An Assessment Methodology for International Hydrogen Competitiveness: Seven Case Studies Compared

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors introduced an index to evaluate international hydrogen competitiveness and identify leading countries in hydrogen trade. Using the entropy weight method, the authors calculated competitiveness scores for six key prospective hydrogen market participants based on five critical factors: potential resources, economic base, infrastructure, government support, and technological feasibility. The results highlight that the U.S. and Australia exhibit higher composite indices, offering valuable insights for countries to develop policies and strategies to enhance their hydrogen industries' global competitiveness.. Overall, we think that this is a meaningful work and can be publishable in this journal after minor revisions.

1.      In their study, the authors selected 6 countries for analysis and justified their choices. However, it is entirely unclear why no countries from the European region were chosen. Additionally, it is unclear why the choice fell on the UAE and Qatar, but Saudi Arabia, which also possesses rich oil and gas resources in the region, was not considered.

2.      Section 3.3 on measures to promote international hydrogen competitiveness appears non-representative. The recommendations for all countries are too general, such as increasing funding, expanding infrastructure, optimizing methods of production, storage, and transportation, etc. These recommendations are obvious for any country. How do the authors justify the significance of this study in shaping policies towards H2 energy development? Which aspects of the research could be particularly beneficial for policymaking at a governmental level?

3.      What further research directions are proposed to enhance methodologies for assessing hydrogen market competitiveness? Which new data and analytical tools could be utilized to expand this analysis?

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on hydrogen energy and introduces an index to evaluate international hydrogen energy competitiveness. The study assesses and compares the hydrogen energy competitiveness of six countries across five dimensions: potential resources, economic and financial foundation, infrastructure, government support and institutional environment, and technical feasibility. The findings offer valuable insights for countries to develop appropriate policies and strategies to strengthen their hydrogen energy sectors and improve their international competitiveness. Overall, this study is interesting and well written, therefore I suggest major revisions before it could be finally accepted. The concrete comments are as follows: 

1. **Image Removal or Citation for Hydrogen Production Process**:

If the image in Figure 1 does not provide a comprehensive description of the hydrogen production process and does not demonstrate the author's originality, it should be removed unless it can be properly cited. If the image is based on reference material, please provide the source. If it is not referenced, it is best to delete the image to maintain the integrity of the paper. 

2. **Introduction and Literature Review**:

The introduction and literature review should clearly outline the previous work done in the field, identify existing gaps, and highlight the unique contribution of this paper. This section should discuss the studies conducted by previous researchers, the limitations they encountered, and how this paper aims to address those gaps. 

3. **Difference from Previous Research on Hydrogen Energy Index**:

To distinguish the hydrogen energy index constructed in this paper from those in previous studies by authors such as [2,7,11,18,68], the innovative aspects of your index should be clearly stated. This may include new variables, different methodologies, or unique approaches to data analysis. Highlighting these differences will underscore the novelty of your work. 

4. **Supplementing Table 1 with Scholars' Research**:

While references from the World Bank and ESMAP are valuable, it is equally important to incorporate insights from academic research. Please review relevant scholarly articles and integrate their criteria for indicator selection into Table 1. This will provide a more comprehensive foundation for your evaluation indicators. 

5. **Research Methodology and Justification**:

A detailed explanation of the research methodology and the rationale behind the chosen methods is crucial for the publication of this paper. This should include the selection criteria for data, analytical techniques used, and the justification for these choices. Clearly articulating this will enhance the paper's credibility and rigor. 

6. **Discussion of Results in Context of Existing Research**:

The results section should include a comparison with findings from other scholars' research. This will not only situate your findings within the broader academic discourse but also highlight the relevance and impact of your work. Discussing similarities, differences, and potential reasons for these will enrich the discussion.

7. **Theoretical Basis for Country Selection**:

The theoretical basis for selecting countries like the U.S., Australia, and Chile for comparative study should be explicitly stated. Explain why these countries are relevant benchmarks and how their hydrogen energy strategies can provide practical insights for China. Discuss the factors that make their strategies applicable or beneficial for China's context, such as similarities in economic structure, energy policies, or technological advancements.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language quality of this paper is quite good; with a few minor improvements, it could be perfect.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

The presented analytical article contains very interesting and very important data. I have a general question and comment on the above article.

Why is the European Union not listed in the comparison and comparison? This is a very important article in the mosaic of the whole issue.

Australia and especially the USA are very interesting. In the USA there is a large part of nuclear energy and other alternative sources – sun, water, Biomass. How did you include the country's energy concept in the comparison? There is no mention of this anywhere in the article. I do not agree that the production of hydrogen only from burning natural gas is included in the USA. The US has a high production of energy from the sun, water and especially nuclear as I mentioned. I do not agree with the article on the basis of which you made the possibilities of the given countries in the production of hydrogen. I think that it is necessary to include the available resources and the resources that will be available in the next years in the given country or continent in the assessment of the possibility of hydrogen production.

 

So please complete the entire issue.

Best regards

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article introduced an indicator by which the international competitiveness of hydrogen was assessed and competitive countries in the hydrogen trade were determined. Nowadays, when one of the priorities is to reduce the use of conventional fuels and replace them with alternative energy sources, the solutions presented in the article seem to be very important and up-to-date.
Below are my comments on this article.
1. The article is written substantively, reliably, and with particular scientific accuracy.
2. The methods are adequately and thoroughly described.
3. The data presented in the manuscript are interpreted correctly and coherently, and the conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.
4. Figures and tables are appropriate, show the data correctly, and are easy to interpret and understand.
5. The innovative aspect of the work should be emphasized and what the innovative contribution of this article should be described more clearly.
6. The cited sources are mostly the latest data from the last 5 years, however, citations such as reports (of the Hydrogen Council, International Energy Agency) can be presented as one item specifying the years for which the data was collected.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has carefully revised the article and it basically meets the publication requirements of this journal. I agree to publish it in the journal of Sustainability.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

Thank you very much, you added what was needed. I have no further questions.

Best regards