Energy and Business Synergy: Leveraging Biogenic Resources from Agriculture, Waste, and Wastewater in German Rural Areas

TITLE: The current is slightly disjointed from the content of the study. Consider revising it to include the study area.

Thank you for the valuable feedback. The title changed to "Energy and Business Synergy: Leveraging Biogenic Resources from Agriculture, Waste, and Wastewater in German rural areas"

L24-31: Before this line, it should be clearly indicated with supporting citations:

(a)    What is the current global energy demand,

(b)    Is this energy being tapped from clean and sustainable sources?

This way, the text will conduct the reader into what is described in L24-31. I am not exactly convinced that the energy transition emphasizes more efficient use of energy only but it should also be mentioned that the shift is geared towards clean energy that will reduce the effects of climate change. At this point, the concept that this forms part of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goal 7 should be highlighted and this will give your study more weight.

Manousakis, N. M., Karagiannopoulos, P. S., Tsekouras, G. J., & Kanellos, F. D. (2023). Integration of Renewable Energy and Electric Vehicles in Power Systems: A Review. Processes, 11, 154.

Holechek, J. L., Geli, H. M. E., Sawalhah, M. N., & Valdez, R. (2022). A Global Assessment: Can Renewable Energy Replace Fossil Fuels by 2050? . Sustainability, 14, 4792.

The introduction of the paper was strengthened accordingly.

L34: Planning should come first before transition.

· The sentence was adopted to this comment.

Materials and Methods

L40-41, L48-52: supporting citation(s) required

It is not clearly shown which models are in place, and how the proposed approach builds on or is better than the previously reported approach.

·         Supporting citations were added.

L83: Revise 2.1. Background >> 2.1. Study area description.

-It would be largely beneficial to give a map of the study area.

-It seems that the readers will miss some information on wastes generated in the study area.

-There is repeated use of the word ‘‘Case Study Area’’. In my opinion, it would be important to explicitly use the name of the area under study.

·         the headline was changed according to this comment

·         A map of the study area and a map of its location were added.

·         A detailed description of the generated wastes in the study area is given the inventory analysis

L123-222: Is this a completely new approach or it builds on previous studies? You could already cite relevant literature which adopted some of these methodological approaches utilized in this study.

·         To address this, two introductory paragraphs have been added at the beginning of the methodology section.

RESULTS

-          Please remove the equations in this section and move them to the METHODS section.  

-          Largely, I would not expect any citation(s) in this section as it should contain only your results being described.

·         The equation and its explanation were moved to the Methods section.

·         Most citations have been excluded from the results section. However, the remaining citations are strategically retained at relevant points, specifically referencing directly the accessed data sources.

DISCUSSION

You need to compare your results with previous studies. As I have read repeatedly, you make no reference to any literature which gives the work no basis to be considered for publication. Moreover, I did not see the applicability of your results to other places outside Germany.

·         We referenced the literature we used for methodology development, incorporated the relevant parts into the discussion and compared our work with previous studies.

·         The limitations for the replicability are described in the discussion.

GENERAL COMMENTS

- Some of the statements are too long, and need to be split so as to make understanding them easier.

- The submission could benefit for English language proofreading by a proficient speaker.  Specifically, punctuation is lacking in the draft, and this makes it hard to understand what is being communicated.

-The rest of the suggestions are in the attached manuscript draft.

·         An English proof-reading service was used to improve the expression.

In the formula (3) I cannot understand why the cost by year is computed without considering the time value of money. A most reasonable approach will be the Equivalent yearly value of your PV as normally done in the finance literature.

·         The calculation was performed according to the principle of equivalent annual costs in accordance with the guidelines for dynamic cost comparison calculations according to the official Guidelines for dynamic cost comparisons for water management facilities (DWA 2012 – Leitlinien zur Durchführung dynamischer Kostenvergleichsrechnungen). In this process, the time value of money is calculated by discounting the total costs of an investment and subsequently evenly distributing them over the analysis period. To clarify this, "annuities" was changed to "equivalent annual costs" in order to accurately reflect the calculation method based on the equivalent annual cost principle.

·         Hence, in formula (3), the time value of money is factored in through the inclusion of annuities/equivalent annual costs. To emphasize that the costs in formula (3) are not recalculated separately, the formula was condensed, eliminating the distinction between costs and revenues.

·         Additionally, a citation for the calculation guidelines were added.

The sensitivity analysis is not clear. Please explain how did you select the range of variation for each of the items and provide a separate sensitivity for each of the parameters of the analysis in order to underline the role of each of them on the overall performance.  the figure 6 is not clear enough.

·         The numbers in Table 3 for the limits of the parameters interest rate and evaluation period were false and have therefore been corrected.

·         The size for figure 6 was increased and a paragraph explaining the diagram added

·         A paragraph explaining the selection of the parameter ranges was added.

·         A sentence about the sensitivity of each parameter was added.

