A Review of Perspectives on Developing Floating Wind Farms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the submitted manuscript authors try to take snapshot of the current situation of the floating wind turbines concepts and projects around the world. The authors analyzed an enormous amount of collected data to classify (by means of very useful tables) concepts and projects in terms of cost and power capacity. The topic is of interest and the proposed objective is very ambitious since the authors analyzed 100 papers, but I noticed some issues to be addressed before continuing with the review process.

In general, the proposed manuscript is not well organized, by considering the fact that authors performed a review paper, the analysis of literature is very complex for the reader, and the fact that the references were not numbered in order of appearance in the text does not help. This caused great difficulties in reading manuscript and in performing a correct analysis of it. The literature cited is not always quite relevant to the matter, there are many cited papers not properly described in the main text, these have been presented as a simple list (i.g. at line 446; Also see [7,12,17-19,20,21,44,50,54,55,59,66,68,76,83]).

I am not sure if the references [15], [16], and [13] discussed between lines 25 and 37 are correct, this must be verified.

I suggest to include also the following useful article: Pantusa, D., and Tomasicchio, G.R. (2019). Large-scale offshore wind production in the Mediterranean Sea, Cogent Engineering, 6:1, 1661112, DOI: 10.1080/23311916.2019.1661112

The authors used the term "floating wind" (e.g.. Lines 8, 12, 51, 55, 59,83, etc..), are they sure about this choice?

Another concern is related to the sections 2.1.3. Worldwide Barge floating wind concepts, 2.1.4. Worldwide TLP floating wind concepts and 2.1.5. Worldwide multi-turbine floating wind concepts. These are too short to justify a subparagraph!

The meaning of the Figures 3,4,5,6 and 7 is not clear, furthermore no adequate text space is devoted to their description.

My feelings are that the authors can try to address the suggested issues and to increase, in this, way, the potential of the Manuscript.

Minor:

Line 82 and line 212: ABS Group or ABSG Consulting?

Line 96: are you referring to reference n. 27?

It seems that reference [18] is reported in the reference section but is not discussed in the main text, verify.

Author Response

I will answer the comments in numbers:

1. I renumbered the references in order of appearance in the text
2. I included more information about the references: [7,12,17-19,20,21,44,50,54,55,59,66,68,76,83].

And I have modified the text context as much as possible to make it relevant to the references

3. The references [15], [16], and [13] are correct, I verified them. I renumbered them according to their appearance in the text.
4. I have included the suggested reference in the paper: Pantusa, D., Tomasicchio, G.R. (2019). Large-scale offshore wind production in the Mediterranean Sea, Cogent Engineering, 6:1, 1661112, DOI: 10.1080/23311916.2019.1661112
5. The choice of “floating wind” term between lines 8-83, etc., sounds OK to me
6. I have merged the subparagraphs 2.1.3., 2.1.4., and 2.1.5. into a single subparagraph as was suggested
7. I have described Figures 3-7 more adequately and have devoted more text description text for them
8. I have modified ABS Group to ABSG Consulting as was suggested
9. Yes, the reference 27 was referred to in line 96. However, it was renumbered according to its appearance in the text
10. I have discussed the reference 18 in the main text

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript offers a review of floating wind farms, outlining their concepts and enumerating ongoing and prospective projects worldwide, with a focus on various aspects such as costs and power capacity. As stated in the abstract, the paper aims to 'give a taste' to readers about floating wind projects. Tthe content is indeed quite basic, primarily reorganizing existing data from the literature without providing deeper insights typically expected in a robust review paper. Its suitability for publication in this journal, therefore, remains uncertain. Additionally, the paper's structure could benefit from further refinement. Here are some specific suggestions:

For a review paper, it would be beneficial for the author to provide a clear outline at the end of the introduction. This should highlight the key information in each subsequent section, aiding readers in locating specific information.

Section 2.1's description of the four common types of floating wind turbines is overly simplistic. Readers would likely expect more detailed explanations of their functionality and the physical principles underlying each type. A comparative analysis highlighting their respective advantages and disadvantages would also be valuable.

Section 3: Results contains numerous repetitive sentences, lending it a report-like quality rather than that of a review paper. A more effective approach to presenting these results would be to organize them into tables for each subsection, thereby reducing repetition. Additionally, more in-depth discussions would enhance the overall quality and insightfulness of the results and analysis.

The language used in this manuscript is more like a report, rather than a review paper. The authors should consider more diversity of the sentence used in the manuscript.

Author Response

I will answer the comments in numbers:

1. I have provided deeper insights regarding the presented data of floating wind concepts and projects in Section 4
2. I have provided key information at the end of the introduction, as well as in each subsequent section
3. I have added a brief table regarding some of the advantages and disadvantages of the most popular floating wind turbine concepts in Section 2.1 and made a reference to Section 4 where additional comparative data about the different concepts can be found. My aim was to not add more detailed data in this section which will increase its complexity and reduce the clarity, and rather focus on the materials and methods in this section
4. I have eliminated the repetitive sentences from Section 3 and included the data of each subsection in corresponding tables as was suggested
5. I have added more in-depth discussions in Section 4 as was suggested to enhance the overall quality and insightfulness of the results presented in Section 3
6. I have enhanced the language used in the paper and added more sentence diversity as was suggested

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments have been considered.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your very constructive comments and suggestions!

Reviewer 2 Report

From authors' reply, the authors seem to have solved all the comments I provided in the last review report. However, I can only find the description of the change, but not the actual change made in the revised manuscript. I was not sure why this happens, but this makes me unable to change my decision in this round of review.

Author Response

I will answer the comments in numbers:

1. I have provided deeper insights regarding the presented data of floating wind concepts and projects in Section 4
2. I have provided key information at the end of the introduction, as well as in each subsequent section
3. I have added a brief table regarding some of the advantages and disadvantages of the most popular floating wind turbine concepts in Section 2.1 and made a reference to Section 4 where additional comparative data about the different concepts can be found. My aim was to not add more detailed data in this section which will increase its complexity and reduce the clarity, and rather focus on the materials and methods in this section
4. I have eliminated the repetitive sentences from Section 3 and included the data of each subsection in corresponding tables as was suggested
5. I have added more in-depth discussions in Section 4 as was suggested to enhance the overall quality and insightfulness of the results presented in Section 3
6. I have enhanced the language used in the paper and added more sentence diversity as was suggested

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed all my previous questions. I would like to recommend the publication of this work.