yes, a 2x2 plant can use shorter lines, but 12 is pretty much the minimum for larger ones). We have to push 120 MW along the line, with the outer end being at at least 501°. The temperature drop in °C per segment of heat pipe is 1 + P/15 MW, where P is the power, and we have 3 segments per exchanger. That's 3 lots of 9°, plus 3 of 8.3°, plus 3 of 7.7°, etc. ending with 3 of 1.7°; all adding up to 192°. Add couple more pipe segments at the front end (9° each) to connect to the reactor, and we get very close to my empirically observed 216°.
Tertius
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1072
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2021 5:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Wasteless nuclear reactor design revisited

Post by Tertius »

To be honest, I didn't want to replicate the old discussion of how much heat can be stored within the power plant, since this didn't change. It's all known already, and all the formulas presented never tell the whole story of how much heat is actually able to travel to all entities before the reactor gets to 1000°C and wastes the heat from then on. All the components never heat all the way from 500°C to 1000°C. The starting temperature is higher the nearer to the reactor and the ending temperature is lower the more far away from the reactor. The range is also dependent from current reactor load. May be 50% of the theoretical maximum heat capacity can be actually used.

It also depends on the neighbor bonus. A 2x2 reactor is a toy. It behaves very different to a 2x6 reactor, and it gets even more different if you use even more reactors. The calculations I do assume a power output of 160 MW for each reactor. That's the theoretical power output of an infinite 2x line. This results in 32 GJ per fuel cell to store as heat or steam. For a 2x6 reactor plant this is 2*6*32=384 MJ, which is the equivalent of 156.7 steam tanks or 768 heat pipes or heat exchangers or 76.8 reactors. I calculate this way to be on the safe side when I add another tile to the tileable 2x6 setup. On my largest reactor setup in 1.1, I built up to 7 tiles of a 2x6 reactor, resulting in 84 reactors (there were simply no bigger lakes to build the reactor on). But this is all theory, and we will probably not build such big nuclear plants any more, since we eventually get fusion power.

If I monitor my power plant, for example a layout I presented in the OP, reaching 1000°C starts at about 40-50% of the power cell, if power usage is currently low. That's the thing I observe, and that's the thing I want to avoid. I know, uranium is available in vast amounts. However we are given the tools to avoid wasting uranium, so I'm using them. And I'm interested in how others use the new tools (reading temperature) in combination with the new fluid system (no flow, just fluid level).

Do you use the new tools and how, or do you ignore them and just ignore any fuel cell wasting?

So far I saw 2 new implementations. One that manages minimum temperature, and one that additionally opens the valve to fill steam tanks in case reactor temperature gets too high. Are there others? Perhaps the same concept but better implementation?
Jarolleon
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Wasteless nuclear reactor design revisited

Post by Jarolleon »

Khagan wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 4:58 am
Jarolleon wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2025 5:55 pm
Khagan wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 11:29 pm
Shins wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 9:27 pm In my setting I made minimal temperature 550*C
I am sceptical that this is sufficient to maintain uninterrupted power at full load.
It's pretty simple at the 4 core stage once you consider that heat exchangers have the same heat capacity as pipes,
I completely forgot the heat capacity of the heat exchangers. So the total capacity of the design I considered is 240 MJ/°C, not 192 MJ/°C, which with a threshold of 720° can store at least 75% of the energy of one fuelling cycle, not 56%. Even completely ignoring the increased capacity at higher loads, the worst case scenario drops from 5.4% wastage to about 1.6% (12.5% of 12.5%): about 1 fuel cell per hour.
15 storage tanks, which at 75 steel, 300 iron is dirt cheap at that stage of the game
I would call it a very high price to save a maximum of 1 fuel cell an hour (even pre-kovarex).
This way you don't have to worry about long heat pipe routes, the heat gets to the HEs in seconds, so you can start from 501 C every time steam is running low
550° was already implausibly low for full power; 501° is absurd. Consider a single line of 12 exchangers (yes, a 2x2 plant can use shorter lines, but 12 is pretty much the minimum for larger ones). We have to push 120 MW along the line, with the outer end being at at least 501°. The temperature drop in °C per segment of heat pipe is 1 + P/15 MW, where P is the power, and we have 3 segments per exchanger. That's 3 lots of 9°, plus 3 of 8.3°, plus 3 of 7.7°, etc. ending with 3 of 1.7°; all adding up to 192°. Add couple more pipe segments at the front end (9° each) to connect to the reactor, and we get very close to my empirically observed 216°.
Oh, I misunderstood then. 15 steam tanks & everything else I said is for an intermittent power setup where the output of the reactors vastly outstrips grid consumption, which could save up to 17 cells per reactor per hour compared to just shoving them in every 200 seconds. At full power you'd need only 1 probably to handle fluctuations, it's proportional to the difference between your maximum HE output and your power grid consumption.
waterBear
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Wasteless nuclear reactor design revisited

