Assessing Energy Descent Scenarios for the Ecological Transition in Spain 2020–2030

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article must improve substantially to be published in this journal. My recommendations are the following:
1. The work is well motivated but the introduction must make explicit the objectives of the work, the methodology used, the usefulness of the research and the energy policy recommendations. In addition, at the end of the introduction, the order of the sections and the contribution of each one to achieve the objectives of the study should be described.
2.- Section 2 is very long and should clarify and focus on its use in section 3. The discussion on lines187-194 leads to a very daring conclusion stating that there will be an economic contraction. This is very debatable or at least it should be based on a much more rigorous analysis.
3.-The use of the chosen calculation methodology is not adequately justified, why not another? What are the advantages and disadvantages compared to other methods?
4.- Although there is a discussion of the results, I miss a section or, at least, a more detailed analysis of the consequences in energy policy derived from the results of the work.
5.- In general, I think there are many excessively long paragraphs that make reading heavy; should be reduced in size

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents an analysis energy descent scenarios for the ecological transition in Spain for the period of 2020-2030. While the article is rich and wide, the scope of the paper may not meet the scope of the special issue entitled "Renewable Energy Technologies and Environmental Impact Assessment".

As it is mentioned at the end of the paper, the initial/thorough analysis is presented at the report "Labour Scenarios in the Ecosocial Transition 2020-2030", carried out by “Ecologistas en Acción" published in 2019.

Some notes:

Introductory Section: The structure of the paper is not presented clearly. Please add it at the end of the section 1.

Table 1: The TOTAL (sum of percentages) is wrong. It is 100% probably.

Discussion Section: The section is long enough. A Conclusion section may close the paper by summarizing the main findings and proposals/future work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

The main objective of the paper is to carry out a study and description of the use of energy in different sectors considering different scenarios in Spain in the period 2020-2030.

I make a series of comments and suggestions below.

• Topics 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 are fundamental in this work since they describe the authors' methodology. However, they are complicated for the reader to follow, mainly topics 3.1 and 3.2. The methods, models and calculations that the authors have made are mentioned with phrases. I think the authors should rewrite these sections and try to make them more understandable, and if possible, include equations and graphs or flowcharts that better describe what is done.
• The paper has a lot in common with the reference [44]; even some graphs are very similar. Authors should emphasize and try to describe better and be more concise on the paper's objectives (energy use).
• Most of the figures are of very poor quality, even though they are simple graphics. I suggest to the authors that they make these graphs with better quality.

Best regards.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The work has merit and originality, and has potential to represent a significant contribution to the literature of energy transitions. However, my main concerns are related to the clarity of the methods, which should be highly improved for publication, as I see it. The introduction of the article would also need a better organization and would benefit from clarifying the objectives of the article. Other than that, there are only minor comments. I would suggest the authors addressing the following comments (attached) prior to publication:

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present form

Author Response

Thank you for the time and effort dedicated to the review process of this paper, it has helped us to improve it.

Kind regards

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have greatly improved the structure of the article and the transparency of the methods they used, which was my main concern. Therefore, I recommend that this article is published as it is at the moment.

Author Response

Thank you for the time and effort dedicated to the review process of this paper, it has helped us to improve it.

Kind regards