A Techno-Economic Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Conversion to Energy in Indonesia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study proposes an analysis of the impact of President Regulation No. 35 of 2018 on the feasibility study of WtE Plant in Indonesia in detail. The results are case specific, but I think this empirical paper could make a significant contribution to the field after some major and minor adjustments that have been taken into account.
Abstract
Please standardize the aim of the paper. In the abstract it is said that: “The aim of present work was to demonstrate a technoeconomic evaluation of a commercial WtE plant in Indonesia by processing 1000 ton of waste /day to produce ca. 19.7 MW of electricity.” Lines 14-15.
But in the body of the text, one could find: „The aim of present study was to investigate the effect of President Regulation No. 35 of 2018 to the feasibility study of WtE Plant in Indonesia in detail.” Lines 111-112.
So, the study objective is not clearly defined.
Keywords
Please add the word on the case study (Indonesia)
Introduction
In the first paragraph, there are some places (especially, with the statistical data on Indonesia) that require references to support the statements made.
In the Introduction or in the second part of the paper, the literature review is provided. For journal articles, a review of the literature is a synopsis of what is known
about a topic, what is not known, and what is the gap in the literature that your study will fill. Please add.
Current status of Waste to Energy (WtE) in Indonesia
The data analysis is not indicated. Moreover, the authors should provide more information about the character of the data set, e.g. about the time span.
Line 133: error occurs
Eq. (1) what does j mean?
All of figures are in a bed quality… Please adjust the size and quality, now it is blurred.
I suggest to change the type of the Figure 2. Now, it remines the temperature visualization.
Please rethink also changing the title of section Sensitivity analysis into Simulation analysis - there is no testing the robustness of the results of a model or system in the presence of uncertainty.
You need to include a section on limitations of the study and ideas for future research.
Author Response
Dear Editor
Please find attached a revised version of the manuscript: " A Techno-economic Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Conversion to Energy in Indonesia” for publication in Sustainability MDPI.
I would like to thank the editor and the reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions for this manuscript. The manuscript has been partly adjusted in accordance with their suggestions. Comments to the editors, reviewer questions and suggestions are given below. We strongly hope that this work may positively contribute to the advancement of Municipal Solid Waste Management, especially in the development of Waste-to-Energy Plant Indonesia, and this manuscript can be accepted in this Sustainability MDPI journal.
With best regards,
Dr. Muhammad Mufti Azis
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is very interesting, but it needs major revision.
My remarks are:
- 22 references for 3 authors in the theoretical article – is far too little. It should be at least 2 times more.
- No spaces between Rp and numbers. Please explain what is Rp in the abstract? Because not everyone is Indonesian and understands it.
- Compare municipal solid waste management of Indonesia with other countries like Italy, Ukraine, Egypt, Brazil, and so on. Introduce more management strategies. Compare solutions of Indonesia and other countries. Put some more aspects of solid waste management
- Line 80. Why do You put here Corruption Eradication Commission? Are they making data in waste management? If so that's very unique. Please then stress the unique policy of Indonesia? Put source of data.
- In methodology please add some other source also for estimation besides United Nation records to have more reliable data.
- Line 132 Mistakes in a citation.
- Section 3.2 Few references. Why only gasification and anaerobic digestion? Please add pyrolysis and other methods. Please for recently used add much more citations.
- Figures are too little please enlarge a bit use the same style in every.
- Mistake in reference 14 please correct it. Reference from 4 to 6 please add source
Author Response
Dear Editor
Please find attached a revised version of the manuscript: " A Techno-economic Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Conversion to Energy in Indonesia” for publication in Sustainability MDPI.
I would like to thank the editor and the reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions for this manuscript. The manuscript has been partly adjusted in accordance with their suggestions. Comments to the editors, reviewer questions and suggestions are given below. We strongly hope that this work may positively contribute to the advancement of Municipal Solid Waste Management, especially in the development of Waste-to-Energy Plant Indonesia, and this manuscript can be accepted in this Sustainability MDPI journal.
With best regards,
Dr. Muhammad Mufti Azis
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.
Consider comments in the entire text.
We have moved on regarding “3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) process.”
Check recent literature
Revise proper spacing in international unit system…
“waste /day”
All over
This is an international journal, so an international recognized monetary unit should be used instead…
“average household price at Rp1,444.7 /kWh.”
Everywhere, and equations too…
Address all abbreviations at first use: abstract and text
Contextualize, which one…
“This study reveals the importance of government”
Revise to be more relevant and add country…
“Keywords: technoeconomic analysis; waste to energy; Municipal Solid Waste”
Not a single reference…
“Indonesia is one of the most populous developing country in the world with more
28 than 250 million people in 2018. Almost half of the population are in urban area which
29 resulting on high municipal waste production. Municipal waste management is still prob30
lematic in many parts of Indonesia due to the over capacity of existing landfills. On aver31
age, 81% of household still directly disposed their waste without any sorting or reutiliza32
tion which eventually end up in landfill. This fact immensely contradicts the principal of
33 waste management which started by reducing or avoiding the generation of waste, reuti34
lization such…”
there are parts of this theoretical sections without references
The presence of the references (to be corrected in format too…) is not clear. Outside introduction references must be clarified, direct reference style many times:
“we could estimate the amount
124 of capital investment [17], [18].”
Check all
“Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found..”
References to equations, unless new and then highlight tat must be presented immediately before equation presentation:
“? = Σ ??/(1 + ???)? ??
=1 (1)
??? = ?/? (2)
134 Where ? stands for initial investment which comprises of the total investment made
135 and ? as net cashflow which comprises of the difference between operating incomes and
136 operating expenses.”
Why add “Percentage” in Table 1 and then % in every value?!
NO time period, no contextualization in caption…
“Table 2. Operating Incomes of 1000-ton-per-day WtE Plant in Indonesia”
As in Table 1…
The figure quality is terrible. It cannot be seen:
“Figure 1. Feasibility Study Cashflow of 1000-ton-per-day WtE Plant in Indonesia”
I cannot even read it…
Again, no one will recognize the monetary values…
Same quality issue here and in all figures, it seems… and a section cannot start by a figure…
“4.5. Sensitivity analysis
203
204
205 Figure 2. Value of IRR at Various Tipping Fee and Electricity Price Combinations”
Avoid using abbreviations in graphics unless clarified…
As seen, English needs to be entirely proofread…
“This finding supported by the fact that the plant income is largely comprises of
230 electricity sales (Table 2) which substantially affects the profitability of the WtE plant”
Please use plural:
“4. Conclusion”
AS in an abstract, it should start by brief contextualization,
Revise language…
“Here, the influence”
“Here, the WtE electricity”
Language used compromises the clarity of this text…
“This study reveals the importance of
248 government to maintain the regulated electricity price for WtE plant to ensure the sustain249
ability of WtE plant in Indonesia.”
References are scarce and they do not respect the style…
Despite the work done, the language and issues addressed ned to be further worked. The text would gain in being entirely revised aiming to further integrate the discussion within the results
Author Response
Dear Editor
Please find attached a revised version of the manuscript: " A Techno-economic Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Conversion to Energy in Indonesia” for publication in Sustainability MDPI.
I would like to thank the editor and the reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions for this manuscript. The manuscript has been partly adjusted in accordance with their suggestions. Comments to the editors, reviewer questions and suggestions are given below. We strongly hope that this work may positively contribute to the advancement of Municipal Solid Waste Management, especially in the development of Waste-to-Energy Plant Indonesia, and this manuscript can be accepted in this Sustainability MDPI journal.
With best regards,
Dr. Muhammad Mufti Azis
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I am satisfied with the revised manuscript – only the Figures' quality is still low. Please, change the resolution settings.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Please find attached a revised version of the manuscript: "A Techno-economic Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Conversion to Energy in Indonesia” for publication in Sustainability MDPI. I would like to thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions for this manuscript. The manuscript has been adjusted in accordance with their suggestions. The reviewer questions and suggestions are given below. We strongly hope that this work may positively contribute to the advancement of Municipal Solid Waste Management, especially in the development of Waste-to-Energy Plant Indonesia, and this manuscript can be accepted in this Sustainability MDPI journal.
Best regards,
MMA
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
An article is much improved. But need for improvement. My questions are:
- Why do You choose these parameters Internal Rate of
143 Return (IRR) and Payout Time (PoT) for estimation? - Are any other methods for estimation if so compare them.
- Please extend comparison estimations also for some other continents than Asia.
- Figures are blurred please correct them.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Please find attached a revised version of the manuscript: "A Techno-economic Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Conversion to Energy in Indonesia” for publication in Sustainability MDPI. I would like to thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions for this manuscript. The manuscript has been adjusted in accordance with their suggestions. The reviewer questions and suggestions are given below. We strongly hope that this work may positively contribute to the advancement of Municipal Solid Waste Management, especially in the development of Waste-to-Energy Plant Indonesia, and this manuscript can be accepted in this Sustainability MDPI journal.
Best regards,
MMA
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.
Consider comments in the entire text.
The answers from the authors are not satisfactory detailed.
I mean that it no longer makes sense mentioning this…
“3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) process”
All over the text…
The concept of 3R has been enlarged many years ago…
“
|
Consider comments in the entire text. We have moved on regarding “3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) process.” Check recent literature |
We have added more reference in the introduction. |
”
Figure 1: still very low quality
And please compare the indication of the monetary unit with text… and why repeat the symbol all over (secondary yy axis).
It is just not done like this…
Either one or the other monetary unit, why use two, and compare with tables…
There is no coherence then…
“WtE Plant would typically cost around Euro (EUR) 30 million (EUR 1 equals USD 1.18)”
English needs additional proofreading, this sentence cannot start like this and lacks conclusion then…
“Whereas in another study by the World Bank, a typical WtE Plant will costs around
138 USD 190/annual ton of waste incinerated or around EUR 33 million at the same capacity
139 [22].”
This is not… an equation…
“Purchased Equipment=USD 60,135,337.24”
Some text needs to be added so content makes sense…
Why on Earth tree zeros?!
“365,000”: “equation” 3…
Again, why use years and % everywhere, when that can be indicated in headings…?! Compare to other cases…
“Table 3. Comparison of WtE Plant Economic Feasibility Studies”
Figure 2 terrible too and compare to Figure 1, and again, why repeat the symbols everywhere…
See that it is in fact TWO figures, so they must be identified by letters and separate subcaptions contained in the main caption, after the introductory caption
“Figure 2. Value of Internal Rate of Return at Various Tipping Fee and Electricity Price Combinations”
[and more…]
Same issues also, unit indicated in the axis legend, not next to each value
There are basic rules to be followed…
Compare to other nomenclature used in the text… “to US Dollar,”
Please do not use “we” or similar expressions, and replace evaluate by assessed…
“we have evaluated”
References are still scarce (when focusing on papers…) and mostly old… (when focusing on papers…)
The text will gain with a further effort addressing the mentioned above aspects.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Please find attached a revised version of the manuscript: "A Techno-economic Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Conversion to Energy in Indonesia” for publication in Sustainability MDPI. I would like to thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions for this manuscript. The manuscript has been adjusted in accordance with their suggestions. The reviewer questions and suggestions are given below. We strongly hope that this work may positively contribute to the advancement of Municipal Solid Waste Management, especially in the development of Waste-to-Energy Plant Indonesia, and this manuscript can be accepted in this Sustainability MDPI journal.
Best regards,
MMA
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.
Consider comments in the entire text.
Some already mention much more than 5R…
See that the authors use an “x” instead of plus sign… “equation” 3…
Why mention EUR and USD at the same time in the manuscript: text and tables
References in tables should have the authors names before…
Example: Table 3
% in xx axis does not come after a “,” but inside ():
Example: Figure 3
Newly added references are not highlighted in the text.
Because I was expensive before, the editor will be able to comments above
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Please find attached a revised version of the manuscript: "A Techno-economic Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Conversion to Energy in Indonesia” for publication in Sustainability MDPI.
I would like to thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions for this manuscript. The manuscript has been adjusted in accordance with their suggestions. The reviewer questions and suggestions are given below. We strongly hope that this work may positively contribute to the advancement of Municipal Solid Waste Management, especially in the development of Waste-to-Energy Plant Indonesia, and this manuscript can be accepted in this Sustainability MDPI journal.
Best regards,
MMA
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
