Potential Impact of Renewable Energy on the Sustainable Development of Russian Arctic Territories

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

you have addressed an important and relevant issue for the Russian Artic territories. The methodology presented and corresponding results are sound but I will recommend a major revision for the following reasons:

1. The overall structure of the paper is unbalanced: Introduction is too long (7 pages), elements of Materials & Methods are placed in Results; Discussion missing while Conclusions very short.
2. I propose two ways of addressing this issue:

• Keep most of the Introduction and expanding your scope to the influence of renewable energy (RES) and SDG7 on other SDGs, since those issues are already addressed in the Introduction. In this way, your paper will add new knowledge on interlinkages between RES not only with SDG7 but also with other SDGs such as access to clear water, healthy soils etc. that you already list in the intro. Those issues could be brought up again in the Conclusions how do you see what improvements towards overall sustainability could be started with addressing SDG7 in the Russian Arctic territories.
• Focus the Introduction on energy related issues. But that would reduce the impact and relevance of your work. The link between RES and GHG emission reduction is already established, thus promoted among SDGs.

1. I suggest to compare your citation style in the text with the other papers in Energies MDPI and to adjust them accordingly. Citations style as in page 2, line 116; 138 and similar; page 4, line157;162;195;
2. To my view, the nationality of a scientist is not important but the territory that her/his research is applied to. Please correct whenever you cite "Chinese scientists, German researchers etc.".
3. Please, make clear if you address CO2, CO2e or GHG emissions.
4. The paper has potential, but it has to be improved.

Further comments that might not be as important as the above but must be addressed:

1. Abstract could be significantly shortened, even if the scope of the paper is changed.
2. At the first use of long syntax such as “greenhouse gas” or “renewable energy sources” or similar, please place the abbreviation in the brackets and carry on with the abbreviation in the further text.
3. There are missing citations to the claims such as: page 2, line 56; 62; 83.
4. Page 2, Line 93: delete repetition from “of the Russian (…),” till comma.
5. Page 4, line 149: maybe scarcely populated area and/or scattered settlements could be the difference between Norway and the Russian territories in question?
6. Page 4, line 188: missing citation
7. Page 4; line 189: please define “Western countries”.
8. Page 5, line 211: please add „and sustainable development.“
9. Page 5, line 212: add “sustainable” before “development”.
10. Page 5; line 220: please delete the sentence “let’s…” and rephrase.
11. Add column in the table 1 to relate the issue with SDGs and possible impacts
12. Page 5 – 6: delete the section from line 233 till [44] and sum it up in a sentence.
13. Page 7, line 304: define/cite FuelCons
14. Table 3 belongs to Materials and methods as numerous sections in Results. Please, present the results in Results and the methodology of calculating them in Materials
15. Conclusions must be improved accordingly.
16. Check citations.

Thank you!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. We took into account every comment and corrected our article. Each comment and our comment response is presented in the table in the file.

Best regards,

The manuscript authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have reported “Potential impact of renewable energy on the sustainable development of Russian Arctic territories”. This work focuses on CO2 emissions level as an indicator reflecting the impact of renewable energy sources. To test the hypothesis of the relationship between the use of renewable energy sources and the level of CO2 emissions (in megatons per year), the authors carry out an econometric analysis of panel data from 15 countries. The authors have concluded that the increase in the share of renewable energy sources in the energy balance reduces the level of CO2 emissions, this is trivial. However, the authors have linked this statement with the amount of electricity consumed per year, the share of renewable energy in the total energy balance of the country, carbon intensity (CO2 emissions per GDP), the average per capita income of the population of the country, by creating the econometric model. In general, this is an interesting work in this field of research. The manuscript is well written. I recommend its publication in Energies after improving the following details.  

1. In the abstract, the authors are suggested to write the full form of ‘SDG’ and ‘RES’.
2. In this manuscript, the authors are talking about the global problem due to the production of CO2. The focus to reduce CO2 is only by increasing renewable energy sources. However, if the consumption of energy source can be reduced by the device, that might decrease the production of CO2 and also the system might be economical. The authors are suggested to add some sentences in the introduction about how can decrease the energy consumption by the devices. The authors are suggested to follow some energy-related works: Adv. Opt. Mater. 0, 1900916 (2019); Nanoscale Adv., 2019,1, 1791-1798.
3. The authors are suggested increasing the font of the figures so that it will be easy for the readers. Also, please make the font of the table identical.
4. The authors are suggested to add the unit of the parameters in Figure 7 and in others if not.
5. The authors are suggested to change these kinds of sentences throughout the manuscript such as “…Kudryavtseva O. V., Ivanov E. V., Kolesnik D. P., Matveeva E. O., Pechenkina S. A., Yakimova Yu. I.,”. Please, change this part of the sentence into “Kudryavtseva et al.”.
6. Overall, the manuscript is well written. However, there are some typos or jumbled sentences that should be corrected. For example, “At the same time, the key factors are the CPI, GDP, and foreign investment. [51] shows a cyclical relationship between GDP growth, carbon dioxide emissions, natural disasters, and economic problems.” and so on.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. We took into account every comment and corrected our article. Each comment and our comment response is presented in the table in the file (please see the attachment).

Best regards,

The manuscript authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

with regret I have learned that you haven't considered to expand / adjust your original hypothesis:

Line 85: “Based on the analysis of panel data, to test the hypothesis that increasing the share of renewable sources in the energy balance of the country helps to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere; to justify the feasibility of using RES for certain territories of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation.” I am so sorry that you haven’t changed the hypothesis to verify the interactions of SDG7 with the other SDGs achievement or any other effort to expand the original hypothesis. Unfortunately, your hypothesis has been proven many times many years ago.

This is the major reason for rejecting your work, otherwise I still think that this research has potential and relevance but the hypothesis must be altered.

Not relevant at this case but might help you in the future efforts in publishing this work:

1. Paris Agreement is only one item from the Agenda 2030 and SDGs. Meeting the SDGs is about balanced approach and interlinkages that could be very much investigated and established with this work.
2. CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases. Please, relate to your paper as CO2e, when appropriate. Sentence in the line 53 must be altered accordingly.
3. Line 340: again, it is not relevant that scientists are from China but where their research apply. This was comment in the first review. 
4. Line 420-422: the two most relevant parameters for this research in the Arctic region: population density and share of renewables are indicated as “may not be significant”. Later, you deny that claim (line 435-437). Please remove remarks that are not necessary.

Good luck for the future efforts to publish this research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for all your comments. We have tried to take into account all your comments properly.

Point 1: Line 85: “Based on the analysis of panel data, to test the hypothesis that increasing the share of renewable sources in the energy balance of the country helps to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere; to justify the feasibility of using RES for certain territories of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation.” I am so sorry that you haven’t changed the hypothesis to verify the interactions of SDG7 with the other SDGs achievement or any other effort to expand the original hypothesis. Unfortunately, your hypothesis has been proven many times many years ago.

Response 1: We changed the hypothesis according to your comments. So, we select the corresponding sub-goals for each factor (Table 2).  In the process of building the model, we explained the multicollinearity of the factors by the fact that they all meet certain SDGs, and all SDGs are interrelated and aimed at achieving a common goal. In the discussion we analyzed the existing research on the topic, identified the differences. Also, We added a figure (Figure 5) that demonstrates the relationship between the factors of the final model, as well as the corresponding SDG.

Point 2: Paris Agreement is only one item from the Agenda 2030 and SDGs. Meeting the SDGs is about balanced approach and interlinkages that could be very much investigated and established with this work.

Response 2: Thank you for such informative comments. We have indicated that this agreement is only part of the agenda (line 59). In addition, we link all variables to the Sustainable Development Goals. The variables in the Final Model we also link to the Sustainable Development Goals.

