Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript delivers an insightful and detailed exploration of the potential for decarbonization within the low-carbon renewable infrastructure sector amid China's energy transition. Concentrating on wind turbines, photovoltaic panels, and lithium batteries, it juxtaposes decarbonization trends within infrastructure production processes and transportation carbon footprints across China, the United States, the European Union, Japan, and India for the years 2022, 2030, and 2050, under a variety of scenarios. The paper is well-aligned with the journal's objectives and scope. Notably, it connects with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), and 13 (Climate Action), illustrating how decarbonization efforts can facilitate the renewable energy sector's shift towards sustainability. The article's structure is clear, enhancing readability. I recommend its publication following the careful incorporation of the reviewers’ feedback. My specific observations are as follows:

 

1. The current introduction and results sections could be enhanced to more explicitly articulate this work's contributions to the aforementioned SDGs. Moreover, the discussion on the impact of green trade barriers on the exports of photovoltaics, wind power, and batteries warrants further exploration. Enriching this aspect would provide a fuller context for the study.

2. The document delineates the effects of China's diverse carbon reduction scenarios (PDS1, PDS2, PDS3) on the carbon footprint of manufacturing renewable energy equipment in Section 3.2. Nevertheless, achieving alignment with the carbon footprint levels of developed nations seems contingent upon adherence to the PDS1 scenario. The question arises as to how these pathways can be validated.

3. In addition, the manuscript touches on the geographical differences in the carbon footprint of electricity across Chinese provinces but could probe more into how these disparities affect the choice of production sites, especially between Shanghai and Xinjiang, as mentioned in Section 3.3. An in-depth examination of the energy structural variances at these locales and their implications would enrich the depth of the paper.

4. Furthermore, investigating how China balances the demands between domestic and international markets for the export of renewable energy equipment, and the ensuing impacts on its carbon footprint, would greatly enhance the study's scope and significance.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction is very thorough, providing sufficient and adequate context to the study and indicating what gaps exist in the literature and how this research attempts to address them.

The methodological section adequately describes the techniques used, as well as the research approach and the typology of the data, including the scope of the data. Similarly, the description of the scenarios considered is sufficient.

The results are presented with a good level of detail through the use of figures, which are adequate, although there are some minor problems. In any case, this section is adequate. It could be considered whether the limitations should be described in the results or elsewhere in the text.

Perhaps the least satisfactory part of the manuscript is in the discussion. In part, this is because the results may be too exhaustive and some of the work that would be expected in the discussion is done in that section. On the other hand, the contextualisation of the findings of this article with the existing literature is a little lacking and the implications, which are outlined somewhat vaguely, should be developed further.

The conclusions are correct and follow the usual structure.

 

Minor issues:

-The clarity of the presentation of the equations could be improved (they are too embedded in the text, which could be solved by including some extra space).

-The first sentence of the methods section is a bit strange without more text.

-Regarding the references, they are listed as superscripts, I don't know if this suits the format of the journal.

-The figures are not very clear, due to their small size. In some cases (figure 4) they are almost impossible to read. A different way of fitting the figures in a larger size should be considered. In addition, although this may be subjective, the colour scale is rather aggressive in figure 2.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the manuscript titled "China's Sustainable Energy Transition Path to Low-carbon Renewable Infrastructure Manufacture under Green Trade Barriers," here are some questions and suggestions to further enhance the clarity, depth, and impact of the study: How were the specific decarbonization scenarios (PDS1, PDS2, PDS3) derived, and what criteria were used to select these scenarios over others? Could you provide more detailed rationales for these selections to enhance the reader's understanding? Can you further elaborate on how changes in international trade policies might influence these findings over the study's timeline?

The manuscript relies on the Ecoinvent database for data. Given the dynamic nature of technology and emissions factors, how do the authors account for potential discrepancies or updates in this data source? Is there a mechanism for updating or validating this data against more current sources?

how might emerging technologies not currently included in the analysis impact future carbon footprints? Could the study benefit from a sensitivity analysis regarding technological innovation rates?

Very small font on the figures, it should be improved, eg.Figure 4. Comparative carbon footprint of renewable infrastructure considering trade transporta- 373

 tion in 2022 (a-c) and 2050 (d-f). The heatmap displays the differences for the product carbon foot- 374

 prints from Shanghai (grid mix) and Xinjiang (solar electricity) to the EU, USA, Japan, and India 375

 compared with the local manufacture. Four transportation scenarios are compared: Domestic rail 376

 and international ship (D:R, I:S), domestic rail and international rail (D:R, I:R), domestic truck

377

 and international ship (D:T, I:S), and domestic truck and international rail (D:T, I:R). The rail

transport to the USA and Japan is excluded due to infeasibility.

Add references to the equations.

Could you delve deeper into how regional disparities in renewable energy capacity and infrastructure might influence national carbon footprint outcomes?

Based on the study's findings, what specific policy recommendations would the authors make to both Chinese and international policymakers to address the challenges posed by green trade barriers and support the transition to low-carbon renewable infrastructure?

The authors should consider including the following two publications in their references to enrich the context and perspective of their research: "Bibliometric Analysis of Renewable Energy Research on the Example of the Two European Countries: Insights, Challenges, and Future Prospects." Energies 2024, 17, 176. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17010176. This publication provides valuable insights into renewable energy research through the example of two European countries, identifying key challenges and future research perspectives in this field. It could help better understand the global context of renewable energy research and highlight the importance of international collaboration in achieving renewable energy goals. And "Water, Resources, and Resilience: Insights from Diverse Environmental Studies." Water 2023, 15, 3965. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15223965. This article offers a comprehensive analysis of the impact of water resource management on environmental resilience, which is extremely relevant in the context of renewable energy infrastructure production. Including this publication could strengthen the discussion on sustainable development and illustrate the complexity of environmental challenges facing low-emission energy infrastructure production.

While the study acknowledges certain limitations, could the authors expand on how these might be addressed in future research? For example, how might future studies better incorporate real-time data on energy efficiency gains and the carbon footprint of transportation modes?

 

Could a more detailed comparative analysis, perhaps including other leading nations in renewable energy, provide additional insights into global best practices and China's position within this landscape?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form.