Site Selection of Aquifer Thermal Energy Storage Systems in Shallow Groundwater Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

·         In general, this paper was hard to read due to the inconsistent use of words, such as ‘type’, ‘mode’, etc. as well as due to the disconnect between the objective of the paper and the adopted approach. It was never explained how properties like transmissivity and seepage affect the thermal storage capacity of the aquifer. Some of these properties also show little spatial variation.

·         The introduction can be re-written for better clarity (e.g., phrases like type mode, site mode, site-specific). The introduction is also lacking the motivation for the study. For example, the authors mention a new method that has not been adopted without going into the details nor explaining why it has not been adopted before. What is the current state of knowledge on ATES – the authors can do a better job of explaining this in the introduction.

·         The authors must clarify what groundwater depth they used as fluctuations in these levels, especially in arid regions such as the study area will have critical impacts on the aquifer’s ability to act as a heat reservoir.

·         The resolution of some figures (like figure 13) are poor likely due to the poor resolution of the input spatial data. Can the authors consider adopting smaller spatial scales or resolutions to enhance the quality of these figures?

Author Response

Response to reviewer #1

 

Thank you very much for your comments which improved our paper.

With reference to your comments, please note the following:

In general, this paper was hard to read due to the inconsistent use of words, such as ‘type’, ‘mode’, etc. as well as due to the disconnect between the objective of the paper and the adopted approach. It was never explained how properties like transmissivity and seepage affect the thermal storage capacity of the aquifer. Some of these properties also show little spatial variation.

 

Response:

 

The language has been improved.

Please find lines: 33; 34; 43; 44; 90-93; 177; 196; 197; 369.

 

The disconnection between the objective of the paper and the adopted approach was treated.

Please see the lines: 60-85.

 

The effects of the properties transmissivity and seepage affect the thermal storage capacity of the aquifer were explained.

Please see the lines 310-319; 324-331.

 

 

 

The introduction can be re-written for better clarity (e.g., phrases like type mode, site mode, site-specific). The introduction is also lacking the motivation for the study. For example, the authors mention a new method that has not been adopted without going into the details nor explaining why it has not been adopted before. What is the current state of knowledge on ATES – the authors can do a better job of explaining this in the introduction.

 

Response:

 

The introduction was re-written.

Please see lines: 33; 34; 43; 44.

 

The motivation for the study was written in the introduction.

Please see lines: 70-77.

 

The reason behind this method has not been adopted till now is explained.

Please see lines: 64-77.

 

The current state of knowledge on ATES is explained.

Please find lines: 70-77.

 

 

The authors must clarify what groundwater depth they used as fluctuations in these levels, especially in arid regions such as the study area will have critical impacts on the aquifer’s ability to act as a heat reservoir.

Response:

 

The fluctuation of the groundwater is explained.

Please see lines: 320-323.

 

 

The resolutions of some figures (like figure 13) are poor likely due to the poor resolution of the input spatial data. Can the authors consider adopting smaller spatial scales or resolutions to enhance the quality of these figures?

 

Response

 

The resolution of the figures (13, 14, 15) is improved.

Please see the figures (13, 14, 15).

 

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study looks reliable as the authors evaluated the best location to install an ATES system to site specific parameters. The use of Analytical Hierarchy Process, DRASTIC index method and ArcMap/GIS software increases the authenticity of the study. However, I propose the following corrections/modifications prior the MS be accepted in Water.

  

Specific comments:

1. Abstract:

- Abstract should be rewritten by detailing the aim and concept of the paper. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. The abstract of a good journal paper always ends outlining the benefits of the study findings and recommendations as a way forward. The manuscript is missing such 1-2 lines.

2. Introduction:

-Very general and need to be elaborative to explore the actual philosophy to design the experiment. The introduction is insufficient to provide the state of the art in the topic. Hypothesis should be given. How this work is different from the available data? -Authors should explicitly specify the novelty of their work. What progress against the most recent state-of-the-art similar case studies were made in this study? Mention this in the revised manuscript.

3.      Results & discussion:

Under section, results, and discussion, it is recommended to discuss and explain what should be the appropriate policies based on the findings of this study. Also, the results should be further elaborated to show how they could be used for real applications. 

4.      Conclusion:

  Pls. conclude with more focus on the major outcomes of the paper and future perspectives.

Author Response

Response to reviewer #2

 

Thank you very much for your comments which improved our paper.

With reference to your comments, please note the following:

1. Abstract:

Abstract should be rewritten by detailing the aim and concept of the paper. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. The abstract of a good journal paper always ends outlining the benefits of the study findings and recommendations as a way forward. The manuscript is missing such 1-2 lines.

 

Response:

The abstract was rewritten.

Please see the lines: 19-26.

 

 

2. Introduction:

Very general and need to be elaborative to explore the actual philosophy to design the experiment. The introduction is insufficient to provide the state of the art in the topic. Hypothesis should be given. How this work is different from the available data? -Authors should explicitly specify the novelty of their work. What progress against the most recent state-of-the-art similar case studies were made in this study? Mention this in the revised manuscript.

 

Response

 

“What is the different in this work” is explained.

Please find the lines: 65-78

 

The novelty of work is specified.

Please see the lines: 61-78.

 

 

3. Results & discussion:

Under section, results, and discussion, it is recommended to discuss and explain what should be the appropriate policies based on the findings of this study. Also, the results should be further elaborated to show how they could be used for real applications.

 

Response:

A paragraph that explains the appropriate policies and the potential applications is added.

Please see the lines: 422-426.

 

 

4. Conclusion:

Pls. conclude with more focus on the major outcomes of the paper and future perspectives.

 

Response:

The conclusions were modified.

Please see the lines: 428-438.

 

 

Best regards.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for making the revisions. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all the comments with full justification. Hence, the paper may be accepted in its current form