Building Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) in Southeast Asian Countries: Review of Effects and Challenges
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors are dealing with an interesting topic. However, the submitted manuscript requires significant improvements. The main notes are below:
- Abstract needs to be reviewed. Not only importance of the subject, but also essential results, the goal of the article and the main methods used should be presented in the abstract.
- Introduction section needs to be reviewed. It should be answered such questions as: Why is the topic important (or why do you study on it)? What are the research questions? What has been studied? What are your contributions? Have been similar studies carried out? The latest research in the field should be reviewed. Please stress your contributions to the field. Why do you use this particular method for the research? Also, the data provided in Figure 1 is very old. Figure 1 and Table 1 present data about different countries. Why? It would be logical to analyse the same countries.
- There is no methodology of the research, is not clear how the authors collected and analysed information.
- The aim of the research is not clear. Please pay attention: tropical climate countries are not only in Asia.
- The newest literature sources on the topic must be reviewed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Please refer to the attached word file regarding responses to the comments
Best Regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a review study in the applicability of BIPV systems in tropical climate. Despite it presented as a review study, the methodology of the research is not described. Thus, it is not possible understand which database you refer, which keywords and so on. Section 2 refers to BiPV technologies in general, not in tropical climate. It is better to specify that this part is useful to enlarge the micro-topics of your study considering other countries (for example Europe and Australia) where BiPV technology are widely used in building applications. To have and overview on European research projects you can refer to the studies: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/949/1/012113 and https://doi.org/10.3390/en14061627. These studies can added for comparing the main topic studies in other territories. Figure 2: what is the references for the percentage you inserted? In which territory? The area of your study is not defined with a map or a description. thus tropical climate seems very general. Only the description of the last part on legislation and policy is related to a specific Country. This is very clear and interesting. It is possibile to have a similar structure also in the other sessions? In the conclusion a discussion on diffusion and challenges of BiPV systems must be inserted.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Please find the attached word file regarding responses to comments.
Best Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
General comments:
The article presents interesting data on the situation and perspectives that are expected to reduce the consequences of greenhouse gases produced by the use of energy mixtures with a predominance of fossil fuels applied in some Southeast Asian countries.
However, the writing of the article is somewhat confusing in several parts. In the attached document provided * .pdf, calls are made on multiple lines to highlight this aspect.
In the state of the art, the most important aspects of the articles that are discussed are not sufficiently limited: construction typology of the building, useful surface, occupation, climate ... For this reason, it is difficult to see to what extent the results can be extrapolated. This point is considered important for a review article such as the one presented.
At various points there are very general phrases whose idea is entered several times, for example on line 233.
In section 4 dedicated to economic issues, the possibilities of photovoltaic systems in general installed in buildings (in any form and with different levels of integration) and the generation of electrical energy through the installation of photovoltaic solar plants that are not associated to specific buildings, are not properly differenciated.
As minor points, but to take care. Sometimes terms or acronyms are introduced that are not presented previously and there are typographical errors in the writing of the units that must also be corrected.
Specific comments:
They are found in 46 comments that have been highlighted indicating the line in the * .pdf file that was added.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Please find the attached word file regarding responses to comments.
Best Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised paper has taken into consideration some of my suggestions. However, the manuscript still requires improvements:
- The methodology of the research should be clearly presented. Please add a graphical methodological framework that reflects the mechanisms used for the analysis of the research in a general way. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be indicated in the methodology.
- The authors should compare the contributions of the current study with previous works.
- The limitations of the research and the directions of further possible analyzes in this area should be presented.
- Editing of English language and style is required for the manuscript.
- Figure 1 and Table 1 present data about different countries. Why? It would be logical to analyse the same countries.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Please find my attached file regarding revising comments.
Thank you so much,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The previous comments are only partially considered. Show better the innovation of your research also compared to other territories, making comparisons on the state of the art in you climate and in other climates that applied BiPV technologies for more time.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Please find my attached file regarding revising comments.
Thank you so much,
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you very much for the effort to respond to the comments. However, taking into account the revised version of the paper and the responses to the comments made by this reviewer in the first round, it is considered that the changes have not been made with sufficient depth and rigor. Therefore, the level reached is not yet sufficient to see the contribution as relevant and with sufficient scientific value in terms of the reference and extension of the data, delimitation of the problem and development methodology.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Please find my attached file regarding revising comments.
Thank you so much,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised paper has taken into consideration my suggestions. The paper has improved significantly through the review process.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Please find the attached file regarding your comment.
Thank you so much,
Main Author,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments:
On line 51. Do you mean that semi-transparent photovoltaic systems (STPV) installed at any point of the envelope with access to the sun are also included as BIPV?
In line 115 include the reference of Energy Outlook …[2].
On line 118: The table shows more countries than you mention. Could you complete the comment by also introducing the countries not mentioned? Another observation is that the comments do not correspond to the information in table 1. Table 1 does not “describe renewable energy policies”, they are weather conditions. Confusion between Table 1 and 2 in the text, see lines 127 and 131.
Line 173. Improve the caption of the figure. Also describe the photovoltaic material with fins between the glasses, is the photovoltaic material opaque?
Line 155, Is this a comment for the semi-transparent envelope?
Lines 160 and 161 are difficult to understand.
Line 181. Check or explain the sentence “sunlight and sunlight?”
Lines 186: Check if the “financial” should be cost.
Line 217. Explain what you mean “organic and changeable.”
Line 242 Explain the convenience and way of working of the so-called process or structured method of pre-evaluation
Line 152: The background of "The prestressing force used" should be commented. What kind of solar cells or panels?
Line 161: Introduce “.” at the end.
Line from 290 to 292. Check the test: “Moreover, Figure 5 shows that heat gain 290 cut down by almost 65% throughout all the five orientations, which is obviously related 291 to that transmittance of glass is much higher than that of BIPV modules. [hr1]”.
Line 347. Check the unit 400 kW/h. Is it kWh?
Line 363. Table 2 include in the Table the number of the references. Check the values “10.6 °C (coolest month) – 31.1 °C (warmest month).” Those are operational set points, so the head of that part of the table should not be called “Model temperature”. They are expressed the heating and cooling hours each day, but it is more relevant to tell the total amount of the yearly heating and cooling hours. To understand the conclusions is important to make reference to the quality of the envelope and the type of building.
Line 380 It should be explained the future horizon taken for the mentioned reduction of cost and the year taken as reference.
Lines from 381 to 384. It should be better explained the sentence. “increasing the accuracy of yield estimations while also increasing the power yield from a PV system”.
Line 389. Comment the sentence “The BIPV system is more cost-effective than traditional building facade features”. What do you mean?
In general, in lines from 377 to 398 the comments are general and disperse without enough scientific rigour. It is recommended to provide a table with economic data: country, the main features of the building or application considered, Initial inversion, payback, etc.
Lines from 400 to 401. There is not a comparison with respect to Europe and North America in this paragraph. This is a confusing sentence. Perhaps this is more appropriate to say something in the next paragraph.
Line 441-42: What do you include in Solar´s global cost in your sentence: “Solar's global cost was still $0.10/kWh in 2017,”?
Line 444.It was not defined PLN.
Line 460: Wp
Line 451: Clarify the period. Does the amount correspond to an annual or summer average? The same when referring to the irradiation data in the rest of the countries.
Most of the comments in 3.2 could be summarized in a new Table more complete than the current Table 4. In addition, it is also recommended to enter the reference numbers in the new table. That way, it could be easy to grab the reader's attention and improve the readability of the document as well.
Tables 5 and 6 can be combined into a single table. Also, try to simplify the information in 3.3. perhaps adding information in the new Table.
Section 4 could perhaps be included in previous sections to shorten and improve structure and readability.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Please find the response file regarding your comments.
Thank you so much,
Main Author,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
