Trends and Perspectives on Nuclear Waste Management: Recovering, Recycling, and Reusing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for this well-organized paper draft aiming to analyse the current status adopted to minimize both the volume and threat of nuclear waste to be disposed, whilst highlighting potential, most promising options for recycling and reusing of spent fuel. I appreciate the comprehensive and widened view on waste management issues, although limited to technical, mainly physical aspects, the way reprocessing and proliferation issues are addressed may serve as example. Large parts of the article describe mostly well-known characteristics of nuclear energy, physics and related technology (mainly based on information provided by WNA, IAEA, OECD NEA), and therefore read like a sound text book. However, chapters 5 to 7 compile material and thoughts which are innovative and potentially novel to readers. The information about fertile potential of extracted LWR fuel, the limitations of potential transmutation of fission products, and, notably, the introduction of the "separate-extract-reuse" concept are also highly appreciated and in part unique .

A few specific remarks: Please update the current status of nuclear reactors (line 84-86), note that Germany and modern HTGR are missing in the list of graphite-moderated reactors (line 200), note that use of Th is not limited to ADS, address proliferation issues and reprocessing concerns to more detail  (line 431, other countries than the US do not allow reprocessing); reflect weaknesses of FNR (e.g., potential of power excursions), provide current numbers for separation efficiency (as they are key for many developments based on partitioning as rightly stated (line 555)); explain "burn up" and related impact factors, and finally introduce "stewardship" times for long-lived waste and include a figure showing the impact of waste management/P&T strategies on the time needed for safe confinement of the radioactive waste disposed.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English languages appears adequate (to me as a non-native English speaker). 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Author:

The paper provides a detailed view of the challenges and opportunities associated with the nuclear reactor fuel cycle, expressing the hope that new initiatives and achievements in reducing the danger of nuclear waste will contribute to a more favorable image of nuclear energy, positioning it as an essential player in global energy policy. It is a very interesting topic.

 

Dear Authors should pay attention to the revisions, addressing each and every comment:

1. Please highlight the most important originalities of the research in the end introduction.

2. The abstract is very short; it is recommended to make a more complete abstract.

3. Keywords are keywords, not sentences…do not use more than two words.

4. Table number 1 has incomplete sentences, for example: Fuel cladding, filters …

5. Table number 2 is not easy to read because the columns are not aligned.

6. Improve figure 1, it does not look good quality

7. Also, please pay special attention to formatting of references in the Instructions to Authors. It is recommended to put the DOI in all referenced journals. The references are very few for what is requested in this type of Publications.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is a review on the current management of spent nuclear fuel and possible management perspectives.

From a general point of view, and particularly in terms of form, there are too many typographical errors to mention individually (spaces, punctuation, highlighting, spacing in the data table, line breaks within a sentence, etc.).

Structurally, while it follows a logical structure overall, the section discussing transmutation with different technologies could be approached slightly differently. Fast neutron reactors, ADS, SMR, PWR, SNR, etc., are different technologies that deserve dedicated sections to explain their operation with illustrations. These explanations could help the reader better understand the argument for transmutation, a method highlighted in this article.

Considering the section dedicated to the reprocessing of spent fuel, what level of information is targeted? Indeed, there is an interesting discussion on the consequences of reprocessing, particularly with the storage of Pu and the issues related to fertile/fissile/neutron capture nuclei if the recoverable radionuclides contain a mixture of unwanted isotopes. However, beyond that, there is little information on other developing and innovative reprocessing methods, particularly those related to the possibility of preparing targets for transmutation and the conditions for manufacturing these fuels.

The article contains few figures, and the ones presented are taken from other publications and are well known in the field. It would be relevant to propose new figures in the form of diagrams, summaries, or even flowchart, which would help to follow certain reasoning. For example, section 4, between lines 526-537, could be supported by a figure, as could the discussions on the valorization of heavy metals in section 5. Moreover, the title of section 5, "Big Questions," could be rephrased.

Finally, in conclusion, the question of the circular economy by considering the recovery and reuse of radionuclides is opened. It would be interesting to dedicate a section in the article with provided data and references supporting this point of view.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have replied to all the questions and comments. There are still typo errors (spaces, punctuations, line break ....) that need to be carefully checked before publication.

Please correct the name of "Poinssot" line 1049 with one "t" and two "s".

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx