Optimization and Comparative Analysis of Different CCUS Systems in China: The Case of Shanxi Province
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the file“review comments1.docx” for review comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Some sentences in the manuscript are simply too long to be understood. For this reason, these sentences need to be polished and revised by the author. For example, sentence in Lines 74-77.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions on the revisions to
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2565295. These suggestions are very important for the improvement of this article. I have carefully read the comments and made
corresponding modifications in the text based on different opinions, highlighted in yellow. The specific modifications have been listed in the cover letter in the attachment. Thank you again for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- The organization of the article should be added to the last paragraph of the introduction.
- Why was MILP chosen? What are the advantages and disadvantages?
- Why are the assumptions on lines 204-222 needed in the problem statement section? How far did these assumptions deviate the study from the facts? Also, how do these assumptions affect the real-life application of the study?
- Why did the article consider the steel, power, cement, and chemical industries? Details should be given in the introduction.
- There is no harmony in the rows and columns of the tables where some words are written in capital letters and some words are written in small letters.
- Figure 1 needs to be explained
- In the conclusion and policy recommendations section, it should be stated how the article will shed light on future studies and how this study can be developed further.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions on the revisions to
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2565295. These suggestions are very important for the improvement of this article. I have carefully read the comments and made corresponding modifications in the text based on different opinions, highlighted in blue. The specific modifications have been listed in the cover letter in the attachment. Thank you again for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, a mixed-integer linear optimization method for CCUS systems is proposed, which can provide theoretical guidance for production layout optimization in the context of carbon emission reduction. However, this paper still has the following problems:
1. Can the title of the article accurately summarize the research content of this paper? In my opinion, this paper is more about the optimization of CCUS system. The disposal methods mentioned in this article are both sequestration and utilization, and it is not just about the optimization of the utilization pathways. The title of the article mentions comparing different utilization pathways, so are these pathways CCUS pathways, and does CCUS represent all CO2 utilization pathways? I think it would be better to change the title of this article to something like "Optimization Problems of CCUS Systems".
2. I think more literature should be cited to strengthen the research value of this paper. This paper is a case study of Shanxi, but in the Results and Discussion section, I don't see any other literature cited to show the value of this paper's results in comparison. Can the findings of this paper be of relevance to other regions? What are the things that can be learned? These should need to be supported by literature from other researchers.
3. The scientific validity of some data and assumptions in the article needs to be improved. For example, what is the source of the figure that each capture device cannot exceed 80% of its capacity? Would a change in this number affect the overall results of the study?
4. I strongly recommend that the authors provide a list of abbreviations. There are many abbreviations in the text, some of which are not explained in full, making it difficult to know what they mean. For example, "CO2-ECBM, CCU, CCS" in the abstract, "GHG" on page 2, line 63, and "30.60" on page 5, line 192, etc.
5. There are many formatting errors in the text that cause problems for the reader. In lines 91-94 there is a repetition of paragraphs. In line 242, the symbol "G" is mentioned, but I don't see this variable in the following formulas. The formulas in lines 258 and 278 have errors in the letter corners and font sizes. The formula on line 258 is also not centered. In the formula on line 337, I was surprised that unit of measure symbols like $ and ton were put into the formula.
6. The article is rather lengthy, so I suggest streamlining the content and improving the English expression.
Would like to express the content in more condensed statements. For example, the "case study" section is too long.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions on the revisions to
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2565295. These suggestions are very important for the improvement of this article. I have carefully read the comments and made corresponding modifications in the text based on different opinions, highlighted in green. The specific modifications have been listed in the cover letter in the attachment. Thank you again for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The quality of the manuscript can now be accepted and published.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is acceptable.
