Evaluation of a Small-Scale Anaerobic Digestion System for a Cattle Farm under an Integrated Agriculture System in Indonesia with Relation to the Status of Anaerobic Digestion System in Japan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for your interesting paper. Undoubtfully, it presents valuable information on the operational conditions and actual performance of digesters in Indonesia and Japan. However, there are some minor comments:

English proofreading is required.

Lines 27-31: does the location matter? Or was the difference observed due to the difference in the inputs and technological peculiarities? These sentences need to be rewritten.

Line 42: Is ton an international measurement for a cattle population? Are there any data in thousand heads?

Line 93: “large-scale with high initial costs” – please rephrase because the higher the scale, the smaller the cost. And here, the problem is that the upfront costs for biogas are relatively high (say per kW of installed capacity) compared to other renewables.

Line 377: “changing social situation” – please explain.

Line 396: 180 cattle heads?

Line 440: is there FIT in Indonesia for electricity? What is its size?

Line 446: what are the cumulative installed capacities of biogas in Indonesia?

Lines 446-447 What is the policy implication of this conclusion? Should the government extend the list of capacities that may qualify for FIT (e.g., above 1 MW)?

Line 478: “no electricity … is needed” – could it be a reason for a low biogas yield? 

Sincerely,

the Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We appreciate reviewer 1 for the precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. It is valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. The authors have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address every one of them. We hope the manuscript after careful revisions meet your high standards. 

We provide the point-by-point responses. All modifications in the manuscript have been highlighted in red by using track change menu. Please see the attachment file for checking the response for your comments. 

Thank you very much for your attention.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript is an interesting study on the "Evaluation of a Small-scale Anaerobic Digestion System for a Cattle Farm under an Integrated Agriculture System in Indonesia with relation to the Status of Anaerobic Digestion System in Japan".

The manuscript can be improved by considering the following observations:

1) Review the author affiliations, there is an error in the numbering.

2) Page 7, line 223, describe the size and time of use or replacement of the desulfurizer (or scheme)

3) Add in the introduction the biogas purification system

4) In the results section generate an additional section for the purification-desulfurization mechanisms.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We appreciate reviewers for the precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. It is valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. The authors have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address every one of them. We hope the manuscript after careful revisions meet your high standards.

We provide the point-by-point responses. All modifications in the manuscript have been highlighted in red by using track change menu. Please see the attachment file for checking the response for your comments. 

Thank you very much for your attention.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors - I appreciate the efforts to conduct this study. I recommend significant improvements to the structure of this manuscript.

The results section contain a lot of content that needs to be moved to Materials and Methods. Any descriptions on the system you conducted the research should be detailed in Materials and Methods (3.1, 3.2). 

I realize the two systems (indonesia and japan) have different working volume. Therefore, when a comparison is performed, the conclusions should also consider the differences in size of the operation (line 27 - 28). 

I understand the critical conclusion of this study (line 33 - 35), but the discussions and conclusions does not detail strong evidences to support the argument (I recommend detailed technical discussion by comparing with literature and japan study). This will be finetuning Table 3. 

Overall, I am not recommending to write more but modify the content to for better presentation.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

We appreciate reviewers for the precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. It is valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. The authors have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address every one of them. We hope the manuscript after careful revisions meet your high standards.

We provide the point-by-point responses. All modifications in the manuscript have been highlighted in red by using track change menu. Please see the attachment file for checking the response for your comments. 

Thank you very much for your attention.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article entitled Evaluation of a Small-scale Anaerobic Digestion System for a Cattle Farm under an Integrated Agriculture System in Indonesia with relation to the Status of Anaerobic Digestion System in Japan  deals with anaerobic digestion systems in Indonesia. The system was studied taking in to account the current operating conditions, the actual performance of the digester, and site-specific factors for biogas production. The system was compared with that from Japan and the similarities and differences were indicated. The analysis made in the manuscript can help to increase the installation efficiency.

The manuscript is well written. It should be suitable for readers of Sustainability and can be published as it is.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

The article entitled Evaluation of a Small-scale Anaerobic Digestion System for a Cattle Farm under an Integrated Agriculture System in Indonesia with relation to the Status of Anaerobic Digestion System in Japan deals with anaerobic digestion systems in Indonesia. The system was studied taking in to account the current operating conditions, the actual performance of the digester, and site-specific factors for biogas production. The system was compared with that from Japan and the similarities and differences were indicated. The analysis made in the manuscript can help to increase the installation efficiency.

The manuscript is well written. It should be suitable for readers of Sustainability and can be published as it is.

Response: Thank you very much for your positive comments and support of our manuscript. The authors cannot express their words for the time of reviewing and endorsing our manuscript, we greatly appreciate it.