Point 3:  CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases. Please, relate to your paper as CO2e, when appropriate. Sentence in the line 53 must be altered accordingly.

Response 3: We restructured the sentences, restructured the sentences, we have indicated «Carbon dioxide (CO2) is considered the most important greenhouse gas of anthropogenic origin». (line 55).

Point 4: Line 340: again, it is not relevant that scientists are from China but where their research apply. This was comment in the first review. 

Response 4: We restructured the sentences, to pay attention on the territory, not on the nationality.  

Point 5: Line 420-422: the two most relevant parameters for this research in the Arctic region: population density and share of renewables are indicated as “may not be significant”. Later, you deny that claim (line 435-437). Please remove remarks that are not necessary.

Response 5: After performing tests on the specification and excluding multicollinear variables, we obtain a different model. After excluding the variables that made the model incorrect, the variables indicated in the line 420-422 have become significant. However, we still removed RE from line 420-422, so as not to confuse the readers.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors are suggested to correct these kinds of sentences. In the literature review section: "....energy problems, such as, for example, using solid-state lighting....". Please, write only one, "such as" or "for example".

In the materials and methods, it looks like the authors have already discussed the resulting data. Please, manage properly and include the relevant explanation in the relevant title.

In the manuscript, Figures 1, 3, and 4 looks like Tables. The authors are suggested to change those and change other necessary changes with it. Otherwise, give a suitable explanation. Please, make the font of these Figures (according to the authors) identical.

It looks like, there are not sufficient references for the solid-state lighting. The authors are suggested to follow some related references: Adv. Opt. Mater. 0, 1900916 (2019) (https://doi.org/10.1002/adom.201900916); J. Phys. Chem. C 2019, 123, 18, 12023–12028.

Please, again, do not write the name of all the authors of references in the draft, such as "The authors Kirsanova N. Y., Lenkovets O. M., Nikulina A. Y. also confirm that the use of renewable energy sources in the conditions of decentralized power supply in the Arctic is necessary [48]." Please, write only "Kirsanova et al." Please, change these kinds of errors throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for all your comments. We have tried to take into account all your comments properly.

Point 1. The authors are suggested to correct these kinds of sentences. In the literature review section: "....energy problems, such as, for example, using solid-state lighting....". Please, write only one, "such as" or "for example".

Response 1. Thank you very much for your comment. We fixed the repeated phrases.

Point 2. In the materials and methods, it looks like the authors have already discussed the resulting data. Please, manage properly and include the relevant explanation in the relevant title.

Response 2. We moved the model building process to materials and methods because another reviewer insisted on it. If this is important for the further promotion of our article, we will turn to the Assistant Editor to resolve this issue

Point 3. In the manuscript, Figures 1, 3, and 4 looks like Tables. The authors are suggested to change those and change other necessary changes with it. Otherwise, give a suitable explanation. Please, make the font of these Figures (according to the authors) identical.

Response 3. We made these figures into tables, leaving only the key indicators needed to assess the quality of the model

Point 4. It looks like, there are not sufficient references for the solid-state lighting. The authors are suggested to follow some related references: Adv. Opt. Mater. 0, 1900916 (2019) (https://doi.org/10.1002/adom.201900916); J. Phys. Chem. C 2019, 123, 18, 12023–12028.

Response 4. We added these references. Their numbers in the text are [13-15].

Point 5. Please, again, do not write the name of all the authors of references in the draft, such as "The authors Kirsanova N. Y., Lenkovets O. M., Nikulina A. Y. also confirm that the use of renewable energy sources in the conditions of decentralized power supply in the Arctic is necessary [48]." Please, write only "Kirsanova et al." Please, change these kinds of errors throughout the manuscript.

Response 5. We are so sorry that this mistake has not been corrected in accordance with your comments. Now we have done all properly.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations!

Reviewer 2 Report

This version of the manuscript is ok for publication in Energies.