Regional Security Assessment of Integrated Energy Systems with Renewables in China: A Grid-Connected Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article concerns the development of a comprehensive energy security  assessment criteria framework for 31 Chinese provinces based on data form year 2016. To realize this aim the, natural disaster risk assessment model is used, as a fundamental system-oriented framework, in order to establish a comprehensive framework matched with the definition of resilient energy systems.

- Article content suites to Sustainability journal scope

- The novelty is clearly indicated in lines 103-112. Indicated novelty is sufficient to be published as a research article.

- Literature the review is based on 52 positions. The majority of them are actual. Also after the literature state-of-the-art in the introduction, the research gap is clearly indicated.

- The used methods are sufficiently described in section 2.

- The organization of the article is correct.

Elements that requires revision

#1 Table 2 please correct the decimal part of values presented n Table 2.

#2 Please justify why a significant level of 0.05 and 0.01 are used to present  P value in Table 5. Information that is indicated in lines, 282-284 is not sufficient.

#3 Please use space between value and unit (eg line 37) there should be “181 GW” not “181GW”. Please check the whole text at this point.

Specific remarks

Line 59- Error! Reference source not 60 found...

Figure 4 -> quality must be improved (2 first provinces are not legible)

Quality of symbols, equations  is poor and must be corrected.

Author Response

Point 1: Table 2 please correct the decimal part of values presented in Table 2.


Response 1: The decimal part of the same indicator data in Table 2 has been unified to 2 decimal places. (in red)

Point 2: Please justify why a significant level of 0.05 and 0.01 are used to present  P value in Table 5. Information that is indicated in lines, 282-284 is not sufficient.

Response 2: Significance judgment was made according to the P value obtained by statistical significance test method. The supplementary statement is added in lines 282-283 (in red)

Point 3: Please use space between value and unit (eg line 37) there should be “181 GW” not “181GW”. Please check the whole text at this point.

Response 3: All values with units in the article have been checked and modified. The format in line 37, line 88 and Table 1 have been modified.(in red)

 Besides, the specific remarks have been checked and modified, the results and conclusion have been further discussed in the results and conclusion section(in red).

Reviewer 2 Report

The decomposition  criteria of 5 risk sources  into 17 components should be deeply described.

The  weighting process of the different impacts , is defined  "objective" but this statement should be clearly motivate.

Author Response

Point 1: The decomposition criteria of 5 risk sources into 17 components should be deeply described.

Response 1: The decomposition is based on the adequate literature review (line 184-190) and deeply description are in section 3.1.1-3.1.5. (in red)

Point 2: The weighting process of the different impacts, is defined "objective" but this statement should be clearly motivate.

Response 2: The weighting process has been organized and added in line 242-244 and 255-260. (in red)