Post by waterBear »

I don't see the problem.

We have a 24 reactor setup with ~660 turbines. It's triggered to insert 1 cell when temp < 700 on the sentinel reactor (all 24 receive a cell at the same time, to ensure neighbor bonus). Watching the most distant heat exchanger, it never got to 1000 C (not even close, actually) so at no point could you say that the fuel cell was "wasted". I guess you could wait until the exchanger was closer to 500, which would correspond to triggering on a lower reactor temperature?

We are sitting at roughly 10-15% load on that reactor setup, too. Why are your exchangers getting to 1k?
Tertius
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1072
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2021 5:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Wasteless nuclear reactor design revisited

Post by Tertius »

waterBear wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 7:27 pm Watching the most distant heat exchanger, it never got to 1000 C (not even close, actually) so at no point could you say that the fuel cell was "wasted".
Fuel is wasted as soon as the reactor itself reaches 1000°C. Not something in the reactor vicinity. The fuel cell is burning in the reactor, so if it heats more than is dissipated by the heat pipes, so the reactor temperature would rise above 1000°C, it stays at 1000 and any surplus is destroyed.
User avatar
Khagan
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Wasteless nuclear reactor design revisited

Post by Khagan »

Tertius wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 10:32 am A 2x2 reactor is a toy. It behaves very different to a 2x6 reactor, and it gets even more different if you use even more reactors.
I think 'toy' is an exaggeration. It's true that larger reactors have more design constraints than smaller ones, so solutions that work for the latter may not be applicable to the former. On the other hand, the issue of fuel wastage is more significant in practice for the small ones.

Your first 2x2 reactor might well produce ten times the power you actually need, so extended operation at low load is something that really happens; and this is quite likely to be pre-kovarex, so U235 is precious and you are still trying to collect that all-important first stack of 40. By the time you are building a large reactor the problem is less important: you are definitely going to be kovarexing, so U235 isn't especially valuable, and you are unlikely to be running at extremely low loads for long (if you are, why build the large reactor in the first place?).
If I monitor my power plant, for example a layout I presented in the OP, reaching 1000°C starts at about 40-50% of the power cell, if power usage is currently low. That's the thing I observe, and that's the thing I want to avoid.
As I said earlier, that's 40-50% of the fuel consumed. If the load is low, the consumption is low and so is the wastage. So IMO just monitoring the temperature does all that is required in practice. It's not perfect, but it's enough to stop the high levels of waste that would result from shovelling the fuel in regardless, and the residual wastage when usage is low is negligible. Also, any capital expenditure on mitigating fuel wastage at low load is completely wasted once the load is consistently high enough to avoid overfilling the heat capacity.

Having said that, I now have some new design ideas rattling round my head that would go in the opposite direction: absolutely minimising heat pipe usage (and hence capital cost) at the expense of higher wastage at low load ...
waterBear
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Wasteless nuclear reactor design revisited

Post by waterBear »

Tertius wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 8:04 pm
waterBear wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 7:27 pm Watching the most distant heat exchanger, it never got to 1000 C (not even close, actually) so at no point could you say that the fuel cell was "wasted".
Fuel is wasted as soon as the reactor itself reaches 1000°C. Not something in the reactor vicinity. The fuel cell is burning in the reactor, so if it heats more than is dissipated by the heat pipes, so the reactor temperature would rise above 1000°C, it stays at 1000 and any surplus is destroyed.
The simplest solution is to remove reactors or increase load. If I just turn utilization up closer to 100%, then the reactor won't be reaching 1k.

Add a few TJ of Legendary accumulators.

I can see that this thread is not for me. :)
Post Reply

Return to “Gameplay Help”