When I use the centrifuge, I make two flavors of uranium, and if I hit an unlucky patch, the lights could go out. But from what I've read, creating an actual working nuclear power plant is a ton of work. I've developed the nuclear tech and can make a reactor. THEN back to the game!!! :Dįirst, Nuclear (or as most politicians would say, "nukyerler"). But I really need to find out a few things, so I'm going to ask some questions in separate threads here. An issue is that if I hit a problem/question that I can't resolve in a few minutes of googling, I generally just jump back into the game and live with it. Changed nuclear reactor stack size to 10.I'm new to the game and have been playing pretty non-stop for a few days.Heat pipes (also in reactors and heat exchangers) glow with high temperatures.This explosion has enough power to destroy other reactors, so one explosion can lead to a chain reaction of exploding reactors.
If a reactor is destroyed (by damage) while it is above 900☌, it will explode just like an atomic bomb. In the limit (infinite number of reactors), the ratio approaches 1.25 as the edge corrections become insignificant. After some calculation, one arrives at the expression for the ratio of the two (double-row design in denominator) as (1.25n − sqrt(n)) ÷ (n − 1) which evaluates to, for example, 1 for 4 reactors, 1.07 for 16 reactors, 1.16 for 100 reactors (considering only numbers that both an equal-length double row and a square can be built from), and so on. However, while the heat pipe links will allow energy flow from reactors within the square, with no room around inner reactors, there will be no way to insert and remove fuel cells except manually (heat pipes are traversable by the player), which makes this setup impractical.įurthermore, the gains compared to the double-row design are not large. This setup produces 200n − 160×sqrt(n) MW (where sqrt(n) is the square root of the number of reactors). Theoretically, a perfectly square grid of reactors with no spaces between would provide maximum bonus, as it minimizes the number of reactors with unlinked sides. As an example, a 5×2 reactor grid would produce 1,440 MW (1.44 GW), the equivalent of 1,600 steam engines, or 24,000 solar panels. In any case however, such concerns are unlikely to arise until one has a very large base, as the individual output of reactors is massive, particularly with neighbour bonuses. Placing the odd reactor between the ends of aligned rows would also lead to one fewer bonus, and also make the design un-tileable. Offsetting the longer row instead would not gain the extra reactor any bonus, while the reactor on the other end of the same row would lose its bonus as well. Odd numbers of reactors are inefficient in maximizing the bonus, but, if needed, the odd reactor should be aligned with one of the rows. Splitting the row, while possibly logistically beneficial, reduces total power output by 160 MW per split. For even numbers of reactors, the total output of the array is 160n − 160 MW (where n = total number of reactors, and assuming all are fueled). The most efficient practical layout is an aligned double row of arbitrary length (number of reactors as needed). 2 reactors are directly next to eachother with all 3 heat connections directly connecting the two.For example, two reactors operating next to each other will output a total of 160 MW of thermal energy, with each reactor producing 40 MW base and receiving 40 MW of neighbour bonus. Reactors receive a bonus for adjacent operating reactors, which increases their effective thermal output by 100% per each such link.
0 kommentar(er)
