High-Resolution Siting of Utility-Scale Solar and Wind: Bridging Pixel-Level Costs and Regional Planning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWell done, only minor corrections are needed.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of the Manuscript:
Title: "Optimising Large-Scale Solar and Wind at the Local Government Level: A Case Study of Australia".
Summary of the Paper:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript submitted to Energies, titled "Optimising Large-Scale Solar and Wind at the Local Government Level: A Case Study of Australia".
This manuscript proposes a high-resolution, data-driven framework for siting utility-scale solar and wind projects across Australia. The authors develop an innovative cost-based mapping methodology using GIS layers, LCOE estimation and land-use exclusion criteria to identify least-cost renewable energy zones at the level of Local Government Areas (LGAs) and federal electorates. The approach quantifies technical and socio-economic benefits under two contrasting scenarios (high-solar and high-wind) and models the influence of new transmission corridors. The resulting insights support more equitable and effective renewable-energy deployment, grid planning and local economic development.
Strengths of the Manuscript
1. Policy-Relevant, Scalable Methodology
- The pixel-level cost modeling and aggregation to LGAs/electorates provide a bridge between technical modeling and actionable policy.
- The method is transferable and can be applied to other countries with available resource and spatial data.
2. Granular, Evidence-Based Analysis
- The use of 250 m resolution mapping over 123 million pixels, with transparent cost class definitions, provides an unprecedented level of detail for national renewable siting.
- The dual-scenario approach captures uncertainty in solar–wind buildout mixes, supporting resilience planning.
3. Strong Alignment with National Planning and Stakeholder Engagement
- The work complements Australia's existing Renewable Energy Zones (REZ) strategy and offers a fine-grained view suitable for local councils, developers and federal MPs.
- It highlights economic indicators (CAPEX, job creation, lease income) that are highly relevant for public communication and policy justification.
4. Clear Figures, Tables and Results
- Maps and tables are informative, with clear color schemes and scenario contrasts.
- Section 3.5 on the impact of HVAC lines adds a novel perspective often missing in spatial siting literature.
Key Areas for Improvement
1. Language and Expression
- While generally clear, several parts would benefit from stylistic tightening and grammatical polishing.
- Suggestion: A professional language review could improve fluency and reduce redundancy (e.g., repetitive phrasing like “least-cost ranking”, “low-cost solar/wind”).
2. Clarify Key Assumptions
- The assumptions for the “copper plate” grid, solar tracking boost (1.20 multiplier) and employment multipliers deserve more caveats or references to real-world validation.
- Suggestion: Briefly discuss how these assumptions may overestimate or underestimate local benefits.
3. Expand Limitations Section
- The limitations are well-noted in §4.2, but could be more explicit about exclusion of social license issues, Indigenous land rights, or regional planning overlays.
- Suggestion: A short table summarizing what's included and not included in the analysis would be helpful for non-specialist readers.
4. Improve Caption Detail
- Several figures (e.g., Figure 6, difference map; Figure 8, HVAC impact) would benefit from expanded captions that explain the interpretation more clearly.
- Suggestion: Include brief “key takeaway” sentences in the captions.
5. Reframe “Generic Applicability” Claim
- While the framework is highly valuable, the claim that it is fully replicable in other countries may be overstated unless similar data granularity exists.
- Suggestion: Temper claims with a note on prerequisites (e.g., availability of 250 m solar/wind data, protected area layers, national LGA boundaries, etc.).
6. Additional Literature Recommendation
To strengthen the international comparability and demonstrate the wider replicability of the proposed methodology, the authors might consider citing:
"Tsiaras, E.; Andreosatou, Z.; Kouveli, A.; Tampekis, S.; Coutelieris, F.A. (2025). Off-Grid Methodology for Sustainable Electricity in Medium-Sized Settlements: The Case of Nisyros Island. Clean Technol., 7(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol7010016". This paper complements the current manuscript’s objectives by presenting a GIS-based, cost-optimized RES siting framework at a subnational level, tailored for isolated communities in the Mediterranean, thus reinforcing the reviewed article’s global relevance.
Overall Assessment
This is an original, technically sound and policy-relevant manuscript that makes a significant contribution to the spatial planning of renewable energy infrastructure. It offers a rare combination of geospatial modeling, cost analysis and socio-political integration. The approach is scalable, practical and likely to influence how national and sub-national authorities approach renewable energy zoning and infrastructure investment. The manuscript requires only minor revisions to improve language clarity, expand a few methodological justifications and enhance figure captions.
Final Decision
Accept with Minor Revisions
While generally clear, several parts would benefit from stylistic tightening and grammatical polishing. A professional language review could improve fluency and reduce redundancy
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
The study presented in your manuscript “Optimizing Large-Scale Solar and Wind at the Local Government Level: A Case Study of Australia” is interesting and relevant. I have the following comments
The manuscript reads like a policy and technical report more than a research paper. I would suggest focusing on targeted novelty and scientific contribution, focusing on specific relevant advances in science and technology. In its current form, the manuscript is dispersed and overextended, covering a significant number of areas, which can create confusion for the reader about the specific scientific contribution claimed by the research.
The last section of the introduction lists five contributions, without connecting them through narrative. It would be important to integrate a novelty and scientific contribution that clearly connects the novelty and scientific contribution of the study. Indicating a global hypothesis for the study, research questions, and research activities will be important.
The introduction is overextended and should be restructured. Highlighting the current state of science and technology and the gaps that the study looks to cover would be important. Additionally, more recent literature sources would be important.
The title of the manuscript is confusing, considering the focus on the "local government level". It may give the impression that the only stakeholders that may benefit from this study are local governments, while you indicate that the focus is broader. This title reinforces the impression of the manuscript being a report. It may be relevant to highlight the higher geographical resolution of the study, if that was the intention of the title.
The methods and materials should be restructured, and a more concise and clear narrative should be presented. Adding a flow chart, indicating the connection of the methods between themselves and with the results, would be important.
The results and discussion section should be restructured, and a narrative connecting each result with the novelty and scientific contribution would be important. The connection of the results presented is not clear, and it would be important to highlight their interconnection and relevance.
I would suggest improving Tables 2 and 3. The format looks disorganized, and it's not easy to read the results presented in the context of showcasing the novelty and scientific contribution.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I would suggest improving the narrative and structure of the manuscript. English grammar should be improved. There are many statements that are too long, which is not adequate in the English language. Larger sentences could be broken down.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Some of the review comments were considered in the revised version of the manuscript. However, I believe a number of comments were not fully considered in this revised version.
I reinstate some of my original review comments,
The last section of the introduction continues to enumerate the contributions, without a clear connection or narrative between them. Rewriting these bullet points as a cohesive contribution paragraph, without bullet points, would be very important.
It would be important to integrate a novelty and a scientific contribution that clearly connects the novelty and the scientific contribution of the study. Indicating a global hypothesis for the study, research questions, and research activities will be important.
The introduction continues to be somewhat overextended and should be restructured. Highlighting the current state of science and technology and the gaps that the study looks to cover would be important. Additionally, more recent literature sources would be important.
The methods and materials should be further restructured, and a more concise and clear narrative should be presented. Adding a flow chart, indicating the connection of the methods between themselves and with the results, would be important.
The results and discussion section should be further restructured, and a narrative connecting each result with the novelty and scientific contribution would be important. The connection of the results presented is not clear, and it would be important to highlight their interconnection and relevance.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The manuscript should be further improved in the grammar, narrative, and style. The interconnection between concepts in different sections could be further improved.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 comments:
Dear authors,
Some of the review comments were considered in the revised version of the manuscript. However, I believe a number of comments were not fully considered in this revised version.
Thank you for your comments. We have attempted to better respond to your comments, as detailed in the responses below.
I reinstate some of my original review comments,
Comment 1: The last section of the introduction continues to enumerate the contributions, without a clear connection or narrative between them. Rewriting these bullet points as a cohesive contribution paragraph, without bullet points, would be very important.
Response 1: Thank you for this comment. We have rewritten the bullet points in “Contributions and paper structure” as a single cohesive paragraph that connects each contribution to the research questions and to the paper’s novelty:
Through the research activities introduced in §1.4, this study addresses the research gap identified in §1.3 and answers the three research questions. First, we develop a generalisable 250m-resolution pixel-to-region workflow that converts pixel-level costs into state supply curves, identifying the best locations for utility-scale solar and wind in Australia (RQ1). Second, we translate technical heatmaps into decision-ready socio-economic profiles for LGA and federal electorates, the scales at which permits, corridors and benefit-sharing are negotiated (RQ2). Third, we model additional high-voltage transmission corridors to assess how regional opportunities are redistributed in different network scenarios (RQ3). Additionally, we distil policy implications that tie these results back to strategic infrastructure and financing decisions. These contributions collectively support the key novelty of this study: a reproducible pixel-to-region pipeline that links high-resolution costs to regional planning outcomes.
Comment 2: It would be important to integrate a novelty and a scientific contribution that clearly connects the novelty and the scientific contribution of the study. Indicating a global hypothesis for the study, research questions, and research activities will be important.
Response 2: Thank you for this comment, and we appreciate the request for more clarity. The revised manuscript already states the research gap, global hypothesis and three research questions, then maps them to the research activities. The structure is as follows:
- 1.2 (“Literature review: from MCDA to cost‑based mapping”): motivates the need for objective, evidence-based siting that incorporates costs and sub-national socio-economic valuation.
- 1.3 (“Research gap and hypothesis”, first paragraph): articulates the gap: “Existing cost-based frameworks stop at the pixel or REZ scale. They do not translate least-cost pixels into regional supply curves, nor do they quantify how much generation, investment and employment each local jurisdiction could host under a least-cost build-out”. It then states the hypothesis that “a high-resolution, cost-based raster combined with demand allocation can identify a small subset of LGAs capable of hosting the bulk of cost-optimal capacity while maximising local socio-economic benefit”.
- 1.3 (subsequent paragraphs): list the three research questions arising from the identified gap: “RQ1: Where are the best locations for utility-scale solar and wind in Australia, at both pixel and regional scale? RQ2: What generation, capital inflow, jobs and land-lease payments accrue to each region (LGA and federal electorate) under a least-cost build? RQ3: How do existing and candidate transmission corridors redistribute opportunity?”
- 1.4 (“Research activities”) then describes rasterisation, cost classification, demand allocation, regional aggregation, and transmission sensitivity, which directly align with and operationalise the three research questions.
To make the connection between novelty and contribution even more explicit (while avoiding redundancy), we strengthened the bridging sentence at the end of the Introduction (see Response 1), explicitly stating that the listed contributions constitute the novelty. We also renamed §1.4 from “Study scope and approach” to “Research activities” for clarity, and switched the order of RQ2 and RQ3 for a more natural flow (placing the transmission sensitivity last).
Comment 3: The introduction continues to be somewhat overextended and should be restructured. Highlighting the current state of science and technology and the gaps that the study looks to cover would be important. Additionally, more recent literature sources would be important.
Response 3: Thank you for this comment. We made a light trim to §1.1 to keep the Introduction focused, while preserving §1.2–§1.5 (literature, gap, hypothesis, RQs, research activities, contributions/novelty). We also added three 2025 studies to strengthen the literature review:
- Nassar et al. (2025) as an additional, very recent (2025) MCDA/AHP example.
- Rubino et al. (2025) as a resilience-focused siting study comparing spatial strategies, including a cost-optimal strategy.
- Rahimi et al. (2025) as a clustering/GA-based site-selection approach for rural Australia.
Regarding “Highlighting the current state of science and technology and the gaps”, §1.2 is specifically designed to summarise state-of-the-art practice (MCDA and cost-based mapping), and §1.3 formalises the gap. If there are particular aspects that remain unclear, we would welcome specific pointers and will revise accordingly.
Comment 4: The methods and materials should be further restructured, and a more concise and clear narrative should be presented. Adding a flow chart, indicating the connection of the methods between themselves and with the results, would be important.
Response 4: Thank you for this comment. The manuscript already includes a flow chart (Figure 1) added in response to the Round-1 comments. To make the connection between methods and results more explicit, we revised both the Figure 1 caption and the opening paragraph of Section 2 to map each method block to RQ1–RQ3 and to the corresponding Results subsections:
Figure 1 caption:
Figure 1. End-to-end workflow and connection to research questions. Global and national datasets are rasterised and classified into pixel-level cost tiers, then stacked to meet state demand to form state supply curves (RQ1; §2.3-2.4; §3.1). Outputs are aggregated to LGAs and federal electorates and combined with employment, capital inflow and lease-payment factors to produce regional socio-economic profiles (RQ2; §2.5-2.6; §3.2). A transmission sensitivity analysis overlays candidate transmission corridors to assess redistribution of opportunity under different network scenarios (RQ3; §2.7; §3.3). Outcomes of the work (maps and scorecards) inform policy and planning decisions.
Section 2 opening paragraph:
Figure 1 summarises the end-to-end workflow and its connection to our research questions and results: (i) rasterisation of inputs at 250m, pixel-level LCOE estimation and cost-class assignment, and demand allocation to form state supply curves (RQ1; §2.3-2.4; §3.1); (ii) aggregation to LGAs and federal electorates with socio-economic valuation to produce decision-ready regional profiles (RQ2; §2.5-2.6; §3.2); and (iii) candidate transmission-corridor overlays to test redistribution of opportunity (RQ3; §2.7; §3.3). Each step is detailed in the subsections below. All processing was performed in Python 3.12 and ArcGIS Pro 3.4.0.
If any element of the existing flow chart remains unclear (e.g., missing arrows, outputs), we would welcome specific suggestions and will revise accordingly.
Comment 5: The results and discussion section should be further restructured, and a narrative connecting each result with the novelty and scientific contribution would be important. The connection of the results presented is not clear, and it would be important to highlight their interconnection and relevance.
Response 5: Thank you for this comment. We reorganised Section 3 to match the reordered research questions. §3.1 corresponds to RQ1 as before; §3.2 now presents the socio-economic valuation (RQ2); §3.3 presents the transmission sensitivity (RQ3).
We also strengthened the roadmap and synthesis text:
Section 3 opening paragraph:
Section 3 proceeds in the order of the research questions. §3.1 (RQ1) identifies least-cost pixels and forms state supply curves from pixel-level cost classes. §3.2 (RQ2) translates the technical outputs into LGA/electorate profiles of generation, capital inflow, jobs and lease payments. §3.3 (RQ3) overlays candidate HVAC corridors to quantify how new transmission redistributes regional opportunity.
Section 3 final paragraph:
Taken together, the three strands of results demonstrate the study’s novelty and scientific contributions. A reproducible pixel-to-region workflow converts least-cost pixels into state supply curves (RQ1), produces decision-ready regional profiles that quantify socio-economic outcomes (RQ2), and reveals how candidate corridors shift the spatial distribution of opportunity (RQ3). Their interconnection is essential: network topology reshapes the feasible low-cost envelope, which in turn alters regional rankings and co-benefits.
Comment 6: Comments on the Quality of English Language
The manuscript should be further improved in the grammar, narrative, and style. The interconnection between concepts in different sections could be further improved.
Response 6: We conducted a careful language edit to improve grammar, clarity and inter-section connections, alongside the targeted structural signposting detailed above. If any specific sentences still read awkwardly, we would be grateful for line-level pointers so we can correct them precisely.
