Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study proposes a stochastic mixed integer linear programming model for the resilient CCUS-SCND problem under the utilization/storage facility capacity disruption risk. The topic is interesting. The study has developed some meaningful conclusions based on the analysis. However, I believe that there are some rooms for improvement. My main comments include:

1. The mathematical modeling process and solution in this study should be more detailed.

2. Is facility B in the case study real? According to the authors' point of view, facility B was not adopted in the proposed model. Does this mean that the model can be improved in terms of distance consideration?

3.In Page 16, Line 486-488, “... our model proposed for the optimal design of resilient CCUS supply chain network problem under facility disruption is effective and efficient in terms of solution quality and computational time."How does the model reflect its efficiency in terms of computational time? 

4. In case study, it is recommended to conduct sensitivity analysis of the key parameters of the model separately.

5. It is recommended to supplement the theoretical significance of the model in the conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The paper addresses the problem of resilient CCUS-SCND under the risk of capacity disruption of utilization/storage facilities by proposing a stochastic mixed-integer linear programming model. The model considers the major decisions related to supply chain design and planning, and facility disruption risk handling. The obtained results showed that the supply chain networks for case study obtained are efficient, cost-effective and resilient in mitigating various kinds of utilization/storage facility disruption scenarios.

Overall, this is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest. However, some issues still need to be improved before it is considered for publication.

(1) Please consider be more specific in the abstract, like what is the future development trend and potential application scenarios of this research?

(2) In Page 8 Sec. 3.3, please consider adding the reason why choose MILP instead of other  models mentioned before, such as MINLP.

(3) In page 8, the equation serial numbers are misplaced. For example, two Equation 1 and no Equation 6. Perhaps the equation sequence numbers in the paper paragraphs needs to be double-checked and changed accordingly.

(4) All equations have to be properly defined. Equation (1)(2)(3)(4) are not mentioned in the paper.

(5) Please give details of the source of the data.

(6) Please consider describing the policy implications. For example how can research on CCUS supply chain network design and planning issues help policy makers draft better regulations/standards/action plans? The authors should also emphasize the limitations of existing policies and how this research can bridge policy gaps and contribute science to society in a broader context. Which stakeholders can benefit from the research results?

(7) Reference can be updated with the latest and related literature, such as:

Sudipta Ghosh, Madhab Chandra Mandal & Amitava Ray (2023) A PDCA based approach to evaluate green supply chain management performance under fuzzy environment, International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management,18:1, 1-15, DOI: 10.1080/17509653.2022.2027292

Amir Karbassi Yazdi, Amir Mehdiabadi, Peter Fernandes Wanke, Nazli Monajemzadeh, Henrique Luiz Correa & Yong Tan (2023) Developing supply chain resilience: a robust multi-criteria decision analysis method for transportation service provider selection under uncertainty, International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management,18:1, 51-64, DOI: 10.1080/17509653.2022.2098543

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very interesting and well-developed work. It immediately caught the attention and interest of this reviewer. Anyway, this reviewer will take the opportunity to manifest some disagreement with the whole issue that justifies the efforts to eliminate, reduce, or mitigate GHG reductions. My disagreement if I can call it in that way, is that it is exclusively based (as many other studies) on an alleged consensus about the actual effects of CO2 emissions on global temperature. It seems that what IPCC says states (even if contradictory sometimes). Far from being an equilibrated academic source, it is a political entity (as its name says). One of the main questionable issues, given this reviewer, is considering (sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly) carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant when, in fact, it should be called “the gas of life”.

I point out this issue because only under the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming one may justify all these efforts. Even, from the first paragraph of the manuscript: “the effects of global climate change are becoming more significant, from rising sea levels and frequent extreme weather events to the rapid melting of Arctic Sea ice”, do not necessarily follow that this change is anthropogenic. The authors rely exclusively on the “AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023”, which in the opinion of this reviewer, is a mistake. Many scientific studies have challenged this assertion. There are many natural factors (which is not the case to present here) that affect a global climate that is continuously changing. Following the same biased source, the authors state that “it is widely accepted that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions is the primary cause of global warming and significant climate change.” This, also, is questionable as, again, there is a whole literature suggesting that the true effects of GHG emissions are far less important and that the results of diminishing anthropogenic GHG emissions, while costly, will not be significant. Moreover, some studies show that the increase of CO2 has followed rising global temperature and not otherwise.

This reviewer recognizes that it is not for the authors to settle this controversy although it would be fine for them to be aware of that and not just assume one of the viewpoints. Having said that, this reviewer finds this work very sound methodologically, very well stated the research problem, and easy to read and understand its core, which makes it a very good contribution. In summary, it is worth to be accepted for publication as presented.

Just as a formal note, please be consistent with the citation’s format. For instance, when citing a two-author study, say Ponomarov and Holcomb [26], do it in that way and not as in row 169, “Ponomarov et al”. Less important, there are several cases in the Reference list where not all the contributors are explicitly named. After two or three, the authors use “et al”. This reviewer considers that, even when a complete listing may enlarge a little bit the reference, all the contributors should be referenced (some journals accept shortening with “et al” if there is an extensive list of names (ie, more than fifteen or so).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the authors have made revisions to address most of the issues and questions raised in the previous review. One thing to note is, it is suggested that the reasons for not adopting facility B should be explained in the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your great comments.

Q:One thing to note is, it is suggested that the reasons for not adopting facility B should be explained in the paper.

Response: The reason why facility B is not selected is that although facility B is closer to facility A and most of emission sources than facility C, facility C generally has greater advantages than facility B in terms of (greater) CO₂ storage capacity, (lower) fixed investment and utilization costs. This means that distances between sources/facilities have a weaker impact on the SCN structure for the case study, and cost-related parameters show a greater impact on it. 

Please see Pages 16-17 Lines 498-510 for details.

By the way, we have also improved the English writing of the revised manuscript and the changes we have made are in red type. 

Finally, we greatly appreciate your time and work on our manuscript.  Thanks a lot.