Economic Optimization of Rotary Heat Exchangers Using CO₂ Pricing Scenarios Based on Validated Fluid Dynamic and Thermodynamic-Based Simulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study carried out the optimization with help of an empirically validated simulation model and an optimization algorithm. In my opinion, this research significance and importance in the field of energy, especially heat recovery systems. I am supportive of this study for the publication in this journal. However, the structures and contents of this manuscript should be improved and enhanced, respectively. For instance, the abstract should clearly state, by 2-3 sentences, the essence of the problem you are addressing, what you did and what you found and recommend. In the Introduction part, the authors should provide a critical overview on challenges, barriers, opportunities and recent knowledge breakthrough in this specific research field. Also, the objectives of this study should be clearly illustrated to present the significance and importance of the work. The originality of the article also needs to be further clarified. Several additional comments were provided for further improvement as follows:

1. The abstract should clearly state the essence of the problem you are addressing, what you did and what you found and recommend. That will help a prospective reader of the abstract to decide if they wish to read the entire article.
2. The Introduction must provide a critical overview of recent (preferable within the past THREE years) developments in this specific area that fall within the scope of the journal with the illustration of the development and challenges. The authors should also clearly illustrate the challenges and opportunities of the research direction, compared to other available studies.
3. In the Introduction, the available technologies for geothermal energy exploration should be briefly mentioned. Several good articles and reviews published in recent years should be cited.
4. The objectives of this study should be clearly illustrated to present the significance and importance of the work. The originality of the article also needs to be further clarified.
5. Several subsections should be included in the Materials and Methods section.
6. A number of paragraphs have only 2-3 sentences, which should be combined with other paragraphs, e.g., Lines 437-438, etc.
7. The authors should try to combined Figures with similar directions of analyses, e.g., Figures 7-8, Figures 9-14, etc.
8. Line 440: the order of Figure Caption herein was wrong.
9. The conclusion section should be provided in one paragraph, instead of bullet points.
10. A proof reading by a native English speaker should be carefully conducted to improve both language and organization quality.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors:

Please see the attached file of comments and suggestions.

I hope these points will be addressed on the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Since the authors have revised the manuscript accordingly, I am supportive of this study to be published in the journal. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors:

It looks like the quality of manuscript is improved a lot.

Please double check spelling and grammar with outside reviewers.

Please try to add innovative of your study in the abstract and conclusions.

Best regards,

Reviewer