Spatial Mapping of Jamaica’s High-Resolution Wind Atlas: An Environmental-Sociotechnical Account

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations on the extensive research work.

I consider the document a well-structured and well-founded report. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to revise our article. Please find our responses to your comments/suggestions in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the paper “Spatial mapping of Jamaica’s high-resolution wind altas: An environmental-sociotechnical account”, the authors gathered and merged the high-resolution land use, elevation, slope, and wind data to derive and indicate potential sites for wind power plants. 

 

General comments:

 

This paper use land use restrictions, 50m and 100m wind, elevation, and slope data to select the potential wind power location. However, according to table 3, “Transmission lines” is also an important factor. It’d be better to add more discussion on transmission lines and electric transmission.

 

Specific comments:

1. Line 39, “The Caribbean region has also seen an average 10% increase in electricity generation from wind energy.” What time period does this increase happen?

 

2. Line44, why does the region’s location make it privy to great wind power density above average?

 

3. line 46: “wind speed of up to 15 m/s” Is this an instant or daily mean or monthly mean or annual mean wind speed?

 

4. line 51: “potential of 1313 MW” is already mentioned in line 48. Please be concise. 

 

5. line 104: Please define “GWA” before you use it. 

 

6. line 204: ECMWF is already defined in the previous part of the paper.

 

7. Figure 5. What kind of wind speed do you use in Figure 5? The monthly mean or annual mean or anything else?

 

8. Figure 7. What’s the difference between figure 7 and figure 6 (upright)? If they provide the same information, please only use one figure to avoid confusion. 

 

9. line 374, please list the variables you use here to make it clearer. 

 

10. line 406, again are these monthly mean or annual mean?

 

11. Figure 11, please add the label of Manchester, St. Elizabeth, Hanover, St. James, Trelawny, St. Ann, St. Mary, and any other place you mentioned when you discuss figure 11 to figure 11.

 

12. line 435, “A combination of this map” which map?

 

13. Figure 15 and 16, can you overlap Figure 16 over Figure 15?

 

14. Figure 17. The legend is too small.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to revise our article. Please find our responses to your comments/suggestions in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presents an application of GIS technology in the mapping of wind profiles in Jamaica. It presents thoroughly (and somewhat redundantly) the entire data processing. However, the whole paper looks like a specific report as it would be commissioned by the Jamaican Department of Energy, lacking generality and applicability in other scenarios. As it is, it is basically describing the usage of one specific GIS platform on the processing of meteorological data, so I could not find real relevance for the broader audience.

Aside from the major issue above described, there are also the following minor issues:

- throughout the manuscript, the units must be separated from the values (e.g. "26 %" instead of "26%"; "23 km" instead of "23km");

- throughout the manuscript, the thousands separator shall be removed (e.g. "62818.71 GWh/year", or "62 818.71 GWh/year", instead of "62,818.71 GWh/year";

- in line 37, "TWh" is NOT "terawatts per hour". It is "terawatts-hour", a unit of energy;

- the paragraph between lines 46-52 is redundant and repetitive;

- in line 63 (Table 1), the 2 acronyms are the same (OWF);

- in line 67, which gaps do the present study aims to fill?

- in the first paragraph of section 2, the acronyms GWA, EKA5, WAsP need to be defined;

- lines 128-129 mention a literature review process, but it is not presented anywhere in the manuscript;

- Table 2 is VERY confusing. Including the column "buffer distance" which does not apply to all lines.

- the explanation of formula (1) in lines 308-310 seems wrong. Please verify;

- the entire section 2.5.4 is VERY confusing.

- the authors suppose that the average reader is familiar with Jamaican geography. The names of the various places mean very little, so they need to be clearly indicated on the maps.

- figure 13 is very difficult to read and understand; and

- figure 14 presents 2 different quantities (wind speed and power density) on the same axis, which makes no sense and makes it illegible. At least use 2 vertical axis.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to revise our article. Please find our responses to your comments/suggestions in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

In this paper hard research is visible. Therefore, my recommendation in the final is to accept this paper after small changes:

 

- Please do not use "we"...please correct all.

- Can we say "62,818.71" or around 62,818?

- In the abstract note the main paper benefit/contribution/conclusion paper.

- Please check all figure quality. Some figs are of poor quality (for example Fig 2)

- Equations need to be written in Equation editor.

- Is this so important and unknown:

For example, 337

? = ? ⋅ ?

2 = ? ⋅ (112 ? ⋅ 2.65)

2

339

= 88,090.24 m/1,000,000 338

 = 0.088 km2 

 

- Fig 13 is unclear what is presented.

- Fig 14 - a blue line I can not see

- Literature should be written in the MDPI style

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to revise our article. Please find our responses to your comments/suggestions in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have properly addressed and/or solved all the issues indicated in the previous revision, and the manuscript is much improved. The only minor remaining issue is that the thousands separator should be removed throughout the manuscript (e.g. "62818 GWh" or "62 818 GWh" instead of "62,818 GWh". Aside from that, I consider that the manuscript is OK for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to revise our article. We have removed the thousand separator throughout the manuscript.