Capabilities Analysis of Electricity Energy Conservation and Carbon Emissions Reduction in Multi-Level Battery Electric Passenger Vehicle in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic presented in the paper is interesting and still valid. In the reviewed paper, the Authors presented the capabilities analysis of electrical energy conservation and carbon emissions reduction of multi-level battery electric passenger vehicles in China. In my opinion, the paper can be published, after taking into account the following remarks:
- in the "Keyword" section, the keyword "sustainable transportation" should be added,
- at the end of the Introduction section, the Authors should shortly write about the main aim of the paper as well as shortly what was contained in each paper section,
- equation 1: the Authors should explain below the equation the meaning of each variable/acronym used in the equation,
- in the Introduction section, the Authors presented the background of the topic, i.e. the problem of developing new energy vehicles, carbon emissions problem, energy saving problem, etc. It is very good, but the Authors should also mention about the current trends existing in the development of electromobility because of social, economic, and legal problems involved in the designing, manufacturing, purchasing, and using of electric vehicles determine the electric car market. At the same time, the Authors should refer to the latest scientific papers in this field, i.e. "Analysis of Trends in Development of Electromobility in Poland: Current Problems and Issues", doi 10.1007/978-3-030-50010-8_13; "An Intelligent Recommendation for Intelligently Accessible Charging Stations: Electronic Vehicle Charging to Support a Sustainable Smart Tourism City", doi.org/10.3390/su15010455; "Equalizing the Levels of Electromobility Implementation in Cities", doi 10.1007/978-3-030-59270-7_13. One short paragraph in the Introduction section will be enough,
- it is recommended to add a section (as a second section) called "Literature review". At the moment, a short review we can find in the Introduction section together with the background of the paper topic,
- section 2: subsection 2.1. is divided into two sub-subsections, but sub-subsection 2.1.2. consist only of two sentences! which is unacceptable in a serious scientific paper. So, it is recommended not to divide subsection 2.1. into further sub-subsections,
- the same remark as above is dedicated to all similar cases in the paper text,
- section 3: where do the data presented in the tables come from? The Authors did not provide sources,
- figure 5 and figure 6 are too small and of bad quality, because of it they are unreadable. It should be improved,
- figures from 7 to figure 14: what kind of value we can see on the axis "y"?
- there is a lack of discussion dedicated to obtained results. It is recommended to add a new section called "Discussion" before the "Conclusions" section,
- the "Conclusions" section is written in a very general way and should be extended by adding some detailed conclusions from the presented in the paper analysis,
- the Authors are asked to consider if would be good to add the abbreviations lists at the end of the paper because the paper contains a lot of acronyms/variables. Such an abbreviations list at the end of the paper would make it easier for readers to understand the text.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear, Author
The paper highlights the battery electric passenger vehicle (BEPV) with electricity energy conservation and carbon reduction potential concept which gives positive direction in the sustainable supply chain system. But, when I studied whole the paper, there is lack of nobility of the paper. Throughout the paper, there is no clear concept explanation of the model. Further, I cannot understand what are the required variables and related assumptions of this model. Contributed keywords of this paper has no enough real hypotheses. According to me, the model has a lack in this reward to be refined for acceptance.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I suggest some changes to improve the paper. Then I will happily re-review it:
- English is not easy to be followed (i.e. I had issues reading the abstract, to complex to be clearly understood) ... the same for other sections of the paper...could you please work to improve the English quality? Also if possible reducing the text, and putting more emphasis on the novelties of the proposed work. Thanks
- I think Section 2 would gain a lot in clarity if a flowchart with a summary of the applied methodology is presented. Please prepare it
- there are too many Figures in the paper in my opinion. Please try to streamline / reduce the number of Figures
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
A comprehensive study for the impact of flexible vehicles amissions comparing with ICEV needs to expand the aim of this article.
My major concernes before recommend this reseaarch for publishing in Sustanaibility are the following;
The transportation industry can successfully decarbonise depending on the capability to manufacture right batteries.
Taking as an example a standard Li-Ion battery, what is the estimación of LiAlSi2O6 requirements to meet China’s reduction target of GHG emissions in transport? What about nickel, cobalt and manganese requiremets?
From other point of view, camparision between ICEV and BEPV might be expanded just mentioning the scenario of sharing cars possibilities (please cite Mundaca, L, Roman-Collado, R, Cansino Muñoz-Repiso, J. M: Assessing the impacts of social norms on low-carbon mobility options. Energy Policy. 2022. Vol. 162. Núm. 112814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112814.
Minor comment; Which is the source for this date? “The ICEVs carbon emissions account for 7.5% of the total carbon emissions in China”.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
A numerical study was conducted in this manuscript to analyze the electricity energy conservation and carbon emissions reduction of multi-level battery electric passenger vehicles (BEPV) in China.
The study yielded significant and valuable results, and the following suggestions should be included in the revised version.
• Please include the Nomenclature section in the manuscript.
• Many figures need to be improved in quality.
• There are several grammatical and spelling errors.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear, Author
The revised paper has been completely checked by reviews. It’s my concern, the revised paper is accepted before all red bolds turn into black colour.
Author Response
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I think the paper has improved. It's still a bit too long, so I would suggest to move not relevant analysis in the Annexes.
Author Response
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I can not aprove this publication.
The response letter I received is not a point by point response letter.
Please provide it folliwing this structure.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
Revision is now well detailed.
