Carbon Footprint Evaluation and Reduction Strategies for a Residential Building in Romania: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

  The paper presents a detailed analysis of the carbon footprint of a residential building in Romania through the use of a life cycle assessment. Overall, the paper is well written, but minor issues need to be clarified based on the following:  

 

1. Authors are required to provide a more concise research objective statement would enhance readability.
2. minor grammatical and typographical errors should be corrected to enhance readability
3. Additional justification for why this particular building was chosen would strengthen the case study’s applicability to broader contexts
4. Although the paper includes references to similar research, a direct comparison with findings from other countries or regions would strengthen the results.
5. incorporate statistical analysis could help strengthen the conclusions and provide more solid evidence on significant of the values for energy consumption, emissions factors, and material usage.
6. The demolition stage analysis is relatively brief compared to the construction and operational phases. Additional discussion is required.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

1. minor grammatical and typographical errors should be corrected to enhance readabilit

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable and insightful review! We acknowledge the importance of providing a coherent structure and valuable research paper. Please find our answers for all the concerns in the uploaded word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

 

The abstract effectively summarizes the study but could be more structured. Key quantitative results, such as total CO₂ reductions from specific strategies, should be clearly highlighted.

 

 

The study is well-structured and methodologically sound, making a significant contribution to the field of pedestrian flow prediction. However, there are certain areas where clarity, depth, and validation could be enhanced. The following major revisions would improve the clarity of the paper.

 

Abstract: The Abstract section does not include the results. In this section, we expect you to give and interpret the striking results of the study.

 

Introduction: While the introduction covers global climate policies, the connection to Romania's specific challenges could be made clearer. Up-to-date references can be increased in the article.

 

Methodology

 

The justification for selecting the specific case study building needs further elaboration. Is this building representative of most single-family homes in Romania? How was it chosen?

 

A brief discussion on the building's compliance with or deviation from current Romanian energy regulations (such as nZEB standards) would add value.

While the LCA methodology is detailed, the study should specify any assumptions made in the calculations (such as energy mix projections, expected degradation of photovoltaic panels over time).

 

Discussion and Interpretation of Results

 

The historical analysis of residential building energy efficiency trends is useful, but it could benefit from more discussion on:

1. Policy interventions that led to these improvements.
2. Potential barriers to further adoption of low-carbon technologies.

 

The economic argument against heat pumps due to high electricity costs is valid, but it should also consider:

1. Potential future changes in energy prices (such as carbon taxes on natural gas, subsidies for heat pumps).
2. The role of energy storage solutions in improving the viability of photovoltaic-powered heat pumps.

 

The calculation of carbon sequestration from vegetation is a novel inclusion but requires validation through references.

How does this compare to other mitigation strategies? Could urban planning or green roofs further enhance sequestration?

 

Figures and Tables:

 

All figures and tables in the paper have been carefully prepared. Their resolution and level of information are appropriate. Their captions are descriptive. Perhaps the authors may wonder whether they could have presented these results using fewer figures in this article. Because there are many figures in the manuscript.

 

 

English and Grammar

 

Some sentences are long and difficult to follow (specially in the introduction). Consider breaking them into clearer statements.

 

Recommendation

1. This study is well-researched and provides valuable insights into the carbon footprint of residential buildings in Romania. However, before publication, the manuscript would benefit from:

 

2. Improved clarity in objectives, methodology, and results interpretation.

More discussion on policy implications and barriers to adoption of low-carbon technologies.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences are long and difficult to follow (specially in the introduction). Consider breaking them into clearer statements.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable and insightful review! We acknowledge the importance of providing a coherent structure and valuable research paper. Please find our answers for all the concerns in the uploaded word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1-Why was this specific building chosen to be the subject of the case study?
2- What kinds of renewable energy systems are in place, and what effect do they have on energy efficiency?
 3-How do the energy-saving measures that have been put into place stack up against the most recent nZEB standards?
4- Has the thermal performance of the building been evaluated numerically or experimentally?
 5-What shortcomings exist in the energy-saving strategies currently in place, and what enhancements are suggested?

6- What is Novelty of this study? Why it is important to publish this case study?

7-From Table 5 at line 265, How does the total electrical energy consumption (A*) and the energy used for heating (B**) vary across the years, and what factors might have contributed to these changes?

8-From result section, According to the building's life cycle assessment, why does the materials production sub-stage have the highest CO2 emissions?
9-How does the use of electrical equipment and building materials compare to the CO2 emissions from HVAC?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It can be further improved.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable and insightful review! We acknowledge the importance of providing a coherent structure and valuable research paper. Please find our answers for all the concerns in the uploaded word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented study is devoted to the currently very important issue of the carbon footprint of single-family residential buildings in Romania, which are the main source of CO2 emissions in the construction sector of the country. The authors carried out a comprehensive life cycle analysis of buildings with an emphasis on the operational phase.

The strength of the article is the detailed comparison of the efficiency of different heating systems and their impact on CO2 emissions. Particularly valuable is the assessment of the emission reduction potential when using heat pumps instead of traditional heating systems. The authors highlight the contradiction between environmental efficiency and economic feasibility: despite the advantages of heat pumps in terms of reducing CO2 emissions (34% and 26%, respectively, compared to wood and gas boilers), the high cost of electricity and lower tariffs for natural gas make gas boilers more attractive to consumers. Moreover, the article justifiably points out the alarming trend of increasing CO2 emissions for both new (32%) and old buildings (86%) as a result of the ongoing gasification of the housing stock.

The shortcomings of the research work include the lack of a detailed analysis of alternative solutions and possible ways to overcome the identified contradiction between environmental and economic interests.

From a technical point of view, the following changes need to be made:

1. In the abstract, it is necessary to add not only what was done, but also the purpose for which the study was conducted
2.  In the materials and methods section, first there is a link to figure 6, and then to 5. It is better to make links to the figures in order