Evaluation of the Energy Efficiency Class of an Industrial Facility: A Rating System and a Scale of Sustainable Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript needs following revisions:

1. The important findings of the study are not clear in the abstract section.

2. Short paragraphs in the introduction section should be concatenated.

3. The importance of the study is not clear.

4. The form mentioned in 2nd section, i.e. (1.1), is not provided and well described.

5. More details are needed in the 2nd section. For instance, how the classification is performed. What were the criteria for classification? How the qualitative data are converted into quantitative data, if it is done.

6. Add some reason for selection of the indicators represented in Table 1.

7. All of the abbreviations must be defined where used for the first time.

8. Conclusion section is too long; however, no important finding is represented.

To sum up, I believe that the presentation of manuscript, particularly material and method section, requires significant improvement.

Author Response

Dear Professor!
Thank you for the detailed study and your review. We tried to take into account all the comments.
1. Important findings of the study are unclear in the annotation section
Added an explanation at the end of the annotation. This study is the final stage of our project. At the previous stage, we selected the indicators necessary to assess the energy efficiency class. Now we have systematized them, evaluated their weights according to expert opinion in order to understand the significance (experts evaluated all indicators on a 10-point scale, then we found the arithmetic mean of their estimates and weighed them in the proportion of the group –
For the first group "Energy efficiency of buildings" it was 30%, for the second group "Energy efficiency of technological processes" - 50%, and for the third group "Ensuring energy efficiency and environmental friendliness of an industrial facility" - 20%). This became the basis of our scores on indicators, which we summed up to find the spread of values - the scale.
2. Short paragraphs in the introductory section should be combined.
Combined by semantic load.
3. The importance of the study is not clear.
Supplemented with a paragraph in the introduction.
4. The form mentioned in the 2nd section, i.e. (1.1), is not provided and is not described properly. 
this was in an earlier study, links #31 added
5. More detailed information is needed in the 2nd section. For example, how classification is performed. What were the classification criteria? How qualitative data is converted into quantitative data, if this is done.
Classification criteria, principles of transformation of all quantitative and qualitative assessments, classification principles we received as a result of processing the survey results. This, in our opinion, is the key result of the study. Therefore, they are reflected in section 3 "Results"
6. Add some reasons for choosing the indicators presented in Table 1.
The remark was taken into account and a comment was made.
"The preliminary composition of indicators was compiled on the basis of an analysis of energy efficiency factors and an assessment of the "significance of indicators for assessing the energy efficiency of industrial facilities" (according to the primary principle of "yes" – significant / "no" - not significant) at the previous stage [29]. In this study, groups of indicators were determined in more detail and an assessment of the weight of each indicator and a consistent weighting in the proportion of the group was carried out."
The composition of the indicators was obtained at the previous stage of the study and published earlier.
7. All abbreviations should be defined where they are used for the first time.
Added a transcript in English without transliteration.
Inserted the full name National Research University Moscow State University of Civil
organization standard for rationing construction and personnel training (STO NOSTROY)
State Information Systems "Energy Efficiency" (GIS "Energy Efficiency"),
8. The "Conclusion" section is too long; however, it does not present important conclusions.
We made explanations to the main conclusions.
You have thoroughly read our article. All answers provided are in the article. We will attach an updated version soon

Best regards,

Meshcheryakova Tatiana

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-       Very few references are used in the Introduction. There are no references in the first paragraphs.

-       A total of 22 references were used, which is very few.

-       Most parts of the article are not referenced.

-       References at the end of the article are usually standard. This needs to be corrected and new articles added.

-       Notations should be checked in the article.

-       The article was written very confusing and should be edited again.

 

-       I suggested that the results be compared with other relative research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Professor!
Thank you for your detailed study and your review. We tried to take into account all comments.
Note 1 - Very few references are used in the introduction. There are no links in the first paragraphs.

Links added

- A total of 22 links were used, which is very few.

Added sources, now 31

- There are no links to most parts of the article.

All scientific publications that were taken into account are available in the bibliography. Our research is based on international standards. Before us, scientists had not proposed such a rating methodology for industrial facilities - to confirm the hypothesis, we did an international study and studied international reports in 2021-2022. Only point-rated “green” building standards. We indicated this in the problems. No one has created a universal methodology, due to the uniqueness of industrial facilities, including their fixed assets and the necessary technical conditions for production processes.

- Links at the end of the article are usually standard. This needs to be corrected and new articles added.

Links added

- Designations in the article should be checked.

Adjusted. Thank you for your attention.