Policy implications has to be improved

·         At the end of the discussion part a paragraph was added regarding the need to adjust local as well as national policies.

Authors have described a method for integration of biogenic resources across diverse sectors, and gave an explanation of foundational elucidation of the procedural steps a rural municipality. The iterative strategy including inventory analysis, potential assessment, conceptualization, concept evaluation. As the data and simulation work done well which have some interest in the energy provisions and environmental conservation. I suggest the manuscript can be accept after some revision. Some comments are listed below for authors to improve the manuscript.

Can authors simplified those explanations about the captured data for inventory analysis? Or provided a schematic diagram for how the experiment carried. It may be better for understanding.

·         A figure with the methodological framework was added.

Some background information can be moved to the introduction section.

·         Thank you for the feedback - We rearranged the introduction and “material and method” section to cluster the background information.

Can the proposed method be used in other area? How to ensure the accuracy? Have any other way to verified the obtained results?

·         The following sentence was added to the discussion: The used calculations and values are derived from the recognized technical rules of the sectors and were verified with the specific stakeholders in the study area. Further, methodological and technical focal points were discussed and defined jointly in workshops.

The merits of this method should state in the results and discussion section.

·         The following paragraph was added to the discussion for displaying the merits of the presented approach: Nevertheless, it is imperative to recognize that the outlined methodology possesses the versatility to be incorporated into a more comprehensive and holistic perspective. Notably, industrial biomass (e.g. from breweries) or forestry biomass was not consid-ered like in other approaches [see e.g. [53,59]] and must be analysed on a case-by-case basis. On the other hand, the energy potential of wastewater and its partial material flows are rarely integrated in biomass investigations combining more than two sectors [see e.g. [60]]. The studies therefore provide a new type of added value for research into the energetic utilisation of biogenic resources. 

Please check and improve the English expression, though some advanced vocabularies and words have been used, in was not very easy to read.

·         An English proof-reading service was used to improve the expression.

More suitable title should be selected for the article.

·         Title has been adjusted.

Abstract section should refer to the study findings, methodologies, discussion as well as conclusion. It is suggested to present the abstract in one 200-250 words paragraph.

·         In the template of the journal a maximum of 200 words is mentioned. We adjusted the abstract in this regard.   

The introduction section is detailed, but needs a significant amount of reorganization. It could be strengthened by adding more recent references.

·         Thank you, the introduction was reorganized and by highlighting the contextual background of the need for the energy transition and its current situation more recent references were added.

- Provide a map of the studied area (Am Ettersberg). The exact location of the study area should be presented in a map. It is suggested to show the general view of the study area to detail (Country, city …).

·         Maps of the study area and its location in Germany were added.

- To what extent the validation of the current research method can be used for big cities?

·         The project was designed to investigate biogenic residues/materials in rural areas. In general, the methodology can be applied to urban areas. However, the framework conditions in big cities are going to differ. E.g. agricultural residues are not much expected in these settings. 

The image quality of "Figure 3. Systematics of sub-concepts for Concept 1" on page 9 is not suitable

·         Figure 3 was inserted in better quality.

-It is suggested to add articles entitled “Yigitcanlar et al. Public Perceptions on Application Areas and Adoption Challenges of AI in Urban Services”, “Shahram Tahmasseby. The Implementation of Smart Mobility for Smart Cities: A Case Study in Qatar” and “Ryoichi Doi. Are New Residential Areas Cooler than Older Ones?” to the literature review.

·         Thank you for your suggestions. We think, they are options for using AI to communicate our scope of research to citizens as it is described in suggested paper 1. Nevertheless, we think it is too far from our scope of paper. For the suggested paper 2 und 3 we don’t see any pertinent connection to our scope of study.

- On page 10, line 365, paragraph "External sludge disposal is one of the major cost factors in the sectors under consideration. By utilizing existing waste heat sources (existing biogas plant) or other previously untapped biomass potentials, a more efficient treatment of sludge can be achieved locally. Additionally, this presents the opportunity to obtain a high-quality product in the form of biochar. By varying the treatment technology for the sludge (option 1: dewatering + drying; option 2: hydrothermal carbonization; option 3: pyrolysis), the heat provision (option 1: new biogas plant + CHP; option 2: existing biogas plant + CHP), the utilization of biochar produced through hydrothermal carbonization or pyrolysis (option 1: disposal as sludge; option 2: soil conditioner; option 3: fuel), and the materials used in hydrothermal carbonization (option 1: sludge; option 2: sludge + organic waste; option 3: sludge + organic waste + green waste), a total of 12 sub-concepts were identified for Concept 3 (see figure 5)." needs to be rewritten.

·         The paragraph was rephrased for better intelligibility.

Some key parameters are not mentioned. The rationale on the choice of the particular set of parameters should be explained with more details. Have the authors experimented with other sets of values? What are the sensitivities of these parameters on the results?

·         An explanation for the choice of parameters was added.