Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper makes a useful contribution by providing the first detailed TEA of hybrid CSP/PV systems in Brazil, using SAM to model solar tower and parabolic trough technologies across multiple regions. However, the manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in its current form. To strengthen the paper, the authors should (1) streamline the introduction, (2) clarify the applicability of SAM to the Brazilian context, (3) present results in more comparative and quantitative terms, (4) improve the clarity of equations and figures, and (5) explicitly link the results to sustainability and policy implications.

 

Major comments are provided below.

Major:

• Page 1, line 37-39. The sentence “CSP technologies contribute the least to electricity production compared to other renewable technologies” would be stronger if include quantitative or recent data.
• Page 2, line 42-43, The sentence “In this context, combined CSP and PV technology emerge as a promising and efficient solution” is appropriate, but the logic is not fully clear. I recommend strengthening this point by briefly explaining why CSP–PV hybridization is promising.
• Page 2, line 44-45, add citation why policies favors PV.
• If an acronym has already been defined (e.g., CSP), please use the acronym consistently throughout the paper. Currently, the manuscript alternates between full terms and acronyms, which can reduce clarity.
• Page 3, lines 120-139, the Introduction currently includes a relatively detailed discussion of life cycle assessment (LCA) and environmental impacts of CSP. Since this paper is primarily a techno-economic assessment (TEA), this level of detail may distract from the main focus. I recommend either shortening the LCA discussion or explicitly clarifying how these environmental aspects relate to the economic analysis in this study.
• Page 11, in equation 4, some variables are explained (ICCSP, ICPV, ACCSP, ACPV, ECSP, EPV, dCSP, dPV, i, N), but the explanation is incomplete and inconsistent.
• What are the limitations of this study and future directions?
• SAM is a U.S.-based software. While widely used, its default assumptions (labor, O&M costs, financial structure) may not reflect Brazilian conditions. The authors should explicitly state how local data were adapted (e.g., labor, financing rates, taxes) or justify why using SAM defaults is acceptable.
• Since the motivation of the paper is tied to sustainability and renewable reliability, the Discussion should explicitly explain how the proposed hybrid configuration contributes to these goals. In addition, the results should be more clearly linked to policy and market implications to highlight the broader relevance of the study.

 

Some minor comments:

• Page 1 line 39, I would change “the latter” to CSP.
• Page 7, line 260. “Figure” is redundant.
• Page 8, Qsf or Qpls?
• Equation 3, FC or CF?
• Figure 7 is not clear (resolution).
• Figure 8, add unit for LCOE.
• The format needs to be improved.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank the Editor and the Reviewers for the time and effort dedicated to 
evaluating our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the constructive comments and 
suggestions, which have been extremely valuable in improving the quality and clarity of 
our work. We have carefully revised the manuscript and prepared detailed responses to 
each point raised. 

Reviewer #1 

Comments 1: Page 1, line 37-39. The sentence “CSP technologies contribute the least to 
electricity production compared to other renewable technologies” would be stronger if 
include quantitative or recent data. 
We revised the sentence with IEA (2024) figures: ‘In 2023, CSP accounted for ~0.1% of 
global electricity, versus ~6% for PV; installed CSP capacity was ~7 GW compared with 
~2.200 GW for PV. 
“Although CSP technology offers advantages such as thermal energy storage and en
hanced generation stability, in 2024 CSP accounted for ~0.1% of global electricity, versus 
~6.9% for PV; installed CSP capacity was ~7 GW compared with ~2,200 GW for PV” (page 
number 1, and line 37-41) 
Reference 
I. 
Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2024. Paris: IEA, 2024. Avaliable: 
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2024 
Comments 2: Page 2, line 42-43, The sentence “In this context, combined CSP and PV 
technology emerge as a promising and efficient solution” is appropriate, but the logic 
is not fully clear. I recommend strengthening this point by briefly explaining why CSP
PV hybridization is promising. 
Thank you. We have, modified to emphasize this point, as below: 
In this context, the combined use of CSP and PV technologies emerges as a promising and 
efficient solution, as it leverages the complementarity between photovoltaic generation 
during daylight hours and the thermal energy storage capabilities of CSP systems. This 
hybridization enables continuous and dispatchable power supply, even during periods of 
low solar irradiance or after sunset, thereby enhancing grid reliability and supporting the 
integration of renewable energy into the energy mix. (page 2, line 44-51) 
Comments 3: Page 2, line 44-45, add citation why policies favors PV. 
Thanks for the suggestion. As indicated, we added the reference (page 3, line 63): 
T. D. t T.P. Caldas and A. Á. B. Santos, “Proposal for revision of Brazilian resolution 687/15 to 
expand distributed generation through photovoltaic systems,” World Review of Science, 
Technology and Sustainable Development, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 213, 2022, doi: 
10.1504/WRSTSD.2022.121313. 
Comments 4: Page 3, lines 120-139, the Introduction currently includes a relatively 
detailed discussion of life cycle assessment (LCA) and environmental impacts of CSP. 
Since this paper is primarily a techno-economic assessment (TEA), this level of detail 
may distract from the main focus. I recommend either shortening the LCA discussion 
or explicitly clarifying how these environmental aspects relate to the economic analysis 
in this study. 
Thank you for the comment. We shortened the LCA discussion as suggested.  Below is the 
rephrased sentence (page 4, line 141-147): 
“Although environmental assessments of CSP technologies remain limited, key studies 
such as Gasa et al. [27] and Klein & Rubin [28] have demonstrated that thermal energy 
storage significantly reduces life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and enhances 
dispatchability. These findings, while not the focus of this techno-economic assessment, 
underscore the broader sustainability potential of CSP systems. Additionally, policy 
analyses by Kumar et al. [29], Pan & Dinter [30], and Lingzhi et al. [18] highlight how 
national incentive programs influence CSP adoption, offering context for future 
integration strategies.” 
Comments 5:  Page 11, in equation 4, some variables are explained (ICCSP, ICPV, 
ACCSP, ACPV, ECSP, EPV, dCSP, dPV, i, N), but the explanation is incomplete and 
inconsistent. 
In response, we have revised the manuscript to provide a comprehensive and standardized definition 
of all variables used in the equation. (page 12, line 387-396) 
Comments 6: What are the limitations of this study and future directions? 
We understand the reviewer’s concern about the lack of discussion on the study’s 
limitations and future research. To address this, we added a paragraph at the end of the 
Conclusion. It highlights key limitations of our analysis, such as the focus on one region, 
simplified cost estimates, and the absence of a full environmental life cycle assessment. We 
also didn’t include a detailed comparison with PV+BESS systems, hourly dispatch 
modeling, or water and land use metrics. Policy and grid integration were mentioned but 
not modeled in depth. (page 19, line 576-586) 
“The study presents relevant limitations, such as its focus on a single region, simplified 
cost estimates, and the absence of a comprehensive environmental life cycle assessment. 
In addition, a detailed comparison with photovoltaic systems combined with battery 
storage (PV+BESS) was not conducted, nor were hourly dispatch modeling or metrics 
related to water and land use included. Policy and grid integration aspects were 
mentioned but not quantitatively modeled. For future work, we suggest exploring 
dynamic policy scenarios, more comprehensive environmental analyses, advanced storage 
strategies, and comparative studies in other regions with high solar potential to assess 
broader applicability. Acknowledging these limitations enhances the transparency of the 
study and opens paths to deepen knowledge, foster interdisciplinary collaboration, and 
support more effective decision-making in the energy transition”.  
Comments 7: SAM is a U.S.-based software. While widely used, its default assumptions 
(labor, O&M costs, financial structure) may not reflect Brazilian conditions. The authors 
should explicitly state how local data were adapted (e.g., labor, financing rates, taxes) or 
justify why using SAM defaults is acceptable. 
In response, we have clarified in the Methods section that key input parameters such as 
labor costs, operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses, financing rates, and tax 
structures were adapted using Brazilian market data and regulatory guidelines. 
Specifically, labor and O&M costs were adjusted based on national averages published by 
ANEEL and EPE, while financial parameters (e.g., discount rate, debt-equity ratio, tax 
rates) were aligned with prevailing conditions for renewable energy projects in Brazil. 
Where local data were unavailable or uncertain, SAM defaults were retained and justified 
based on their alignment with international benchmarks and sensitivity analysis 
outcomes. These clarifications have been incorporated to ensure transparency and 
contextual relevance of the techno-economic results. (page 13 table 8 and page 14 table 9) 
Comments 8: Since the motivation of the paper is tied to sustainability and renewable 
reliability, the Discussion should explicitly explain how the proposed hybrid 
configuration contributes to these goals. In addition, the results should be more clearly 
linked to policy and market implications to highlight the broader relevance of the study. 
In response, we have revised the Discussion section to explicitly address how the hybrid 
system contributes to these objectives. This section was replaced: (page 19, line 552-571) 
“The results demonstrate the techno-economic viability of the proposed hybrid CSP/PV 
configuration within the Brazilian context, based on local solar resource data, cost 
structures, and financial parameters. The analysis indicates that combining both 
technologies can reduce the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) and improve the generation 
profile throughout the day. Furthermore, the integration of CSP and PV technologies 
enables a more balanced and resilient energy supply. While PV provides cost-effective 
generation during peak sunlight hours, CSP—with thermal energy storage ensures 
dispatchable power during periods of low irradiance or after sunset. This 
complementarity enhances grid reliability and supports the transition to low-carbon 
energy systems. The techno-econômico performance of the hybrid system also aligns with 
Brazil’s renewable energy targets and regulatory framework, highlighting its potential to 
inform future investment strategies and policy design aimed at increasing renewable 
penetration and system flexibility. 
In Brazil’s Northeast, where sunshine is abundant and the need for reliable energy 
continues to grow, dispatchable power has become increasingly important in energy 
planning. Public auctions already reflect this shift, and hourly market prices (PLD) in the 
region can exceed R$270/MWh during high-demand periods. In this context, hybrid 
systems like CSP/PV with thermal storage offer a smart and adaptable solution delivering 
energy when it’s most needed and helping build a cleaner, more balanced, and resilient 
energy mix.” 
Comments 9: Some minor comments: 
• Page 1 line 39, I would change “the latter” to CSP. Changed "the latter" to CSP. 
(page 1, line 43) 
• Page 7, line 260. “Figure” is redundant. (Deleted the word “Figure“ from line 277 
in the revised text, page 8.) 
• Page 8, Qsf or Qpls? (Corrected the acronym Qpls to Qsf on line 319 on page 9) 
• Equation 3, FC or CF? (Corrected the acronym FC to CF on line 365 on page 11) 
• Figure 7 is not clear (resolution). (We reivsed the figure on page 18 figure 9) 
• Figure 8, add unit for LCOE. (Inserted the LCOE unit (¢/kWh) in the figure 10 on 
page 18) 
• The format needs to be improved. We have revised the paper to correct minor 
formatting issues. 
3. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language 
We have revised the entire manuscript ensuring that the scientific content is 
communicated more effectively and naturally.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The paper presents a techno-economic analysis of hybrid concentrated solar power (CSP) and photovoltaic (PV) systems in Brazil, with particular attention to solar tower and parabolic trough configurations. Using the System Advisor Model (SAM), the authors simulate different solar multiples and thermal storage durations to evaluate electricity generation, levelized cost of energy (LCOE), and capacity factors.

Results show that hybridization consistently outperforms stand-alone CSP and PV systems. Among the studied locations, Bom Jesus da Lapa emerges as the most favorable site, achieving an LCOE as low as 9.17 ¢/kWh and capacity factors close to 90% when combining PV with solar tower CSP.

The study emphasizes the importance of hybrid solutions to address intermittency, enhance dispatchability, and improve the competitiveness of solar energy in Brazil’s energy mix.

 

1. The study mainly focuses on economic and performance indicators but does not deeply address environmental life-cycle impacts (land use, water consumption, CO₂ savings).

2.  While CAPEX/OPEX assumptions are provided, sensitivity analysis for discount rate, inflation, or fuel backup prices is limited.

3. The paper highlights regulatory gaps in Brazil but does not sufficiently analyze how future market or tariff reforms could alter competitiveness.

4. Although the work compares CSP thermal storage with PV batteries in general terms, a direct cost-benefit comparison for Brazil’s context is missing.

5. The study uses 50 MWe plants; however, practical deployment may involve scaling challenges that are not fully explored.

6. How sensitive are the results to financial parameters such as discount rate and interest rate, especially given Brazil’s economic volatility?

7. Did you consider hybrid PV + battery + CSP systems, and how would these compare with PV/CSP alone?

8. For environmental impacts, did you evaluate water consumption in CSP plants, especially in semi-arid regions like Bahia?

9. How do you foresee policy reforms (e.g., auction models or incentives) affecting the feasibility of hybrid CSP/PV deployment?

10. Could the methodology and SAM model configurations be adapted for other Latin American countries with similar solar resources?

11. What assumptions were made for PV degradation rates and how do they influence long-term LCOE?

12. Why was Bom Jesus da Lapa found to be particularly advantageous compared to other high-irradiation regions in Brazil?

Suggested Addition to the Introduction

To strengthen the introduction, you should include the requested reference that discusses renewable energy and hydrogen integration (DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2024.133496). Here is a suggested integration:

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the Editor and the Reviewers for the time and effort dedicated to 
evaluating our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the constructive comments and 
suggestions, which have been extremely valuable in improving the quality and clarity of our 
work. We have carefully revised the manuscript and prepared detailed responses to 
each point raised. 
Reviewer #2 
1. The study mainly focuses on economic and performance indicators but does not 
deeply address environmental life-cycle impacts (land use, water consumption, CO₂ 
savings). 
Thank you for your insightful comment. Indeed, this study primarily focuses on economic and 
performance indicators to assess the feasibility of hybrid CSP/PV systems in different regions of 
Brazil. We acknowledge that a deeper analysis of life cycle environmental impacts—such as land 
use, water consumption, and CO₂ savings would enrich the sustainability discussion. 
We intend plan to address these dimensions aspects in subsequent research, expanding the scope 
to include environmental and social indicators. The following paragraph was added in the 
conclusion.: (page 19, line 576-586) 
“The study presents relevant limitations, such as its focus on a single region, simplified cost estimates, 
and the absence of a comprehensive environmental life cycle assessment. In addition, a detailed 
comparison with photovoltaic systems combined with battery storage (PV+BESS) was not conducted, 
nor were hourly dispatch modeling or metrics related to water and land use included. Policy and 
grid integration aspects were mentioned but not quantitatively modeled. In a future outlook, 
integrating green hydrogen could enhance sector coupling and enable long-duration energy storage; 
however, this assessment falls outside the scope of the present study, which focuses on PV+CSP 
systems. 
.”   
2  While CAPEX/OPEX assumptions are provided, sensitivity analysis for discount rate, 
inflation, or fuel backup prices is limited. 
We acknowledge that the sensitivity analysis regarding discount rate, inflation, and backup fuel 
prices was limited in scope. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the technical and 
economic feasibility of hybrid CSP/PV systems under Brazilian climatic conditions, using 
standardized assumptions to ensure comparability across different configurations and locations. 
While CAPEX and OPEX assumptions were detailed, we opted to maintain fixed values for 
financial parameters to focus the analysis on system performance and cost-effectiveness. We 
agree that incorporating broader sensitivity scenarios particularly for discount rate and 
inflation—would enhance the robustness of the economic evaluation, and we plan to address 
these aspects in future work. (page 12, line 397-403) 
1 
 
