Engineering Feasibility Assessment of Cage Aquaculture in Offshore Wind Power Generation Areas in Taiwan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Sustainability-1905870-Recommendations

The manuscript “ Engineering feasibility assessment of cage aquaculture in off-2 shore wind power generation areas in Taiwan” is very interesting. The presentation of the paper is very good, well-written, and expressive however I have a few suggestions for the authors.

 

This article focused on feasibility of cage aquaculture in the offshore 10 wind farm area of Changhua, Taiwan:

     The efficiency of the proposed method is quantified. There is no mention of the method’s efficiency anywhere in the manuscript.

     Before the problem formulation, you must point out the hypothesis, conditions, and boundaries.

     The authors should critically and quantitatively compare the proposed technique with other reported techniques in this area.

     Please provide the flow chart based on which this study was conducted (The flowchart should contain all the steps that were followed to complete this work step by step).

     A significant number of research has been conducted in the area. Authors should do some latest literature reviews. In some cases, the authors oversimplified the idea.

     Author should explain Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) strategy for current under only conditions.

     Authors may add a diagram of the proposed system and flow chart to highlight the contributions of the proposed research compared to existing research.

     Although, the study sea area, the 441 probability that the remaining volume of the cages can be maintained above 40% in 442 one-year is above 90%. What are the criteria for choosing this range?

     Do a sensitivity analysis to determine typhoons on mooring loads and remaining cage volume.

     Has the model proposed in the article been verified with real data?

     There were various discrepancies in Under combined waves and currents condition and the current under only conditions net cages under the failure of mooring.

     The authors should give a comparison analysis to demonstrate the improved performance of the suggested mechanisms.

     You may add a section to the manuscript regarding the future work and trend of the paper.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors analyse an interesting mechanical problem. Comments to the authors are:

1) Please include a literature review section.

2) In general figures need more explanation. for example figure 1 contains several shaded areas numbered as No 26, No 27, etc or named such as Xidao, etc. In the figure's caption or in the text there is no mention to the  relevance/meaning of these areas.

3) The model is poorly presented, this is the major drawback of the paper. The mechanical and numerical model should be presented in a thorough manner. Currently, the whole model is a single equation. 

4) In line 108, the paper mentions "subscript i". This subscript is not present in Eq. (1). Please clarify.

5) What do the authors try to convey by "50 year return period"?

6) Please provide a valid reference to data, parameters, etc obtained from "Taiwan Power Company" 

7) What are the orange bubbles in figure 3a?

8) Can the authors elaborate if the study assumes unidirectional waves and currents? and if so what are the implications for a typhoon or monsoon with multi-direction waves and currents.

9) Please provide references for the assumptions considered in lines 205-210.

10) In line 224, check spelling there might be a typo. Instead of the word
"rare" the authors might wanted to type rear.

Thanks   

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The manuscript “Engineering feasibility assessment of cage aquaculture in off-2 shore wind power generation areas in Taiwan” is very interesting. The presentation of the paper is very good, well-written, and expressive. The authors address all the concerns regarding this manuscript one by one. 

 

There is no doubt that the authors have made an effort in improving their manuscript. The authors have adequately revised the manuscript upon my comments. This paper may be accepted for publication in Sustainability.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf