From Megawatts to Kilowatts: A Review of Small Wind Turbine Applications, Lessons From The US to Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Previous comments were addressed.

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

There are some minor spelling mistakes. There are discrepancies between Figure 3 and the numbers included in the text that comments this figure (according to the Figure, the growth rate is approximately a 15%, not a 10% as stated in the paper). In line 494, “Standardi”, probably, should be Standard. In line 507, “9,000 kW”, probably, should be “9000 kWh”.

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I like the research presented, both as a form and as an originality; I don't understand the first image that I would insert in the text with the addition of a special comment; extensive bibliography and comments on the results achieved

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

After an acquaintance with the contents of article it may be stated that the range of problems in the study relating to the renewable  energy sources, more precisely to wind energy, is interesting and relevant to the issues raised.  The article presents the wind energy market in the US and Brazil.  The article also  aims to analyze the possibilities of expansion of the latter market. Nevertheless, in my opinion the article has several weaknesses:

• The title of the article does not entirely correspond to its context. It follows from the title that main considerations will refer to Brazilian market, while almost the entire section 3, except part 3.3. devotes much more attention to US wind energy sector than analyzed country. The US market should only be a benchmark.   
• The relevance of Authors’ study should be established. The in-depth and critical literature review, draw the research objective(s) and questions should be added and extended. In my opinion the research problem should be identified more precisely and redefined. The article should also clearly indicate how the study adds to extant knowledge in presented area. The research objective in the current version of the text seems to be rather vague. It would be necessary to identify the knowledge gap based on literature review. The contribution of the article should be better explained.
• Reading the text, one is under the illusion that too many issues have been included in it and the most important issues are blurred. The article should be better structure. I would suggest shortening the study and highlighting the most important issues.    
• The Introduction should more clearly explain why the Authors have decided to focus on the issues presented in the article. The arguments for their choices should be added.
• The methods of research and methodological choices should be presented and discussed.
• The key conclusions should deal with the further research direction and limitation of the research. The latter may also be included at the end of section 3.
• Authors should refer to all tables and figures in the text. The figure at the beginning should be moved to the next parts of the article. It was also presented on page 25.  However, I would suggest to insert it a bit earlier in this section, because it requires a thorough analysis of the issues presented in it.
• Figure 1 and Figure 2 presented data refer to countries not regions. I would consider incorporating Brazil in both cases. Figure 3 is not clear, I would suggest updating data in it. Nowadays it is 2020, so the projection of installed SWT capacity and cumulative installed SWT capacity for 2016 and beyond seems to be rather out of date. The data for 2016-2018 should have been already published. I suggest to move Table 1 regarding small wind market to section 3.3. The data refer not only to the US market, but also to Brazil. The data refer not only to the US market, but also to Brazil.

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

I accept changes introduced by the Authors. I do not make any other comments.