- The article was written very confusingly and should be edited again.
Added clarifications to take into account previous studies
- I suggested comparing the results with other similar studies.

We did this as part of a survey and the results were published earlier. We indicated the lack of similar studies in the research problems. We interviewed many experts from the EU, China and South Africa. This is what made it possible to understand the main problems and choose the point-rating system as a universal one.

Thank you for your careful review of the results of our research!

 

Best regards,

Tatiana Meshcheryakova

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article proposes a solution for energy efficiency assessment of industrial facilities. The topic is interesting and valuable, especially considering that a particularly large number of studies have focussed on residential and public buildings. The research methodology is presented in a very specific way, as well as having a certain research base.

 

I have two suggestions:

 

1) Did the authors consider the issue of error arising from the expert survey during the study? How was it circumvented or dealt with in this study? Please add a note at the appropriate place, e.g. the discussing section.

 

2) Can the methodology of this study be generalised to other areas? Please add limitations or conditions of applicability of this study in the discussion section.

 

3) Should the indicators/values obtained from the study be subjected to mathematical tests? Please give reasons why it should or should not be done.

 

Author Response

Dear Professor!
Thank you for your detailed study and your review. We tried to take into account all comments.
1) This article proposes a solution for assessing the energy efficiency of industrial facilities. The topic is interesting and valuable, especially considering that a particularly large amount of research has focused on residential and public buildings. The research methodology is presented in a very specific way and also has a specific research base.
Answer: Yes, you are very attentive to our research, we are grateful for that. You are absolutely right! After conducting research and interviewing experts from the EU, South Africa, and China, we found out that there is one problem. All over the world there are assessments of the energy efficiency of residential, office and public buildings. These estimates estimate specific energy consumption (per 1 sq.m.) for the reporting period - usually per city. We found in the Report that only Italy classifies industrial facilities. Due to the lack of information for one country and the answer of all respondents that they do not have a system for classifying industrial facilities by energy efficiency, this study began. After all, BREEAM, LEED, WELL and GRESB standards are used all over the world. Many countries have also created their own voluntary building certification systems. For example, before the World Cup, we created national “green” standards for sports facilities of RUSO “Football Stadiums”, because American and European standards were not always suitable for us. Also last year, a “green” national standard for the classification of residential and public buildings appeared. Prior to this, a voluntary system for classifying buildings NOSTROY “Residential and public buildings” was created. All these are “green” standards and they evaluate primarily the building, without taking into account the characteristics of the equipment and technical conditions.
*All this is a separate study; we have already completed the results of comparing the methods and will be published in another article in the near future.
We chose a point-rating system to create a universal methodology that can be applicable in all countries and is convenient, because Only deviations from standards are included, and standards differ by industry and country. This assessment takes into account “green” standards and the need to reduce greenhouse emissions in qualitative indicators.
2) I have two suggestions:
  1) Did the authors address the issue of bias resulting from interviewing experts during the study? How was it avoided or addressed in this study? Please add a note in an appropriate place, such as in the discussion section.
Answer: Added.
Earlier in the discussion it was written, but clarified on the recommendation of the reviewer:
The authors admit the possibility of reducing or increasing the number of energy efficiency classes of industrial facilities depending on factors such as the size and composition of the property complex, natural and climatic conditions at the location of the industrial facility, energy potential, the required degree of detail included in the calculations of energy efficiency indicators, changes in regulatory acts, etc.
Added: This study is based on factors and their parametric values obtained as a result of processing an expert survey. It is clear that changes in global priorities, restrictions and shifts in focus, as well as more detailed analysis and in-depth expert assessments can change the composition of indicators and their weights. In view of this, it is necessary to create a methodology for surveying government authorities specialized in energy efficiency (different organizations in different countries are responsible for this issue: the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Natural Resources, or for example the USA - these are specialized organizations operating by state) and ensure the collection of statistics through government information systems with the possibility of posting on state statistics portals (Rosstat, Eurostat, etc.). The quality and speed of making adjustments to the assessment system will be influenced by information tools for collecting and processing data.

2) Can the methodology of this study be extended to other fields? Please add limitations or conditions of applicability of this study in the discussion section.
  Taken into account in the previous comment.
3) Should the indicators/values obtained from the study be subject to mathematical tests? Please provide reasons why this should or should not be done.
Answer: Added. If the state or interstate organizations approve a draft methodology for assessing the energy efficiency of industrial facilities, it is necessary to ensure mathematical testing of the results of calculating the weights of energy efficiency indicators from big data that will be collected by industry to adjust it.

Best regards,

Meshcheryakova Tatiana

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the reply. All the comments have been well revised.