Next Article in Journal
Hydrodynamic and Waves Response during Storm Surges on the Southern Brazilian Coast: A Hindcast Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Flood Mapping Proposal in Small Watersheds: A Case Study of the Rebollos and Miranda Ephemeral Streams (Cartagena, Spain)
Previous Article in Journal
Comparisons of Two Types of Particle Tracking Models Including the Effects of Vertical Velocity Shear
Previous Article in Special Issue
Reducing the Carbon Footprint of the Water-Energy Binomial through Governance and ICT. A Case Study
Article
Peer-Review Record

Evaluation in Carbon Dioxide Equivalent and CHG Emissions for Water and Energy Management in Water Users Associations. A Case Study in the Southeast of Spain

Water 2020, 12(12), 3536; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123536
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Water 2020, 12(12), 3536; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123536
Received: 30 October 2020 / Revised: 4 December 2020 / Accepted: 7 December 2020 / Published: 16 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Water Economics and Water Distribution Management)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well written and no major issues have been detected. However, it is not totally clear for me what is the contribution this paper brings to the water-energy nexus. Important references that can help to better contextualize this contibution are: i) S. Leao et al. (2018): a worldwide-regionsalised water supply mix (WSmix) for life cycle inventory of water use. Journal Cleaner Production and ii) A. Hospido el al. (2013). Irrigation mix: how to include water sources when
assessing freshwater consumption impacts associated to crops . Int. Journal LCA

Besides, the concept of Carbon Footprint is mentioned but not referred to any formal definition (such as ISO standards). Both carbon and water footprints are well stablished concepts that should be used, defined and calculated under those standards. Otherwise not being mentioned to avoid misunderstandings. 

Minor issues:

GEI is used sometimes instead of GHG

Kg should be replaced by kg (no capital letter)

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Authors are grateful with the comments, that all are improving the paper. The answer for each point are commented in the next lines. Moreover, in the last version of the article, all the changes are included.

 

The paper is well written and no major issues have been detected. However, it is not totally clear for me what is the contribution this paper brings to the water-energy nexus. Important references that can help to better contextualize this contibution are: i) S. Leao et al. (2018): a worldwide-regionsalised water supply mix (WSmix) for life cycle inventory of water use. Journal Cleaner Production and ii) A. Hospido el al. (2013). Irrigation mix: how to include water sources when assessing freshwater consumption impacts associated to crops . Int. Journal LCA

 

These references has been included in the last version of the paper. Moreover, a paragraph including these references has been added.

 

Besides, the concept of Carbon Footprint is mentioned but not referred to any formal definition (such as ISO standards). Both carbon and water footprints are well stablished concepts that should be used, defined and calculated under those standards. Otherwise not being mentioned to avoid misunderstandings.

 

Authors agree with the reviewer about the difference of the concepts about carbon and water footprint. We have changed the majority of the inclusions about the carbon and water footprint and they have been changed by CO2-eq and CHG emissions (including the tittle).

 

Minor issues:

 

GEI is used sometimes instead of GHG

 

Kg should be replaced by kg (no capital letter)

 

This has been changed in the definitive paper.

 

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks, manuscript is well written and can be accepted for publication. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your response.

Best regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper present interesting case study. My comment concerns:

1. An irrigation network is a special type of water supply network. A several energy assessment methodologies for water supply systems was developed in last years. Authors should present alos a short review about methods for assessing the water supply system and irrigation network.  Authors should justify their choice about energy assessment methdology. 

2. Line 84 - 93 - text should be itemized, 

3. Line 132 - the bibliography should be changed as follow: [7, 24, 25, 26, 27] - it should be change in all manuscript,

4. Line 149 pump power - is it: nominal, average, maximal power? It should be described in manuscript,

5. Table 2 - Height - column 5 height  should be describe in the text. Is it altitude above sea level? How did the height influence the results of the analysis?

6. Line 221 - "How irrigation scheduling was based on taking advantage of 221 all the hours of the off-peak period, and if it were not enough, demand the necessary energy in the flat 222 period and as a last option, in peak period, the operating hours were calculated totals for each survey 223 and were distributed according to the irrigation schedule." -this sentence is tool long and not clear. Should be redacted.

7. Table 4 - the results are difficult to interpret. It will be better to present the results also on charts

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Authors are grateful with the comments, that all are improving the paper. The answers for each point are commented in the next lines. Moreover, in the last version of the article, all the changes have been included.

The paper present interesting case study. My comment concerns:

Thanks for your words.

  1. An irrigation network is a special type of water supply network. A several energy assessment methodologies for water supply systems was developed in last years. Authors should present alos a short review about methods for assessing the water supply system and irrigation network.  Authors should justify their choice about energy assessment methdology. 

A short review about methods for assessing the water supply system and irrigation network has been included. A paragraph including these references has been added.

  1. Line 84 - 93 - text should be itemized, 

This has been itemized.

  1. Line 132 - the bibliography should be changed as follow: [7, 24, 25, 26, 27] - it should be change in all manuscript,

This has been changed.

  1. Line 149 pump power - is it: nominal, average, maximal power? It should be described in manuscript,

This has been improved and described.

  1. Table 2 - Height - column 5 height  should be describe in the text. Is it altitude above sea level? How did the height influence the results of the analysis?

This has been clarified. The manometric height is fundamental in the results, because this is influencing in the engine power and the consumed energy.

  1. Line 221 - "How irrigation scheduling was based on taking advantage of 221 all the hours of the off-peak period, and if it were not enough, demand the necessary energy in the flat 222 period and as a last option, in peak period, the operating hours were calculated totals for each survey 223 and were distributed according to the irrigation schedule." -this sentence is tool long and not clear. Should be redacted.

This paragraph has been improved for a better comprehension.

  1. Table 4 - the results are difficult to interpret. It will be better to present the results also on charts

Several charts have been included for a better explanation.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Most of my comments were taken into account by the authors. The line 247 - 248 is still not clear. Is data about pomp power determined from the literature/technicla documntation (nominal) or from measurements (registered)? 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Authors are grateful with the comments, that all are improving the paper. The answers for each point are commented in the next lines.

Most of my comments were taken into account by the authors. The line 247 - 248 is still not clear. Is data about pomp power determined from the literature/technicla documntation (nominal) or from measurements (registered)?

Dear reviewer, the pump power is the measured power. These data have been provided by the users. In this case, they have been provided by the WUAs.

Specifically, according to the methodology (A or B), it has be taken into account the next.

Methodology A.

In this case, it is the measured power because it is based on the information provided by the users from WUAs.

Methodology B.

This is a calculated power according to an average of 4,000 functioning hours. These data have been contributed by managers and technisians from each WUA. This period has been distributed in intervals according to the frequence of flows. This is based in the cited methodology, [19] by Munuera. After, the power related to each demanded flow was calculated. Finally, the amount of hours linked to a determined power was determined. Data on the characteristics of the pumps were collected from technical documentation.

 

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop