A Feasibility Analysis of Wind Energy Potential and Seasonal Forecasting Trends in Thatta District: A Project to Combat the Energy Crisis in Pakistan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study provides a thorough analysis of wind speed variations over a significant period, offering detailed insights into seasonal trends and their implications for wind power generation.

 

The use of GIS interpolation techniques, power law for wind shear analysis, and advanced forecasting models like ARIMA and SARIMA demonstrates robust methodological rigor in assessing wind energy potential.

While the study identifies declining wind speeds since 2008, further exploration into the underlying causes (e.g., climate change effects, local land use changes) would strengthen the manuscript's conclusions and recommendations.

 

The manuscript briefly mentions the need for mitigation strategies to counteract declining wind speeds. Including specific recommendations or hypothetical scenarios for policy interventions would enhance the manuscript's practical relevance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English editing is required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please find the attachment here.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract
The abstract touches on essential points regarding wind energy. However, it does not fully match the scope suggested by the title, as it lacks a clear focus on energy supply for rural and urban communities. 

Introduction

The Introduction primarily discusses the general importance of wind energy, particularly in Pakistan, focusing on its potential to fulfil the country’s energy needs. However, it does not directly address the specific challenges related to supplying electricity to both rural and urban communities, as indicated in the article's title. Additionally, the introduction does not clearly define the tasks related to solving energy supply issues for these communities. Instead, it focuses on wind energy potential and sustainability without sufficiently emphasising how wind energy will be integrated into urban and rural areas.

The historical part in the Introduction feels a bit out of place and doesn't strongly support the article's main focus on wind energy in Pakistan.

The Introduction discusses wind energy's potential and importance for Pakistan, but it doesn’t fully match the specific data and results shown in the Results section. The Results focus on things like wind speed measurements and seasonal wind variations in the Thatta region, but the Introduction doesn’t clearly mention these important details.

Methods and materials

the Materials and Methods section has been prepared carelessly: inconsistent formula writing, unformatted variables, and the use of verbal expressions instead of symbols. The formulas should follow the standards for writing and numbering formulas. Variables in the text should be written in italics, and so on. In some formulas, variables are presented verbally, for example, "autoregressive moving average = ...". Another example: The text and formula in one line "Wind Power density P = ...".

The calculation methods in the article do not show scientific novelty. The methods used, like wind speed extrapolation with the power law and ARMA models for forecasting, are common techniques in wind energy studies.

Results

The results section contains misleading information, as the text does not match the data presented in Table 4. For example, the text states that the maximum wind power density in the autumn season is 72.1 kW/m², while in Table 4, the value is listed as 444.1 kW/m². For Spring Wind Power Density, the text suggests lower values for wind power density, but Table 4 shows values as high as 158.7 kW/m² in spring for 2004, which is not reflected in the discussion or explanation of results. The same discrepancy can be found in winter power density. 

With such discrepancies in the results section, any further analysis or presentation of ideas in the article becomes invalid.

Discussion

The Discussion section does not fully address the issues implied by the article’s title and objectives. The article's title, "Power supply in Rural & Urban communities through wind energy integration: a project to combat energy crisis in Pakistan," suggests a focus on how wind energy can be integrated into both rural and urban energy supply systems.

The Discussion section does not fully align with the results and contains several discrepancies that raise concerns about its connection to the findings. For example: 1) The discussion emphasises that the wind power potential is excellent, particularly in summer and autumn, but the actual data in the results section show decreasing wind speeds; 2) Discussion suggests that new projects should be initiated in other regions (Jamshoro, Hyderabad, etc.), but this recommendation seems disconnected from the core data analysis.

Conclusions

The shortcomings in the conclusions.
Inconsistency with Results: Despite low wind speeds, the recommendation to further develop wind energy raises significant concerns about its justification. This recommendation seems contradictory based on the data presented in the Results section, where declining wind speeds are noted, particularly since 2008.

Too Strong Recommendations: The conclusions contain strong, categorical recommendations, such as "immediately shift energy production to green energy" and "new projects MUST be initiated." These recommendations are not fully backed by the study's results, mainly because the results show a decline in wind speeds, raising doubts about the long-term sustainability of wind energy projects. 

Lack of Alignment with Title and Objectives: The conclusions do not sufficiently address the main focus implied by the title—supplying energy to rural and urban communities

The article's recommendations are not well-supported because they do not include an analysis of the necessary infrastructure to handle wind variability.  The article does not discuss essential aspects like energy storage, grid upgrades, or backup energy systems required to manage times when wind energy production is low. The recommendations for expanding wind energy are incomplete and unrealistic without considering these factors.

The List of References 

Overall, the reference list is good, the sources are relevant and important to the topic. However, there are some mistakes, such as incorrect citations of sources. For example, there is a clear mistake with reference number 44, where a USAID report is cited as if it were a journal article published in the "Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling," which is incorrect. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is acceptable. Some expressions can be improved. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The document is good but needs a number of modifications for publication:

-It is recommended to increase the background. There are studies that talk about the placement of turbines in the rural world for energy generation, such as:

*Water microturbines for sustainable applications: optimization analysis and experimental validation.

- The objectives and novelty of the document should be clarified, including a more detailed justification for the choice of these models, and how they compare with other possible methodological alternatives.

-A brief accessible explanation of the ARIMA and SARIMA models should be included, since not all readers are experts in statistical modeling. It is also important to highlight how these models were specifically selected for this type of analysis, adding more justification in practical terms.

- Adding detailed explanations below the graphs and tables would help in their understanding.

-The most important points should be highlighted more clearly and these data should be connected to significant conclusions for future wind projects.

- The conclusions should propose more concrete and feasible recommendations based on the findings, such as implementing specific measures to monitor wind speed reduction and adapting wind energy projects accordingly.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please see the attachment. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction
The Introduction section is still too lengthy because it includes excessive historical background on wind energy, detailed statistical data on energy capacities, and numerous specific project references. Instead of focusing concisely on the core issues (Pakistan’s energy crisis, the potential role of wind energy, and the study’s purpose) it covers secondary information in extensive detail. Reducing these elements would help emphasize the study’s objectives and the urgency of sustainable wind energy development in Pakistan, making the section more direct and impactful.
It must be improved.

Materials and methods
The methodology section has been significantly improved. However, some editorial issues remain, such as an incorrect font in lines 299–301. Additionally, certain terms are puzzling; for example, in line 240, the variable

d_{o,i}"do"​ includes an unexplained comma in the subscript ",i". There’s also a typographical error in the word "vnalue." 
line 316: is the expression (0,593%) correct?

Results
In the Results section, the approach of comparing only the maximum and minimum wind speed values to assess decrease over time may be misleading, as it overlooks the overall trend. Extreme values might not represent consistent changes over the period. For example, 
Line 381: Using the 2008 Autumn value 242.4 simply because it's the highest does not account for the trend over the full period.
Line 430: The decrease is observed not from 61.1 to 4.4, but rather from at least 150 to approximately 7 kW/m2.
A more accurate approach would involve trend analysis, such as linear regression, to establish whether a consistent decline exists. By determining the trend slope, we could better quantify the rate of change and provide a more reliable interpretation of long-term wind speed variation. 

The content in lines 352–360 seems more appropriate for the Discussion section rather than the Results section. This part provides context about demand fluctuations and the overall potential of wind energy in meeting these demands, rather than presenting specific research results.

Discussion
Line 489: The reviewer cannot agree with the statement, "Sindh and Balochistan provinces have enormous wind energy potential, so this potential can be proven as an excellent alternative," because the results do not support this assertion. 
526: what is the meaning of "2 C to 5 C"? Degrees? 

Conclusion
Lines 537–550 are not conclusion statements but rather part of the discussion.
line 564: Recommendation 1 is not supported by the results presented in the article. Recommendation 2 is not supported by the results presented in the article. Recommendation 3 is not supported by the results presented in the article. 
Recommendation 4: Recommendation 3 is not directly supported by the study's findings. The stated claim was neither posed as an objective nor a goal of the article. Moreover, the assertion that wind or solar energy is inexpensive is debatable, and the cost-effectiveness of these energy sources within Pakistan was not evaluated in the study.
Other statements in the conclusions are not supported by any research. For example, the recommendation to build wind farms in Jamshoro, Karachi coast, and Hyderabad is made, but this issue is not examined in the article. The conclusions need to be rewritten so that each statement is based on the results obtained in the study. The provided recommendations are largely incorrect and only serve to mislead the reader. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Not all requested modifications have been made: For example -It is recommended to increase the background. There are studies that talk about the placement of turbines in the rural world for energy generation, such as: *Water microturbines for sustainable applications: optimization analysis and experimental validation.

It has not been taken into account.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title 

Refining the title is recommended to better reflect the obtained results and the last version of the conclusions. 

The investigation in the paper does not specifically address differences in urban and rural energy supply. Instead, it focuses on assessing the wind energy potential in the Thatta district over the past 20 years, covering seasonal wind speed and forecasting trends for 2024 and 2025. No specific urban and rural comparison was conducted in the study. Even in the abstract, there is no word addressing the specifics of rural and urban distinctions.

The design of Figures

Figures 2 and 3 should be revised by, at least, removing disproportionately large letters and including this information in the figure title. Fonts and element sizes should be consistent across all figures. For example, the text "study area" in Figure 4 is horizontally compressed, while the text "Mean wind speed..." in Figure 6 is stretched horizontally.

Introduction

The Introduction section still contains much information that is unrelated to the study. The Introduction devotes a large portion to the historical development of wind energy in Pakistan, which does not directly support the study’s main focus.

Table 1: How is the data in this table (specification and ownership) related to the conducted study? In the opinion of the reviewer, this table does not directly contribute to the study’s goal.

The results

The Results section still contains inaccuracies.

Line 341: The statement "The wind speed was recorded below 3.5 m/s in 2009" is questionable. If this is an annual average wind speed, it was not "recorded" but rather "calculated." The text addresses the autumn period, so it is unclear whether this value refers to an annual wind speed average, which should be clarified. Upon checking, the reviewer finds the value to be 3.725 m/s, casting doubt on the accuracy of calculations. Even a brief check of the first available figure reveals errors, indicating a persistent issue with data accuracy. Therefore, the authors should carefully review their reported results.

Line 343: The statement "The total difference in wind speed is recorded as 5.6 m/s from 2004 to 2023" is also questionable, as the method used to obtain this value is not explained.

Lines 341-344: It is unclear whether this text refers to autumn wind speed or annual wind speed.

Lines 395-400 The GLS regression method should be explained in the methodology section and applied to all seasons for assessing annual wind speed changes. This would provide a clearer understanding of the calculation approach and allow for a comprehensive evaluation of seasonal and annual wind speed trends.
Line 403: What does "units" mean? "0.0158 (units)"

Discussion

The Discussion section does not fully align with the article's title, which suggests a focus on addressing urban and rural energy supply through wind energy integration. While the Discussion analyzes wind potential in the Thatta region, it lacks a direct exploration of specific energy supply issues or needs for urban versus rural communities, as the title implies.

Conclusions 

The presented version of the conclusions generally aligns with the obtained results. However, the Conclusions section does not fully incorporate some significant results presented in the Results section. Key seasonal wind speed decreases, specific annual minimum wind speeds and detailed future projections for each season are either missing or insufficiently detailed in the Conclusions. This omission may hinder readers' full understanding of the study’s findings. Additionally, providing the rate of decrease in m/s per decade or m/s per year would add valuable context.

Future recommendations

The recommendations lack direct support from the study findings.
- The study mentions the need for reliable wind data but does not analyze the necessity of new meteorological towers, making this recommendation unsupported by evidence.
 - While hybrid solutions like solar are suggested, the study does not examine alternative energy sources, leaving this recommendation unsubstantiated.
- The study notes declining wind speeds but provides no specific data supporting turbine upgrades as a solution, making this suggestion appear disconnected from the findings.
 - Although urbanization is mentioned, the study lacks focused analysis on its effect on wind flow, making this recommendation speculative.

Expanding the conclusions while removing the recommendations would be an effective solution. Adding additional data and analysis to the conclusions would summarize the study results more comprehensively. This approach would avoid unnecessary or unsupported recommendations. It would also provide clarity for readers and better reflect the significance of the study findings.

Text corrections:
line 45: "formers" - is this word correct?
Line 194: Formula numbering should be done without horizontal dashes, i.e., Eq. (1), (2), (3), (4).
Line 260: Why are formulas renumbered starting from (1) again? The total number of equations is 6, so they should be numbered accordingly. 
Lines 154, 164, 174, 297, etc.: Some expressions should be separated by a space, for example, NEPRA[35] -> NEPRA [35], 33,885MW[35] -> 33,885 MW [35], north latitudes[47] -> north latitudes [47], 9.7m/s -> 9.7 m/s and in many other instances.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 4

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have significantly improved the quality of the submitted article. The title and all other components of the article are coherently related and adequately address the objectives discussed in the paper.

Minor comments:

1. The abstract no longer aligns with the conclusions; some formulations need to be clarified.
2. Unjustified precision of values. For example, in the conclusions and also in the text (line 447), wind speed is specified to 4 or even 5 decimal places. The precision should reflect the uncertainty (error) of the obtained values, so the accuracy of this and other values should be reconsidered and adjusted.
3. Line 437: In the expression Obs*R2, is the asterisk "*" a multiplication symbol, or does it have another meaning?
4. Throughout the text, “m2” should be corrected to “m²” (superscript) (line 377).
5. Spaces between numbers and their units need editing in multiple places. For instance, "5000- 7000 MW" (line 312) and "4.8m/s" → "4.8_m/s" (line 405), etc.
6. Table 2. Standardize the font of newly inserted values in Table 2.
7. Inconsistent font sizes in captions under figures and tables.
8. In Figure 2, the empty space occupies a disproportionately large area compared to other figures.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please see the attachment; thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx