Harnessing Residual Biomass as a Renewable Energy Source in Colombia: A Potential Gasification Scenario

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion, the article "Biomass as a renewable energy source in Colombia" has scientific value

This publication deals with the estimation of the quantitative and qualitative (for gasification technology) availability of biomass with energy potential in Colombia. The analysis was carried out for about 25 fractions of biomass, being residues from agricultural, agro-industrial, and forestry processes. On this basis, the technical energy potential of biomass in Colombia has been clearly and sufficiently presented by taking into account currently unused biomass and including an assessment of the logistical and technological requirements for the gasification process. The work is interesting and provides interesting data that can be helpful to other researchers and even companies that are interested in trading biomass for energy. The data presented at the stage of the present estimation is sufficient, although it could be presented in the form of ranges for the individual biomass fractions. In my opinion, the article "Biomass as a renewable energy source in Colombia" is of high scientific value, but please pay attention to standardize, throughout the article, the presented values, e.g. in "PJ" and significant numbers, e.g. 0.1:

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper deals with the availability of bioenergy in Columbia. The data provides interesting data that could be helpful for other scholars. However, presentation and discussion require more effort by the authors. The intention of the authors is not sufficiently described in the title and abstract. It is not well communicated that the authors consider only gasification as a method for biomass utilization. Moreover, the authors do not provide information about the data quality and annual fluctuations. This limits strongly the significance of this work.

Comments in detail:

1. In the present form, the authors should clarify in the title and abstract that gasification is the only process that was considered.

2. Abstract: It is better to write "152 PJ" instead of "151 691 TJ", to reduce the number of significant digits.

3. Page 5 top: Gorse is assumed to be an invasive species. Now, the authors intend to use it as a biomass. Does this use include the attempt to erase the gorse population in Columbia? If so, what is the effect on the energy harvest? If gorse becomes an economic asset, it could contradict environmental efforts to eliminate this species. Under these assumptions, what would be the appropriate height for harvest that could prevent further spreading?

4. Table 1 and 3: Please give P in ktons or Mtons and avoid unnecessary large numbers of significant digit as these values come with an error.

5. What is the error of this calculation? The authors should take into account that biomass quantity and properties can change from year to year. Also, technical parameters of the gasification depend on the plant and time. This should be considered by the authors. It should be included into their calculations, and a lower and upper limit for the energy potential under certain circumstances should be calculated.

6. Why did the authors include biomass with availability factors of 0 into their calculation, if it is clear that these are not available?

7. The authors consider solely gasification for energy conversion. What about other methods, incineration, ethanol and biogas production, etc. Would these methods be less efficient? The authors should discuss this.

8. Biomass is as vulnerable as hydropower to droughts (page 11).

9. The authors refer on page 11 to "the quality and accuracy of the data". Please provide information about the data quality.

10. A conclusion is missing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

None