Next Article in Journal
Household Energy and Water Practices Change Post-Occupancy in an Australian Low-Carbon Development
Previous Article in Journal
Research on Risky Driving Behavior of Novice Drivers
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

Diagnosing Barriers and Enablers for the Flemish Energy Transition

Sustainability 2019, 11(20), 5558; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205558
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2019, 11(20), 5558; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205558
Received: 18 September 2019 / Revised: 27 September 2019 / Accepted: 30 September 2019 / Published: 9 October 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Energy Sustainability)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article Diagnosing barriers and enablers for the Flemish energy transition combines three perspectives (techno-economic, technology-based, technology innovation) to diagnose and  address fundamental barriers and enablers associated with energy system transformation for the case of Flanders (Belgium).

I recommend the manuscript for publication in Sustainability after some minor and major adjustments have been taken into account.

 

Major comments

 

1) The introduction section is lack of contribution. Please, add.

2) The paper is lack of literature review. Please, add.

3) There is no information about the Flanders (Belgium). Please, add some in the Material section - in my opinion is useful.

4) I suggest separating Discussion from the Conclusions. The Conclusions section may start form the line 567 " Our paper can best be conceived as a ‘proof-of-concept’ in bringing together a forward-looking ..."  

 

Minor comments

 

1) According to the manuscript's instructions, only tables may have footers. However, in the whole paper I come across footnotes at the end of the pages, e.g. 1, 2, 7, 10-14. Please, delete them or introduce footers directly, in the body of article.

2)  Lines: 41, 176, 185, 326.  Please, move the citation brackets at the end of the sentence.

3) Line 271: " 44 Results". Please, correct.

4) Figure 2. Please, adjust the size of the font.

5) Line 280: Please, correct the dots.

6) Line 428: Add the dot after subsection numeration.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for this interesting paper. Before publication I recommend a fe minor changes.

1) Ref 3:Better to use the 2018 communication and the relevant analysis; IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OF THE COMMISSION COMMUNICATION COM(2018) 773 A Clean Planet for all - A European long-term strategic vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy 

2) description of the techno-economic perspective: It would be good to mention that the market mechanisms fall short of what is need as in general no environmental, social or health costs are prised in.

3) line 135 learning curves: It should be mentioned that this concept is only working if markets exist, which drive the learning.

4) Figure2 is not readable in its current form. The fonts are too small.

5) line 282 100kWh/m2: does this value refer to the real consumption or does it include a deduction of onsite RES energy generation?

6) lines 308 to 310 biomass: The numbers look very optimistic if a decarbonisation of the chemical industry via the biocarbon pathway is anticipated. In this case no biocarbon, except end of life, would be available for energy purposes.

7) line 338 "taking matter out of people's hands": Why not to introduce the concept that hoses and apartments below a certain energy class can't be sold?

8) line 386 greater amounts of power....: This is not correct. DC and AC lines can have similar capacities. However, DC lines only need one cable in water, therefore they can offer a cost advantage, but it has to be considered that every transformation from AC to DC and back has a considerable loss of power.

9) line 399 considerable PV potential: have a look at a recent study: Bodis et al https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109309

10) line 417 "power to gas": It needs to be spelled out that the direct electrification of applications is much more efficient than power to gas, due to the energy losses by transforming power to gas. E.g.: If H2 is used for transport about 4 times the primary energy is needed compared to an EV.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I'm satisfied with the authors corrections.

Back to TopTop