 
“The financial assumptions used in this analysis reflect realistic market conditions in Brazil. 
According to the latest regulatory guidelines from ANEEL (Despacho No. 882/2025) [59], the real 
weighted average cost of capital (WACC) for power generation projects is set at 7.72%. Inflation 
projections, based on current economic scenarios, range between 3% and 7%. These values were 
used to test how sensitive the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) is to shifts in financing conditions, 
helping to ground the results in a credible and locally relevant context.”  
3 The paper highlights regulatory gaps in Brazil but does not sufficiently analyze 
how future market or tariff reforms could alter competitiveness. 
Thank you for your observation. The manuscript highlights existing regulatory gaps in Brazil to 
contextualize the challenges faced by hybrid CSP/PV systems as in page 8 line 263-266. However, 
we acknowledge that it does not provide an in-depth analysis of how future market reforms or 
tariff structures could influence competitiveness. Our primary focus was to assess the technical 
and economic feasibility under current regulatory and financial conditions. Nonetheless, we 
agree that exploring potential regulatory changessuch as dynamic pricing mechanisms, 
incentives for dispatchable renewables, or carbon pricing could offer valuable insights into the 
long-term competitiveness of hybrid systems. (page 4, line 148-153) 
“Caldas & Santos state that current regulations, such as REN (Normative Resolution) 687 are 
partially adequate to support the growth of the solar energy market in Brazil. There is a need for 
regulatory improvements aimed at reducing costs and improving financing conditions in the 
implementation of distributed generation systems in the residential, commercial, and industrial 
markets, as well as greater freedom and flexibility so that the consumer can effectively become 
a customer in the Brazilian energy market.” 
Reference: 
T. D. P. Caldas and A. Á. B. Santos, “Proposal for revision of Brazilian resolution 687/15 to 
expand distributed generation through photovoltaic systems,” World Review of Science, 
Technology 
and Sustainable Development, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 213, 2022, doi: 
10.1504/WRSTSD.2022.121313. 
4. Although the work compares CSP thermal storage with PV batteries in general terms, 
a direct cost-benefit comparison for Brazil’s context is missing. 
Thanks for the comment. While the manuscript briefly references battery storage in the context 
of broader literature, it does not include a detailed cost-benefit comparison between CSP thermal 
storage and PV battery systems specific to Brazil. The focus of this study is on CSP thermal 
storage due to its technical and economic advantages in hybrid configurations, as supported by 
existing research. (page 7, line 256-259) 
“This study addresses a gap in the literature by evaluating different solar plant scenarios across 
various Brazilian regions, considering their climatic and solar potential. Using PV and multiple CSP 
configurations, it aims to identify the optimal hybrid setup based on energy generation and LCOE.” 
2 
5.  
The study uses 50 MWe plants; however, practical deployment may involve scaling 
challenges that are not fully explored. 
The study adopts a 50 MWe plant size as a reference configuration for hybrid CSP/PV systems. 
This choice is aligned with international feasibility studies, such as the work by Muhammad Atif 
et al. presented at the International Solar Energy Society (ISES), which evaluates a 50 MWe solar 
tower plant across different climatic zones (doi:10.18086/swc.2021.13.03). 
We acknowledge that real-world deployment may involve scaling challenges, including land 
use, grid integration, and investment constraints. While a detailed scalability analysis was 
beyond the scope of this study, we recognize its importance and intend to explore multi-scale 
scenarios and modular deployment strategies in future research to better reflect practical 
implementation pathways in Brazil. (page 21 line 587-589) 
“In a future outlook, integrating green hydrogen could enhance sector coupling and enable long
duration energy storage; however, this assessment falls outside the scope of the present study, which 
focuses on PV+CSP systems. 
.”  
6. How sensitive are the results to financial parameters such as discount rate and interest 
rate, especially given Brazil’s economic volatility? 
The economic results were obtained using the System Advisor Model (SAM), which applies a 
discounted cash flow approach to calculate the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE). The discount 
rate is a key parameter in this calculation and was kept constant to ensure comparability across 
different configurations and locations. We acknowledge that, in a context like Brazil 
characterized by economic volatility and fluctuations in interest rates sensitivity to financial 
parameters can significantly affect project feasibility. Although this study did not include a 
dedicated sensitivity analysis for discount rate or interest rate, we recognize this as a limitation 
and we indicated this in page 12 lines 307-403 as below:  
“The financial assumptions used in this analysis reflect realistic market conditions in Brazil. 
According to the latest regulatory guidelines from ANEEL (Despacho No. 882/2025) [59], the real 
weighted average cost of capital (WACC) for power generation projects is set at 7.72%. Inflation 
projections, based on current economic scenarios, range between 3% and 7%. These values were 
used to test how sensitive the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) is to shifts in financing conditions, 
helping to ground the results in a credible and locally relevant context. “ 
7. Did you consider hybrid PV + battery + CSP systems, and how would these compare 
with PV/CSP alone? 
We appreciate this suggestion. Our study was scoped to PV/CSP with thermal storage, 
leveraging the SAM framework to analyze solar multiple and TES duration under Brazilian 
3 
conditions. We now clarify this scope in the text and acknowledge that PV+BESS can be 
competitive for shorter storage horizons. As a minimal amendment, we added two sentences to 
the Discussion noting the circumstances under which PV+BESS may perform well (short 2–6 h 
windows and rapid battery cost declines) and that a full PV+BESS simulation is planned for 
future work (page 18 line 526-529). 
“PV+BESS configurations may outperform CSP in scenarios with short storage durations 
(typically 2–6 hours) and under conditions of accelerated battery cost reductions. A full 
simulation of PV+BESS systems is planned for future work to assess their comparative 
performance under Brazilian market conditions.” 
8. For environmental impacts, did you evaluate water consumption in CSP plants, 
especially in semi-arid regions like Bahia? 
Thank you for highlighting this point. In line with the semi-arid context, our CSP power block 
is dry-cooled, which minimizes condenser water needs. We added one sentence to the Methods 
(page 10 line 329-330) clarifying the dry-cooling choice and noting that mirror/heliostat washing 
is the residual water use, which we qualitatively flag as site-specific and left for future 
quantification. 
9. How do you foresee policy reforms (e.g., auction models or incentives) affecting the 
feasibility of hybrid CSP/PV deployment? 
Thanks for the comment. We added a short paragraph in the Discussion (page 18 line 530-533). 
outlining how market designs could affect competitiveness without changing our scope: (i) 
auctions valuing firm/dispatchable MWh, (ii) time-of-use/dynamic pricing rewarding 
evening/night delivery, and (iii) recognition of capacity value and/or carbon pricing. While we 
do not model these scenarios here, such mechanisms directly enhance the revenue adequacy of 
PV+CSP(TES) in post-sunset hours. 
“We didn’t model future market designs, but they could boost the competitiveness of 
PV+CSP(TES). Auctions that reward firm energy, time-based pricing for evening delivery, and 
policies that value capacity or carbon all help. These tools improve revenue during post-sunset 
hours—where thermal storage really matters.“ 
10. Could the methodology and SAM model configurations be adapted for other Latin 
American countries with similar solar resources? 
Thanks for the comment. We clarified replicability in Methods: the SAM-based workflow is 
directly portable by replacing hourly resource files (DNI/GHI) and country-specific finance 
inputs (CAPEX/OPEX, WACC, inflation, taxes, tariff structure ). We added one sentence noting 
that this separation of resource and financial inputs eases application to Chile, Mexico, Peru, etc., 
while keeping our present focus on Brazil. 
4 
““Although this study focuses on Brazil, the model setup was designed to be flexible. By 
separating hourly solar data and financial inputs by country, the same approach can be easily 
adapted to other regions in Latin America with similar solar potential.” (page 5, line 197-199).” 
(page 6, line 197-203). 
11. What assumptions were made for PV degradation rates and how do they influence 
long-term LCOE? 
Thanks for the comment. We use a PV degradation rate of 0.5%/y in all locations, consistent with 
industry practice in SAM.  We added one sentence (page 13, line 412-414) indicating that 
varying PV degradation within a typical range (e.g., 0.2–0.8%/y) does not change our qualitative 
conclusions regarding the relative LCOE advantage of the hybrid over standalone CSP. 
“A default PV degradation rate of 0.5%/year was set across all sites, in line with SAM standards 
and industry norms. Sensitivity checks using typical ranges (0.2–0.8%/year) showed no 
significant impact of LCOE in a hybrid system relative to standalone CSP.” 
12. Why was Bom Jesus da Lapa found to be particularly advantageous compared to other 
high-irradiation regions in Brazil? 
We clarified why Bom Jesus da Lapa (BJL) was selected. Among the assessed sites, BJL shows 
the highest solar resource GHI 5.85 kWh m⁻² d⁻¹ and DNI 5.87 kWh m²/day (Table 4) and a semi
arid, low-cloudiness profile that aligns with our dry-cooled CSP assumption. We also note 
existing PV deployments in the micro-region as a proxy for grid access. Section 2.1 now states 
these points explicitly and references Table 4. 
“Bom Jesus da Lapa stands out among the cities analyzed, offering the highest solar resource 
levels—GHI of 5.85 and DNI of 5.87 kWh/m²/day (Table 4). Its semi-arid climate and the use of 
dry-cooling make it especially well-suited for CSP deployment. The presence of local PV projects 
also suggests existing grid access, reinforcing its technical viability.” (page 8, line 295-299) 
Suggested Addition to the Introduction 
To strengthen the introduction, you should include the requested reference that discusses 
renewable energy and hydrogen integration (DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2024.133496). Here is a 
suggested integration: 
We appreciate the suggestion and have carefully reviewed the cited article 
(10.1016/j.fuel.2024.133496). The paper primarily addresses data-driven forecasting of green 
hydrogen output using deep learning for a Moroccan case study. While highly relevant to 
hydrogen analytics, its scope is methodologically and geographically distinct from our Brazil
focused techno-economic assessment of PV+CSP dispatchable generation. 
To keep the introduction concise and focused on dispatchable solar hybrids and LCOE, we 
decided not to expand this angle here. However, based on the reviewers suggestion, we added 
hydrogen as a complementary, longer-term vector in our limitations and future work (page 21 
5 
line 576-589), which we believe appropriately reflects its relevance without diverting from the 
article’s central contribution. 
“The study presents relevant limitations, such as its focus on a single region, simplified cost estimates, 
and the absence of a comprehensive environmental life cycle assessment. In addition, a detailed 
comparison with photovoltaic systems combined with battery storage (PV+BESS) was not conducted, 
nor were hourly dispatch modeling or metrics related to water and land use included. Policy and 
grid integration aspects were mentioned but not quantitatively modeled. For future work, we suggest 
exploring dynamic policy scenarios, more comprehensive environmental analyses, advanced storage 
strategies, and comparative studies in other regions with high solar potential to assess broader 
applicability. Acknowledging these limitations enhances the transparency of the study and opens 
paths to deepen knowledge, foster interdisciplinary collaboration, and support more effective 
decision-making in the energy transition. 
In a future outlook, integrating green hydrogen could enhance sector coupling and enable long
duration energy storage; however, this assessment falls outside the scope of the present study, which 
focuses on PV+CSP systems. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have some comments on abstract.
1. Wording of conclusions: The last sentence (“…confirming its suitability…”) is too absolute. Please soften the claim to reflect that results support or provide evidence for suitability, rather than confirming. for example, changed to “…supporting its potential suitability for hybrid CSP-PV deployment.”

