Research on the Spillover Effect of Different Types of Technological Innovation on New Energy Industry: Taking China’s Solar Photovoltaic as an Example
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The genesis of choosing the factors, namely, the natural environment, policy guidelines, economic development etc... should be clearly written.
2. How does the solar irradiance influence this model and the outcome?
3. The cost of Solar PV varies based on the type of PV technology. How does this factor influence?
4. What is the average irradiance time considered in this model? how does it affect the outcome?
5. For validation of the model, what is the strategy to be adopted?
Author Response
We are extremely grateful to the reviewers and the editorial board for their evaluations of our paper. In response to your comments, we highlighted the revised part in yellow in the original text. We have made the following revisions:
- The genesis of choosing the factors, namely, the natural environment, policy guidelines, economic development etc... should be clearly written.
We have expanded the explanation of the selected influencing factors and the reasons for choosing these factors by incorporating more classic research literature as theoretical support for the reasonable selection of variables.
- How does the solar irradiance influence this model and the outcome?
An increase in light intensity results in more light being absorbed by the equipment per unit of time. The increase in light intensity boosts the power generation efficiency of photovoltaic devices per unit of time, directly promoting their electricity output within a fixed period.
- The cost of Solar PV varies based on the type of PV technology. How does this factor influence?
Different types of technological advancements have varying impacts on the cost of photovoltaic power generation. This paper takes the photovoltaic power generation industry as an example and explores the effects of three types of technological advancements on power generation costs: safety improvement, efficiency enhancement, and cost reduction. The study finds that the impact of efficiency-enhancing technological advancements is the most significant, followed by safety-improving advancements. The effect of cost-reducing technological advancements is not significant.
- What is the average irradiance time considered in this model? how does it affect the outcome?
The average daylight duration considered in the model is the daily average daylight duration calculated on an annual basis, and the data is provided by the International Energy Agency.An increase in the duration of sunlight leads to an extended period for photovoltaic power generation equipment to absorb light. The increase in sunlight duration extends the power generation time of photovoltaic devices, directly promoting their electricity output.
- For validation of the model, what is the strategy to be adopted?
For the validation of the model, we first used tests such as LM and LR to determine the model adopted in this paper. After the model results were output, we conducted a robustness test to verify the stability of the model results.
Reviewer 2 Report
The work you presented is well informed. The idea is clear and the development of the research go smoothly and easily to follow.
Thus, I recommend this work for publication.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for the recommendation, I will continue to study it in depth in the future.
Reviewer 3 Report
This work gives a complete research on the spillover effect of different types of technolog- 1
ical innovation on new energy industry taking China's solar photovoltaic as an example. However, it can only be accepted after careful modification according to below suggestion.
1. The time-line is needed to reflect the development.
2. The important progress such as air battery, photocatalysis for new energy industry should be noted， such as; Nature Communications, 2022, 13, 3689.; Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2023, 62, e202219191.; Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2022, 61, e202207677.;
3. To clearly exhibite the argument, more Figures are needed, while not Tables.
4. Special attention should be paid in the spelling and writing.
Author Response
We are extremely grateful to the reviewers and the editorial board for their evaluations of our paper. In response to your comments, we highlighted the revised part in yellow in the original text. We have made the following revisions:
- The time-line is needed to reflect the development.
Thank you for your comments. This paper takes the photovoltaic industry as an example to study the impact of technological progress and other factors on the development of new energy industries. The focus of the analysis is on discussing how various factors promote or inhibit the development of new energy industries. Therefore, there is relatively little discussion of the timeline for the development of the new energy industry.
- The important progress such as air battery, photocatalysis for new energy industry should be noted， such as; Nature Communications, 2022, 13, 3689.; Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2023, 62, e202219191.; Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2022, 61, e202207677.;
According to the comments of the reviewer, relevant literature has been added.
- To clearly exhibite the argument, more Figures are needed, while not Tables.
In order to support the arguments in the paper, additional images have been included, as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
- Special attention should be paid in the spelling and writing.
The spelling and writing standards in the English language have been revised according to the reviewer's comments.
Reviewer 4 Report
1 Although the authors propose a method no concrete or solid improvement and contribution are shown in the paper.
2 It seems that some close current references are missing (2022? 2023?).
3 Grammar mistakes and typo should be checked.
4 The authors should make the comparison with other methods.
5 Paper addresses the prediction problems which are well defined. However, more clarity from implementation & adoption in the actual application point of view needs to be added to the paper. In addition, approach is good, systematic but lacks a clear understanding to the reader which needs to be improved.
6 Recommendations for future researchers need to be more extensively covered in the conclusions.
Author Response
We are extremely grateful to the reviewers and the editorial board for their evaluations of our paper. In response to your comments, we highlighted the revised part in yellow in the original text. We have made the following revisions:
1 Although the authors propose a method no concrete or solid improvement and contribution are shown in the paper.
The method used in this paper is a mature spatial econometric model, so it is difficult to make improvements to the model. However, the paper innovatively classified the types of technological progress and explored the effects of these three types of technological progress on the development of new energy industries using the spatial econometric model.
2 It seems that some close current references are missing (2022? 2023?).
In response to the reviewer's comments, additional references have been added.
3 Grammar mistakes and typo should be checked.
In response to the reviewer's comments, the spelling and writing standards in the English language have been revised.
4 The authors should make the comparison with other methods.
In the process of model selection and validation, the paper has improved and expanded the analysis comparing the fixed effects spatial Durbin model with other models.
5 Paper addresses the prediction problems which are well defined. However, more clarity from implementation & adoption in the actual application point of view needs to be added to the paper. In addition, approach is good, systematic but lacks a clear understanding to the reader which needs to be improved.
In response to the reviewer's comments, minor adjustments have been made to the explanation of the model analysis and empirical research in this paper.
6 Recommendations for future researchers need to be more extensively covered in the conclusions.
In response to the reviewer's comments, the paper has provided a more comprehensive discussion of the research limitations and future prospects in the conclusion.
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Accept
