High-Fidelity Monte Carlo Modelling of the HTGR Fuel Cycle for Fuel Utilization Optimization and Nuclear Safety Assurance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.  Multiple figures (e.g., Figs. 6, 8, 9) incorrectly reference "V1_En12%_Pf30%" when describing V2/V3 configurations. Revise all figure captions and in-text references to match the actual geometry (V2/V3) being presented—this is essential to avoid reader confusion about core performance data.
2. Tables 6 and 7 falsely label their subject as "geometry V1" but present V3 data. Correct table headers to "geometry V3" and verify alignment between table titles, content, and in-text citations (e.g., Section 5.5) to ensure data integrity.
3.  The study uses variable TRISO packing fractions (e.g., 12% for V2_12% enrichment vs. 30% for lower enrichments) but lacks clear explanation of how these values were selected to optimize fuel utilization. Add a subsection in "4. Core Configuration" detailing the engineering/neutronic basis for packing fraction adjustments (e.g., reactivity balance, thermal limits).
4.  The manuscript notes that high burnup (~100 MWd/kgHM) for V2 may face licensing challenges but provides no specifics. Expand Section 5.4 or 6 to outline key regulatory barriers (e.g., TRISO coating durability, fission product retention) and how the V2 design addresses them (e.g., safety margins, thermal performance) to strengthen practical relevance.
5. Currently, core performance metrics (cycle length, FIFA, burnup) are scattered across Tables 2–7. Add a synthesis table summarizing key outputs (per geometry/enrichment) to enable direct cross-comparison—this will help readers quickly identify trade-offs between compactness (V1/V3) and efficiency (V2).
6. Correct recurring errors (e.g., "leneiePmel" in Fig. 8, duplicate "Figure 10" label for V3 temp data, inconsistent subscript formatting for isotopes like \(^{238}U\)) to maintain scientific rigor and readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

I have read your manuscript with interest. The topic and research align with the Polish nuclear programme and the ambition to construct a fleet of nuclear power plants, including those with cogeneration capability (as mentioned the project GEMINIMI+). The presented analysis is one piece of a puzzle to be collected in this work. 

My comments, which might improve the manuscript:

• Lines 134-136: I would support your statement with some references.
• Somehow, I have missed references 14 & 15 in the text.
• Conclusions: my guess is that the analysed type of reactors is planned to be used for cogeneration (electricity and heat or even in addition cold) purposes. If so, that part is missing.
• Lines 725-726: most probably, those lines are unnecessary.

I wish the Author every success in the research.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents novel finding with rigorous methodology and clear conclusions. I fully recommend its acceptance without revisions.