Windy Sites Prioritization in the Saudi Waters of the Southern Red Sea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript on the topic "Windy Sites Prioritization in the Southern Red Sea Saudi Waters" presented by the author's team is an improved version, the authors significantly improved the text itself, and most importantly entered into a discussion with the reviewer, this is very good! But my goal as a reviewer is to recommend actions that will improve the readability and "scientific life" of the paper. Perhaps the team of authors has more experience in writing theses or chapters!

Author Response

The manuscript on the topic "Windy Sites Prioritization in the Southern Red Sea Saudi Waters" presented by the author's team is an improved version, the authors significantly improved the text itself, and most importantly entered into a discussion with the reviewer, this is very good! But my goal as a reviewer is to recommend actions that will improve the readability and "scientific life" of the paper. Perhaps the team of authors has more experience in writing theses or chapters!

Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for devoting his valuable time to evaluate the manuscript and for offering insightful comments to improve the overall quality of our manuscript. The manuscript has been revised based on the comments of the reviewers. Moreover, the language of the manuscript has been carefully reviewed and the grammatical errors have been corrected and the modified parts are tracked in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that a scientific article has to improve the existing state of knowledge in the field by incorporating new insights or by combining existing approaches. Therefore scientific articles are here to provide new pathways or to promote a major discovery in the field.

I don’t see how the application of the existing methodology to a new case (Saudi Waters of the Red Sea) is a scientific contribution. For example, try to imagine that the same methodology is applied to another case (e.g. Adriatic Sea). And then to another (e.g. Caspian Sea). And then another (e.g. South China Sea). This list can go on for a long time. In the end, what would be the scientific contribution of all these studies if all the cases are applying the same methodology? We would have a lot of published papers where only the location and accompanying data are changed. Is this interesting to researchers who are searching for fresh ideas?

In scientific research and more specifically, in scientific publishing, it is extremely important to provide the novelty of your study. The methodology itself that you’re applying on a specific case has to be improved in some way than the existing ones. I suggest that you write key findings from the existing scientific papers in your field and then compare them to your work. Try to point out why your research is different than the existing ones. Why should this paper be interesting to the wider reading audience? The novelty has to be stated clearly.

I don’t see any changes in the newly sent manuscript, therefore my opinion remains the same as before.

Other than that: the punctuation at the end of the sentence in Line 63 is not corrected, you still have an unnecessary comma symbol after the year 2030. Please check it one more time. Also, there is a double point at the end of the sentence in Line 353.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. I believe that a scientific article has to improve the existing state of knowledge in the field by incorporating new insights or by combining existing approaches. Therefore, scientific articles are here to provide new pathways or to promote a major discovery in the field.

Response: We are reporting a case study which is going to be used by the wind power developers and utilities in the area in a near future. So, the present contribution has a significance to the industry in a practical scientific and engineering sense.

2. I don’t see how the application of the existing methodology to a new case (Saudi Waters of the Red Sea) is a scientific contribution. For example, try to imagine that the same methodology is applied to another case (e.g. Adriatic Sea). And then to another (e.g. Caspian Sea). And then another (e.g. South China Sea). This list can go on for a long time. In the end, what would be the scientific contribution of all these studies if all the cases are applying the same methodology? We would have a lot of published papers where only the location and accompanying data are changed. Is this interesting to researchers who are searching for fresh ideas?

Response: The wind power resource assessment is an essential part of wind power deployment in any country and the methodology is well established, matured, universally accepted, and recommended for such type of initial investigations which are necessary to protect the huge investments. Such studies are very important for developers and for comparison with other parts of the world.

3. In scientific research and more specifically, in scientific publishing, it is extremely important to provide the novelty of your study. The methodology itself that you’re applying on a specific case has to be improved in some way than the existing ones.

Response: The authors greatly appreciate your comment. The proposed method thoroughly considers site-specific criteria, notably extreme wind conditions, depth, surface characteristics, and distance from the coast. This comprehensive approach leverages essential criteria to assess the suitability of offshore wind farm locations, offering valuable insights for investors.  Furthermore, this article, through its evaluation of national offshore wind potential, aids in promoting and achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and (Sustainable Cities and Communities) SDG 11.

4. I suggest that you write key findings from the existing scientific papers in your field and then compare them to your work.

Response: In fact, the meteorological studies, such as the present one, are unique in terms of meteorological conditions which are highly site dependent and hence are not comparable. The only thing is the researchers have to take notice of the capacity factor values which should not exceed the Betz limit. Furthermore, the wind speed and direction are highly fluctuating parameters and vary with time, height, location, etc. and hence are related to the specific site/s. So, it will not be wise to compare the results of different sites with each other.

5. Try to point out why your research is different than the existing ones.

Response: The authors greatly appreciate your comment. Our research is different in the sense of unique data set for the distinct geographical location which has not been reported in the literature. Key findings from existing scientific literature on approaches to prioritize offshore wind farm sites highlight the importance of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) models, which integrate factors like wind speed, water depth, proximity to shore, environmental impact, and economic viability, to identify optimal locations. These studies emphasize the need for site-specific analyses to balance energy potential with logistical, environmental, and economic constraints. The current study’s key innovation is the evaluation of offshore wind power resources across 49 locations in Saudi waters of the Red Sea, with site prioritization based on wind characteristics. To accomplish this, it leverages long-term hourly data on mean wind speed and direction at 100 meters above mean sea level, as well as temperature and surface pressure data, gathered from sites L1-L49 over a 43-year span from 1979 to 2021. Though straightforward, the proposed method thoroughly considers site-specific criteria, notably extreme wind conditions, depth, and surface characteristics. This comprehensive approach leverages essential criteria to assess the suitability of offshore wind farm locations, offering valuable insights for investors and stakeholders.

6. Why should this paper be interesting to the wider reading audience? The novelty has to be stated clearly.

Response: As can be seen from the cited literature in this paper, almost all of the reported work uses standard methodology developed decades back but each is still unique geographically and useful for local and international wind power developer’s community.

One of the major challenges behind slow offshore wind power development in Saudi Arabia may be accounted for the lack of localized expertise and supply chain infrastructure needed to support large-scale offshore wind deployments. Besides all the limitations, Saudi Vision 2030 reflects the Kingdom's commitment towards diversifying its energy mix and reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

Due to long shoreline, the Red Sea offers a natural wind corridor, making it a possible area for wind farms development. Since, the red seacoast is too long, hence the present scope of work conducts the resources assessment between latitudes 16.50° and 18.25° to identify feasible sites. The increasing need for clean and self-renewing sources of energy has made wind energy utilization essential for the sustainable development. To determine the best places for offshore wind energy production, this study aims at ranking the windy spots in the in the southern red sea Saudi waters. Consistent with Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 plan, the present investigation results will support the country's objective of increasing the share of renewable energy. This study’s key innovation is the evaluation of offshore wind power resources across 49 locations in Saudi waters of the Red Sea, with site prioritization based on wind characteristics. To accomplish this, it leverages long-term hourly data on mean wind speed and direction at 100 meters above mean sea level, as well as temperature and surface pressure data, gathered from sites L1-L49 over a 43-year span from 1979 to 2021. Though straightforward, the proposed method thoroughly considers site-specific criteria, notably extreme wind conditions, depth, and surface characteristics. This comprehensive approach leverages essential criteria to assess the suitability of offshore wind farm locations, offering valuable insights for investors and stakeholders.

7. I don’t see any changes in the newly sent manuscript; therefore, my opinion remains the same as before.

Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for devoting his valuable time to evaluate the manuscript and for offering insightful comments to improve the overall quality of our manuscript. In the second round of reviews, we have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point

8. Other than that: the punctuation at the end of the sentence in Line 63 is not corrected, you still have an unnecessary comma symbol after the year 2030.

Response: The authors greatly appreciate your comment. The language of the manuscript has been carefully reviewed and the grammatical errors have been corrected and the modified parts are tracked in the revised manuscript.

9. Please check it one more time. Also, there is a double point at the end of the sentence in Line 353.

Response: The authors have checked the language of the paper again based on the recommendation of the reviewer. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented study is a solid foundation that could serve as a basis for assessing the profitability of an investment for a potential investor.

In the paper, I did not find information regarding the availability of infrastructure for connecting the potential wind farm to the national power grid.

Do the provided costs include the expenses related to connecting to the power installation?

Have the potential locations for the turbines/wind farms been verified for conflicts with maritime routes?

Acronym / Initialism are used extensively and makes reading the work difficult.  

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented study is a solid foundation that could serve as a basis for assessing the profitability of an investment for a potential investor.

1. In the paper, I did not find information regarding the availability of infrastructure for connecting the potential wind farm to the national power grid.

Response: The authors greatly appreciate your comment. The objective of the present study is to assess offshore wind power resources (OWPR) at 49 locations in the Saudi Waters of the Red Sea and prioritize the sites based on wind characteristics. This helps to identify the optimal windy location of maximal wind resources penetration that can be highly recommend wind farm installations to the national power grid. we have discussed in the revised manuscript based the reviewer valuable comment, some future recommendations that should be conducted to tackle the limitations of the proposed research for further offshore wind farm technology development as follows:

For future research, it is highly recommended to deeply conduct techno-economic-environmental analyses and optimal sizing of grid-connected architecture with a cluster of offshore wind farms on the optimal identified location with various hybrid renewable resources, and complicating control strategies.  Furthermore, evaluating the infrastructure availability for connecting an offshore wind farm to the national power grid involves assessing the proximity and capacity of existing substations, transmission lines, and grid stability, as well as considering potential upgrades or expansions required to integrate additional power effectively also have a great interest in future works.

2. Do the provided costs include the expenses related to connecting to the power installation?

Response: The authors greatly appreciate your comment. In the current study, the cost of energy (COE) is meanly calculated based on the weighted average offshore installation cost of 4,720.25 USD/kW reported for 2020 to 2021, [Renewable Energy Agency, (2022)]. When calculating the cost of energy (COE) based on the weighted average offshore wind installation cost, consider the following criteria, [Renewable Energy Agency, (2022)]:

• Capital Expenditure (CAPEX): Includes costs for turbine purchase, installation, foundations, and grid connection.
• Operational Expenditure (OPEX): Covers maintenance, repair, and operational management over the project's lifespan.
• Financing Costs: Accounts for interest rates, loan terms, and investment structure.
• Capacity Factor: The expected annual energy production relative to maximum output.
• Project Lifetime: Total anticipated operational years, affecting depreciation and long-term costs.
• Discount Rate: Reflects the time value of money, influencing the present value of future costs and revenue.

3. Have the potential locations for the turbines/wind farms been verified for conflicts with maritime routes?

Response: We have prioritized 49 locations, therefore, if any site is proven to conflict with maritime route, the succeeding site can be selected.

4. Acronym / Initialism are used extensively and makes reading the work difficult.

Response: The language of the manuscript has been carefully reviewed and the grammatical errors have been corrected and the modified parts are tracked in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have significantly improved their work, therefore, I believe that the paper can be accepted after correcting the appearance of the text in the manuscript (removing redundant text left after improving the manuscript).

Author Response

Thank you for your comment. Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Мanuscript on the topic "Windy Sites Prioritization in the Southern Red Sea Saudi Waters, between 16.50⁰ and 18.25⁰ latitudes" has scientific value, corresponds to the discipline of the publishing house and can be accepted for review.

Comments:

1. The abstract should consist of one paragraph and correspond to the style of structured theses, but without headings:

1) place the issue under consideration in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the research;

2) briefly describe the main applied methods

3) summarize the main conclusions of the article;

Also, I recommend not to use the abbreviations and L-1, L2... in the abstract section and in the title "between 16.50⁰ and 18.25⁰ latitudes" this will affect the further citation of the article!

 3. I recommend changing the names of the sections, in accordance with the publishing house's requirements, and making a separate "Discussion" section, this will improve the perception of the author's opinion and professionalism.

4. Dear author team, make technical corrections in the manuscript test (commas, periods, etc.), for example, the "References" section

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comments:

1. The abstract should consist of one paragraph and correspond to the style of structured theses, but without headings:

Response: We insured in the revised manuscript that the abstract is in one paragraph.

• place the issue under consideration in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the research;

Response: The purpose of the study is to identify the windy potential sites in the Saudi Waters of the Southern Red Sea. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first attempt ever to conduct wind power resources assessment in this geographical offshore region. The following text has been added in the first few lines of the abstract as follows:

Offshore wind power resources in the Red Sea waters of Saudi Arabia are yet to be explored. The present effort is the first attempt to prioritize the windy sites for possible exploitation of self-renewing sources of energy in this region. Offshore deployments pose minimal visual and noise effects and avail higher wind intensities with less turbulent winds. In this study, we assess offshore wind power resources (OWPR) at 49 locations in the Saudi Waters of the Red Sea and prioritize the sites based on wind characteristics.

• briefly describe the main applied methods

Response: The methodology is explained in details in section 3 i.e. Methodology. Also the flow of methodological steps is given in Figure 2.

• summarize the main conclusions of the article;

Response: The main findings are included in the last few lines of the abstract as follows:

Accordingly, the site L44 in the northwest of the area under investigation is found to be the best based on all parameters indicated above. Other preferred sites are L38, L30, L45, L39, and so on. Last but not least, the annual means WS are found to be increasing as observed from the linear trends of long-term values.

Detailed conclusive remarks are given in conclusion section as well.

 Also, I recommend not to use the abbreviations and L-1, L2... in the abstract section and in the title "between 16.50⁰ and 18.25⁰ latitudes" this will affect the further citation of the article!

Response: We thank the honourable reviewer for bringing this issue to our attention. The revised title, has been changed to read as follows:

Windy Sites Prioritization in the Southern Red Sea Saudi Waters

Whereas abbreviations L1, L2…L49 etc., is concerned, these are the location identifiers corresponding to the 49 sites in the Southern Red Sea and not abbreviations.

3. I recommend changing the names of the sections, in accordance with the publishing house's requirements, and making a separate "Discussion" section, this will improve the perception of the author's opinion and professionalism.

Response: We insured that section names are in accordance with the existing publishing practices. Section 4 is devoted to Results and Discussion. Further the findings are discussed in details in Subsections 4.1 and 4.2.

4. Dear author team, make technical corrections in the manuscript test (commas, periods, etc.), for example, the "References" section

Response: Following references 2, 4, 6, 15, 22, 25, and 27 have been corrected. Authors are greatly thankful to the reviewer for pointing out this issue.

2. H. Diaz and C. Guedes Soares, “Review of the current status, technology and future trends of offshore wind farms,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 209, 107381,” 2020.

4. T. Jennings, T. Helen A., D. Jonathan, G. Michael, and D. Paul, “Policy, innovation and cost reduction in UK offshore wind,” Carbon Trust, 2020, https://www.carbontrust.com/our-work-and-impact/guides-reports-and-tools/policy-innovation-and-cost-reduction-in-uk-offshore-wind

6. W. Musial and B. Ram, “Large‐scale offshore wind energy for the United States: assessment of opportunities and barriers,” 2010, NREL Report No. TP-500-40745.

15. M. Steena, M. Tuukka, H. Jens, and Håkon Endresen Normannb, “Developing the industrial capacity for energy transitions: resource formation for offshore wind in Europe,” 2022, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378738558

22. Ministerie van Algemene Zaken, “Offshore wind energy,” Renewable energy, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/ministerie-van-algemene-zaken

25. “World Energy Prices: an Overview,” International Energy Agency (IEAb), https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/energy-prices

27. “Saudi Arabia is unlocking the potential of wind energy,” ACWA Power, https://www.acwapower.com/news/saudi-arabia-is-unlocking-the-potential-of-wind-energy/

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General concept comments

Overall, this manuscript deals with an engaging subject, and it is written clearly. However, I don’t see the novelty of this research. In my opinion, this work is more suited as a technical report than a research paper. There is no comparison with other relevant papers. The novelty of this research isn't stated at all. Moreover, I don’t find this manuscript especially suitable for the journal's selected special issue. Other than this, I’ll write a few more minor suggestions in the Specific comments section.

Specific comments

Considering more specific points in this manuscript, suggestions are as follows:

•                    Please check the typos in your manuscript, such as: unnecessary space in Line 45 and in Line 153, no punctuation at the end of the sentence in Line 63, underlined space between two sentences in Line 109 and in Line 182, different text format (underlined) in Line 220.

•                    Please update/ check the current state in the second paragraph on page two. Often the mentioned state is set to the beginning of the year 2023 or 2024. Are there any updates about it?

•                    In Figures 1 and 2, there is redundancy when stating the number of the figure.

•                    Pay attention to the preposition in Line 243. Table 3 is below, not above the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As stated before.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

General concept comments

Overall, this manuscript deals with an engaging subject, and it is written clearly. However, I don’t see the novelty of this research. In my opinion, this work is more suited as a technical report than a research paper. There is no comparison with other relevant papers. The novelty of this research isn't stated at all. Moreover, I don’t find this manuscript especially suitable for the journal's selected special issue. Other than this, I’ll write a few more minor suggestions in the Specific comments section.

Response: The novelty, as mentioned in the very first few lines in the abstract, lies in finding potential windy sites in Saudi Waters of the Red Sea. To the best of the authors knowledge, this is first of its kind case study to establish potential sites for future offshore wind farm developments In Saudi Arabian coastal areas. The study is based on meteorological data for a period of more than 40 years’ duration between 1979 and 2021.

Specific comments

Considering more specific points in this manuscript, suggestions are as follows:

• Please check the typos in your manuscript, such as: unnecessary spacein Line 45 and in Line 153, no punctuation at the end of the sentence in Line 63, underlined space between two sentences in Line 109 and in Line 182, different text format (underlined) in Line 220.

Response: We thank the reviewer for his careful reading of the manuscript. We carefully read the manuscript and made necessary corrections. In particular:

unnecessary space in Line 45 and in Line 153 have been corrected.

no punctuation at the end of the sentence in Line 63 – Corrected

underlined space between two sentences in Line 109 and in Line 182 – Corrected

different text format (underlined) in Line 220 – Corrected

• Please update/ check the current state in the second paragraph on page two. Often the mentioned state is set to the beginning of the year 2023 or 2024. Are there any updates about it?

Response: To authors understanding, the records of the state are up to date.

• In Figures 1 and 2, there is redundancy when stating the number of the figure.

Response:

Figure 1(a) provides the density map of bathymetry contours in the selected area, Saudi Waters of the Southern Red Sea while Figure 1(b) depicts the contours of the distance from Saudi coastline, Saudi waters, southern Red Sea. Therefore, we feel that the figures are relevant with no redundancy.

• Pay attention to the preposition in Line 243. Table 3 is below, not above the text.

Response: We thank the reviewer for his careful reading. The sentence has been revisited and corrected to read as follows:

Long-term site-specific WS characteristics, over the entire data collection period of 43 years, have been discussed below, in Table 3.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx