System Studies on the Fusion-Fission Hybrid Systems and Its Fuel Cycle

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors performed a system study on fusion-fission hybrid systems (FFHS) and fuel cycles. The research has been divided into two parts. In the first part of the manuscript, the authors proposed the three (3) FFHS reactors (DEMO-FNS, PIHR, and IHR) for studying a fuel inventory evaluation in the blanket containing a metallic fuel that is an alloy that comprises zirconium and minor actinides (MA). The second part of the study involves the estimation of the accumulated amount of MA in the Russian nuclear power system over 100 years and the potentials of proposed FFHSs for reduction.

In my opinion, this is an interesting report. The manuscript is generally well written and presented, and has a good structure.

Before the publication, I have a few minor comments:

1. The abstract should be re-written. In line 14, the authors claimed that the calculation of nuclide kinetics for the metallic fuel containing MA and neutron transport was performed by the Monte-Carlo method. But, from lines 180-182, it can be seen that the application FISPACT-II has been used to perform the calculation. I assume that the Monte-Carlo method is a part of the application. If this is true, I suggest the authors change the abstract accordingly by pointing out that nuclide kinetics calculations are performed with the FISPACT-II application that contains the Monte-Carlo method. If this is not the case, then in the second section (Materials and Methods), the Monte-Carlo method should be explained in a more detailed way (That would be a major comment).
2. Also, in the abstract, a sentence about achieved results would add to the recognizability of the manuscript.
3. Line 80, Table 1 should be formatted according to Journal rules.
4. Line 82, It seems that the noun phrase „effective“ misses a determiner (The or An) before it.
5. Line 83, Table 2 should be formatted according to Journal rules.
6. Line 162, Table 3 should be formatted according to Journal rules.
7. Line 179, Table 4, should be formatted according to Journal rules.
8. Line 180, for the application FISPACT-II the reference is missing.
9. Line 182, if the Monte-Carlo method is stand-alone, please see comment one (1).
10. Line 189, for the neutron data library ENDF/B-VI, the reference is missing.
11. Line 191, for the nuclear data library TENDL_2014, the reference is missing.
12. Line 187, the sentence „Therefore, our next study will be...“ should be deleted and transferred in conclusion.
13. Line 374, the „-„ sign should be deleted from -28% and -48% since the sentence is about decreasing the MAs.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your work!
I have made the most of the corrections that you suggested. Please see the attachment with the revised version of the article.

You can see some comments below:

1. In line 14. Reference on the Monte-Carlo method here really misleads a reader, because I mean here that only neutron transport calculations were performed via the Monte-Carlo method. While calculations on nuclide kinetics were performed via FISPACT-II program. I have decided to exclude this reference from the abstract.

I have added the extra reference on the method for neutron transport calculations in line 167.

2. Lines 20 – 23. I have added a few lines about results (more detailed)

3, 5, 6, 7. If I understood correctly, I have to delete all vertical lines in the tables. I have deleted outside vertical lines and some of the internal vertical lines (tables 1 – 4: lines 82, 85, 166, 182). I am not really sure what the reviewer means here.

4. Line 85. I have added the definite article

8. Line 183. I have added a new reference (18) to FISPACT program.

9. I have decided not to add extra information as I made another changes.

10. ENDF/B-VI is a library name and version. I am not sure that here some reference is required.

11. TENDL_2014 is a library name and version. I am not sure that here some reference is required.

12. I agree with the reviewer. I have deleted this sentence and added the part of it in conclusion (lines 358-359)

13. It is not a minus sign, but a tilde. I mean by this “about”.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

see attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your work!
I have made the most of the corrections that you suggested. Please see the attachment with the revised version of the article.

You can see some comments below:

1. Yes, it is not the newest data, but not too old. In fact, I don’t mean here a particular time, although I imply the time from the paper I discuss in this part. I will try to find more actual information, but if you do not mind I will make this in future work. There is not much time because I was trying to solve some issues with the editor.

2. Line 54. I have added “of”.

3. I have added clarification in line 75 about what is alpha. I want to emphasize that the letter alpha is widely used for the capture-to-fission ratio.

4. No, for the spectrum of a light water reactor alpha is bigger than 1 for most actinides

5. I think “not” is what I mean here. So I have changed the word (line 97).

6. Yes, of course, “is shown”. I have added “is” (line 181).

7. Yes. I have added “is” (line 225).

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx