Accelerating Small Modular Reactor Deployment and Clean Energy Transitions: An Algebraic Model for Achieving Net-Zero Emissions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article entitled “Accelerating SMR Deployment and Clean Energy Transitions: An Algebraic Model for Achieving Net-Zero Emissions” has been reviewed and the comments are as follows.
1.    How does this model response with respect to disruptions or shocks on ensuring a smooth SMR deployment.
2.    More clarity is expected on the relationships between nuclear fission dynamics and SMR construction rates.
3.    Explain how the weight coefficients and interaction coefficients are determined in the proposed work.
4.    Mention how the dataset diversity is ensured in this work when analysed with a few country data.
5.    Additionally, the authors are also expected to indicate how the model address data scarcity, particularly in regions with limited historical nuclear construction data or incomplete records.
6.    Discuss about the suitability of the proposed model on different regulatory landscapes. Discuss about the parameters that are need to be changed with respect to different landscapes.
7.    A detailed explanation is required on the logistic function assumption. Explain how the values of sigmoid functions are determined in this work.
8.    The authors are advised to calculate Root Mean Squared Error, Mean Absolute Percentage Error in addition to RPE.
9.    Present the possibility of integrating the proposed approach with the existing energy transition models.
10.    Conclude the paper by mentioning a possible feedback mechanism that can be adopted with the proposed work for addressing the dynamic changes.

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We have revised the manuscript to address all reviewer comments. We appreciate your time and consideration.

Best Regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Abstrac should be rearranged with findings, mainly aim was presented.
2. A scheme can be good regarding study needings and model accomplishements, a crosscheck scheme can be good to see, what is done what is not
3. What is the limitation, and advantages and disadvantages of this model
4. What is the reproducibility of this model, and how the authors fit this model to a different country, or level
5. What is the differences with avalaible models in the literature, more discuss is needed.

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We have revised the manuscript to address all reviewer comments. We appreciate your time and consideration.

Best Regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

The abstract is dense and highly technical in some places. It would benefit from clearer segmentation of the problem, method, and results.

While the abstract is detailed, breaking down some of the longer sentences could improve readability. For instance, the sentence starting with "By incorporating the algebraic formula..." could be split for better clarity.

Avoid we if possible in your abstract to make it more formal research paper

Through a systematic, algebraic framework, this study aims to make a significant contribution to optimizing the deployment of SMRs, thereby accelerating the transition to a sustainable, low-carbon energy future. ß please rewrite and make it simple, for example reduce “to”

 

Some sentences are overly complex (e.g., “Through this integrated approach, we offer a comprehensive analysis of the critical factors that affect the deployment of clean energy, focusing on SMRs, and emphasize the need to accelerate the transition to net-zero emissions.”).

Consider breaking long sentences into shorter, clearer statements.

 

Introduction

The introduction mentions the importance of SMRs but does not clearly explain what specific gaps exist in the current research.

The final paragraph introduces the algebraic model abruptly without explaining why this approach is necessary.

Explain why an algebraic model is needed compared to other existing models.

I need your clarification:

"Clean energy, in this context, is defined as energy sources with a carbon intensity below 20 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (g CO2, /kWh), ensuring all sources comply with stringent emission standards."

• Where does this 20 g CO₂/kWh threshold come from? Is it based on an international standard (e.g., IPCC, IEA)?
• Does this definition exclude certain low-carbon technologies (e.g., carbon capture, biomass)?

Section 1.2 need to be included in introduction section 1. Its is to long and contributions seems are over claim.

 

"The algebraic framework thus serves as an essential tool for decision-makers, offering actionable guidance on managing the complexities of SMR construction and optimizing deployment."

• Has this model been tested or validated in real-world SMR projects?
• What kind of decision-making scenarios can this model support?
• How does this framework compare to existing industry tools used for energy infrastructure planning?

 

For methodology:

please make a flow of the methodology u have used in this research. It seems too textual and does not make the reader interested

 

The model is presented as an advancement, but there is no clear justification for using algebraic modeling instead of alternative approaches like machine learning, agent-based modeling, or Monte Carlo simulations.

Briefly explain why algebraic modeling was selected and what benefits it provides over other methods.

The U.S. was chosen due to data availability, but this does not justify why it is an appropriate case study for global SMR deployment.
Explain why the U.S. construction trends are representative (or not) of broader global trends.

 

 

Discussion

The model predicts a lower SMR construction rate than DICE (5.2 → 3.7 units/year by 2050), but the implications of this reduction are not discussed.

Address whether this slower deployment rate affects net-zero targets, energy security, or policy planning.

 

The model predicts a lower construction rate than DICE (5.2 → 3.7 units/year by 2050). Does this suggest that previous models overestimated SMR deployment feasibility?

 

What quantitative validation metrics (e.g., RMSE, R² correlation) were used to compare model predictions with historical data?

 

Can this model be adapted to simulate the impact of new policies (e.g., government subsidies for SMRs)?

 

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We have revised the manuscript to address all reviewer comments. We appreciate your time and consideration.

Best Regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript conducts a theoretical study on the construction rate of clean energy, especially small modular reactors, by establishing a theoretical model. The research content and structure of this manuscript have certain guiding and practical significance for the construction of clean energy. We suggest that the author make some optimizations to the manuscript in the following aspects.

(1) Visual pictures need to be added to sections 1.1 and 1.2, so that readers can better understand the purpose and urgency of the study;

(2) What software tools did the author use for model calculation and analysis?

(3) Why did you choose the United States, Japan, and Canada as the research objects? Can you add some research on developing countries to better illustrate the applicability of this model?

(4) For the construction rate of SMR in the future, can the author provide relatively clear quantitative and visual indicator data?

(5) Are there other models that can perform similar simulations and predictions in recent times? If so, it is recommended to compare their simulation and prediction results with this study.

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We have revised the manuscript to address all reviewer comments. We appreciate your time and consideration.

Best Regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have carried out all suitable corrections suggested by me and they have improved the paper well. Hence the paper shall be accepted in present form.

Author Response

Thank you!

Regards,

Elaheh Shobeiri

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors appropriately revised the amendments.

Author Response

Thank you!

Regards,

Elaheh Shobeiri

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After careful revisions, the author has correctly responded to the reviewer's comments, and the quality of the manuscript has greatly improved. It is recommended to accept it. 

Author Response

Thank you!

Regards,

Elaheh Shobeiri