4E Transient Analysis of a Solar-Hybrid Gas-Turbine Cycle Equipped with Heliostat and MED

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors conducted a study on the 4E transient of a solar-hybrid cogeneration cycle equipped with a heliostat. They thoroughly examined previous studies to compare them with their research. However, there are formatting errors in the title and equation numbers. Moreover, the introduction section lacks specific information for comparison with this study. The conclusion section should be written in a clear and concise manner, emphasizing its relationship with the introduction. The authors should review the English and equations in the paper, as it can be challenging to locate new information on the topic. Finally, it is recommended that the manuscript be thoroughly revised before publication.

Moderate editing of English language

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for reviewing our manuscript and for their relevant, thoughtful, and useful comments and constructive suggestions helping to improve the quality of this manuscript. We have enclosed a revised version that will hopefully address the concerns in the reviews. Detailed responses to the comments of the reviewer #1 are given in this letter. In this letter, we quote in boldface statements from the decision letter. Our replies follow in ordinary print.

Best Regards

M.A.Javadi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

-       - The topic is interesting and the manuscript was well-organized, however, English language needs some improvement.

- The research gap that the manuscript covers is not clearly addressed.

 -  The studies presented in the literature review are isolated from each other; there is no a clear theme of the literature.

- In system description, “…Hot air with an 1163-degree temperature….” Temperatures within the cycle change with various parameters; temperatures are not part of the system description. What is “the motive fluid”?  please elaborate on the desalination process and the heat recovery.

 - There are no definitions for any of the symbols used in the equations. Please add a nomenclature or define each symbol throughout the manuscript.

 - Please support your results with relevant results from the literature.

 - Please compare the contribution of this manuscript to the contributions of similar/relevant studies in the literature.

 - In the abstract: “Results demonstrated that in Bushehr, one of the cities in which the proposed cycle is evaluated, every one-degree increase …..”, please delete the sentence “one of the cities in which the proposed cycle is evaluated,” and add the country name, “Iran”, I guess, after “Bushehr”.

 - The statistical numbers in the first sentence in the introduction need a reference.

 - In the introduction, “ The growing demand for freshwater has caused to increase in energy demand” please correct to “…has caused an increase in …”.

 - Please use past tense throughout the literature. i.e . “….an MED-TVC system is simulated. This simulation can provide engineers….”

 - In the introduction, “When Raphael and his colleagues [10] visited a heliostat, they found that…” Do you mean looked at/studied a heliostat? If so, please correct the word “visited”.

 -  In the introduction, “….Direct steam Generation (DSG)…” correct “steam” to “Steam”.

English language needs moderate editing.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for reviewing our manuscript and for their relevant, thoughtful, and useful comments and constructive suggestions helping to improve the quality of this manuscript. We have enclosed a revised version that will hopefully address the concerns in the reviews. Detailed responses to the comments of the reviewer #2 are given in this letter. In this letter, we quote in boldface statements from the decision letter. Our replies follow in ordinary print.

Best Regards

M.A.Javadi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for reviewing our manuscript and for their relevant, thoughtful, and useful comments and constructive suggestions helping to improve the quality of this manuscript. We have enclosed a revised version that will hopefully address the concerns in the reviews. Detailed responses to the comments of the reviewer #2 are given in this letter. In this letter, we quote in boldface statements from the decision letter. Our replies follow in ordinary print.

Best Regards

M.A.Javadi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1.    Some of the words in the paper are wrong and should be strictly checked and corrected, such as “simle” in line 63 should be "simple";

2.    The nomenclature should be provided in the paper, and the meaning of some mathematical symbols has not been explained;

3.    The description of the system in Figure 1 should be more specific;

4.    There is a sensitivity analysis in the paper, but it does not explain how the relevant modeling is established;

5.    What are the limitations of the current study? Please indicate in the part of the “Conclusion”.

6.    Please point out the internal relationships between the 4E in the part of “Results and Discussion”.

Please improve the language of English as well as typoes.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for reviewing our manuscript and for their relevant, thoughtful, and useful comments and constructive suggestions helping to improve the quality of this manuscript. We have enclosed a revised version that will hopefully address the concerns in the reviews. Detailed responses to the comments of the reviewer #2 are given in this letter. In this letter, we quote in boldface statements from the decision letter. Our replies follow in ordinary print.

Best Regards

M.A.Javadi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

There are some concerns with this research study:

1. What is the main question addressed by the research? What is the main motivation of the proposed study is not provided.

2. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material? A comparative analysis may be provided.

3. Most of the equations are not original to the text. Kindly elaborate what is the novelty in this research?

In the manuscript, usage of English language regards grammar and typos must be improved. Please go through the whole manuscript. Also the equations must be rewritten carefully.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for reviewing our manuscript and for their relevant, thoughtful, and useful comments and constructive suggestions helping to improve the quality of this manuscript. We have enclosed a revised version that will hopefully address the concerns in the reviews. Detailed responses to the comments of the reviewer #2 are given in this letter. In this letter, we quote in boldface statements from the decision letter. Our replies follow in ordinary print.

Best Regards

M.A.Javadi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Thank you for the revisions