A Review on the Thermal Modeling Method for Molten Salt Receivers of Concentrating Solar Power Tower Plants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors should consider rewriting the abstract since it exceeds the maximum of 200 words. They should also describe the comparison results between the reviewed models to propose a thermal model of the molten salt receiver since it is not reflected. Substantially improve the English wording.

 

In the sentences in lines 64 – 68, it should be rewritten, and it is necessary to emphasize that the object of study in this work is the solar receiver as one of the main components.

 

The sentences in lines 86 and 87 should be reinforced, mentioning the software that stands out in modeling these systems according to the literature since this is also an essential part of the study.

 

Lines 89 and 90: What do you mean by adequate complexity? I consider eliminating this sentence because it confuses.

 

The introduction should be maintained and should be supported with some referenced research.

 

The references do not have an order of appearance of the text, they do not follow the citation format according to the journal template. Also, check that the articles in the references section are in the format requested by the journal since they do not follow it. Following the established format punctually is essential so the work complies with this point.

 

In subsection 3.2. Heat Transfer Process and Calculation Methods, the context should be improved, since it should be indicated whether the energy conservation model, which includes the physical magnitudes, is represented in a steady or transient state. Also, correlate and improve the text so that it has coherence between equations 2, 3 and 4, since the idea is not clear.

 

Equation 5 should be indicated in the text since it is not referenced.

 

The manuscript does not have the structure proposed by the journal; I think that for a better understanding, it should include section 2. CSP Tower Projects, 3. Thermal Modelling and 4. Software in only one of “Materials and Methods”.

 

In the software section, only the types of software used in different investigations, such as CSP system design software tools, are disclosed. However, they do not present a serious discussion about these tools. It would be ideal for the authors to include a discussion section, where the above is discussed and about the thermal modeling techniques and software used for molten salt receivers according to their characteristics and performance and which would be the most convenient as a proposal and really serve as a guide for this work to select the software and thermal models in future industrial developments.

 

All equations must be aligned as indicated by the format. Review each one of them.

 

The names of tables and figures in the text should not appear in bold; review lines 754, 761, and 762.

 

Paragraph 801 – 829 of Section 4. Software could be better in the introduction section.

 

Subsection 3.3 Model Classification should be in the introduction or at the beginning of section 3. Thermal modeling. This is to reinforce the lines where the models used are discussed.

 

In the conclusions section, the text from lines 1040 to 1056 should go in the introduction, as it would have a greater contribution in that section.

 

References:

Reference 13,7, 8, 14, 47, 77 not found

Reference 22, 25, 27, 30, 33, 35, 41,42, 45, 51, 55, 56, 68, 69,70, 72, 74, 84, 85 does not correspond to the DOI number they include.

Reference 23, 24, 48, 59, 64, 71, 80, 83, there is no DOI

Reference 46, should include the DOI, which is https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3247367

 

Authors should pay more attention to the journal's guidelines (template) and substantially improve the submitted work to present quality work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The intended meaning of "software" in the current context is unclear. Authors are kindly requested to provide a more precise definition or context for its use.

2. The abstract requires significant restructuring. The paper's aim is stated redundantly, and portions resemble an introduction rather than a concise summary. Additionally, the outcomes presented are overly general (e.g., "numerical models require high computational facilities"). Authors are encouraged to include specific and measurable outcomes, such as the number of surveyed methods, efficiency percentages, or other concrete numerical data. Furthermore, all abbreviations used in the abstract and the manuscript should be clearly defined before their first usage.

3. The introduction lacks a clear research gap or problem statement, particularly concerning the limitations of existing reviews. Authors are urged to specify the drawbacks of similar reviews and articulate how their work addresses these issues. A summarizing paragraph at the end of the introduction is also recommended to provide a cohesive overview of the paper's structure and contributions. 

4. The layout of Table 1 is to be reviewed: unclear structure for reading, with repeated header, etc.

5. The overall structure of the review is unclear and not adequately introduced prior to Section 3. Additionally, the title of Section 3 is ambiguous. It is challenging to discern which surveyed methods correspond to the broader categories mentioned in the abstract and Section 3.3. Furthermore, Table 3 is difficult to interpret and must be revised to enhance readability. 

6. Authors did not categorize the surveyed Software review for CSP design, nor presented any mutual comparison/assessment in between.

7. In general, the review primarily adopts a descriptive or enumerative approach (e.g., "authors in [ ] did this; authors in [ ] did that") without offering critical analysis, professional insights, or evaluative commentary. Authors are strongly encouraged to include concrete numerical judgments and assessments for each surveyed method, as suggested in comment #1. 

8. dedicated discussion section is required to highlight how this review contributes to the body of knowledge in the CSP field, particularly in comparison with other similar reviews. This section should provide an analysis of the unique contributions and relevance of the presented work. 

9. A "methodology" section after the Introduction would be ideal: why did authors chose to review the thermal modeling with CSP software? etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Several references do not match DOI numbers. It is essential that authors thoroughly check each reference to ensure it has a correct DOI.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank authors for their dedication, hard work, and responses to the raised comments. Below are my remaining observations during this second round:

1. Did authors conduct their review over a single method as stated in the title, or a set of methods?

2. To kindly put numerical identifiers informing about the number of surveyed manuscripts for each method/approach/etc. in the abstract.

3. A unique discussion section, at the end of the survey, must be added to reflect some critical assessments and actual contributions. This differs from small discussions at the end of each section but rather encapsulates the entire findings of the review into one section, mainly including numerical identifiers and graph representations about the obtained results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper's quality after two rounds of profound review has been elevated. I suggest it for publication.