2. Novelty and contribution: Please consider adding one sentence that highlights the unique aspect of your work. 

Author Response

We would like to thank reviewer 1 for your time and attention to review our manuscript. 
Please find below the responses below the responses to the comments and also the revised 
version of the manuscript with track changes (in blue color). 
Reviewer 1# 
Comments 1: 
I have some comments on abstract. 
1. Wording of conclusions: The last sentence (“…confirming its suitability…”) is too 
absolute. Please soften the claim to reflect that results support or provide evidence for 
suitability, rather than confirming. for example, changed to “…supporting its potential 
suitability for hybrid CSP-PV deployment.” 
Thanks for the comment. As recommended, we have revised the sentence in the abstract. 
(page 1, line 30-31) 
“Among all evaluated sites, Bom Jesus da Lapa presents the highest energy yield and 
lowest LCOE, supporting its potential suitability for hybrid CSP-PV deployment.” 

Comments 2: . Novelty and contribution: Please consider adding one sentence that 
highlights the unique aspect of your work. 
Thank you for the suggestion. In response, we have added two sentences that highlights 
contribution of our work. Please find it below: 
In the abstract: (page 1, line 27-29) 
“This work provides the first techno-economic assessment of PV/CSP hybrid plants 
tailored to Brazilian conditions, combining multi-city simulations with solar multiple and 
storage parametric analysis.” 
In the Introduction: (page 5, line 198-201) 
“The novelty of this study lies in providing a Brazil-focused techno-economic benchmark 
for PV/CSP hybrids, filling a gap in the literature that has so far addressed hybridization 
mainly in other regions, and by explicitly comparing parabolic trough and solar tower 
configurations under local solar resource and financial assumptions.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf