Cost–Benefit Analysis for Supply Chain of Renewable Gases from Perennial Energy Crops: The Case of Lithuania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The following comments are to be incorporated for the betterment of the article:

1. The language must be improved.

2. Conclusion is too long, it should be reduced by incorporating the novelty of the work and future study.

3. The authors must not repeat same the words in the title to the keywords.

4. Section 2.1 must be supported with citations.

5. The authors have to give an explanation of the assumptions or the concepts used in Section 2.1.

6. The authors could use a model or predict the change in cost in the upcoming decades.

7. The authors should specific specifically point out drawbacks and justify, how they can be resolved in the future?

8. Many references are missing, recheck the references and citations.

9. In Section 3. Results, the authors have to do a comparative analysis with the previous literature.

10. The authors can also suggest some minimum and maximum errors in the economic analysis with respect to the future timeline.

11. The authors have to incorporate citations in Section 3, for a better understanding of the readers.

 12. Authors could increase the number of references in the revised manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Reviewer 2 Report

The work on Bužinskien et al. is very relevant research and should be considered for publication. However, before it can be done, authors should include some minor corrections mostly in the general context.

In the introduction section, the authors should demonstrate more generalized overview of the energy production in the context of biorefinery [1]. Also, more specific examples of biogas production from different types of feedstocks in different geographical locations should be highlighted as well [2]. Authors should compare the economic feasibility of the biogas production to different locations and environmental demands [3].

Finally, authors should use k (kilo) as indicator of thousand. Also, there are some problems with references in the manuscript. They appear as “Error”.

After these corrections, this manuscript can be accepted for publication.

[1]         T.F. Lopes, R.M. Łukasik, Economic, social and environmental impacts attained by the use of the effluents generated within a small-scale biorefinery concept, Acta Innov. (2020) 57–63. https://doi.org/10.32933/actainnovations.36.5.

[2]         M. Szyba, Spatial planning and the development of renewable energy sources in poland, Acta Innov. 2021 (2021) 5–14. https://doi.org/10.32933/ActaInnovations.39.1.

[3]         J. Ximenes, A. Siqueira, E. Kochańska, R.M. Łukasik, Valorisation of agri-and aquaculture residues via biogas production for enhanced industrial application, Energies. 14 (2021) 2519. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14092519.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have incorporated the comments raised 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank You again for Your valuable comments and suggestions and all the time dedicated.