Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage as a Defense Tool against Climate Change: Current Developments in West Macedonia (Greece)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, the paper is interesting and I have only few comments and advise to improve the text.

Please unify to write chemical symbols e.g. CO₂ not CO2 etc.

Line 32-34 – In introduction authors mentioned that economy is highly dependent on electrical energy to meet current and future demands on food, water sanitation, higher living standards and any other daily activity. Between these factors there is nexus and it would be valuable to add some words concerning nexus between water, food, energy and climate. I suggest to read and support that part of the introduction by that information about Nexus between water, energy, food and climate change as challenges facing the modern global… AIMS Geosciences.

Line 78-79 - climate and human activity - I suggest adding that the increase in CO2 is related to human activity. The authors can read about it in the above-mentioned article.

Line 252 – Authors wrote about alternative energy resources, such as hydrogen. I suggest to add other alternative sources such: wind, solar, hydro. Also it would be valuable to add that the EU is trying to reduce energy consumption. Authors can read about both issue in Digitization, Digital Twins, Blockchain, and Industry 4.0 as Elements of Management Process in Enterprises in the Energy Sector. 

In conclusion please add some words, when this program CO₂ storage can be achieved by Greece.

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I find Your paper very interesting and I would recommend it for publication. However, I advice restructuring of the manuscript. Namely, the section “Materials and methods” provides scarce information on materials and methods in the last three paragraphs, while the previous text could be part of introduction, since it is general and has little direct relevance to the presented research. Information on materials and methods are not altogether missing from the manuscript, they are given in further sections, so the best option would be to rename the “Materials and Methods section” and incorporate it in the Introduction, as part of “State of the art”. 

Discussion is not really a discussion but seems more as summary and conclusion. All the uncertainties of the capacity estimate should be emphasized as well as uncertainties regarding the future emissions If coal-fired power plants are to be replaced by biomass power plants, it could be discussed what repercussions that transition could have. 

Conclusion is too general and needs to be rephrased. As previously stated, section “Discussion” should be “Conclusions”. Probably best solution is to have joint “Discussion and conclusions” section, encompassing current “Discussion” section enlarged with discussion on uncertainties involved in overall analysis. 

Also, I have some concerns regarding the estimation of pressure used to estimate CO2 density. You state that: "Pressure was calculated by multiplying the average overburden density of the overlying rocks with depth.” – To estimate the density at certain p, T conditions, value of maximum pore pressure envisaged to be achieved at the end of the injection is needed, which should not approach the value of lithostatic pressure, but is recommended that pressure of 90% (Pooladi-Darvish et al., 2011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.374) of seal fracture pressure should be used.

All other comments are given in the attached file.

Kind regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx