Comparative Analysis of Marine Alternative Fuels for Offshore Supply Vessels
, Insik Hwang 1,2,*, Hayoung Jang 1,2, Byongug Jeong 1,2,*, Seungman Ha 1,4, Joongwon Kim 1,2 and Jaehoon Jee 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper touches on important topic of alternative marine fuels use, but fails to proposose novelity and valuable results. Some remakrs:
1. There is a detailed description of a selected vessel for this study to be used an an example, but in the manuscript the vessel specific limmitations are not adressed. For example, do to space restrains some fuels may not be applicable due space restrains for tanks, considering the size of tank number of magnitute bigger.
2. The presented refueling term of 14 days is not really descriptive as it does not show the actual capacity of fuel used. The mass of fuel bunnkered would provide a solid parameter that would allow a better comparison trough energy value of each fuel.
3. The battery is option is not adequatly described. There are many qoustions regarding battery use as baterry mass for capacity relative to the same energy in fuel is not presented. The chargin rate and duration is also a limmitation but that maybe outside of the scope of this article.
4. In page 16, the presented desctiption of every fuel feels shallow and lacks any references. For example in case of LNG it is said that LNG significantly reduses CO2, How ever CO2 reduction from LNG is only 20-25%, and is not cosidered as an long term option in IMO and EU plans. I suggest to improve the fuels descriptions with references.
5. The conlusions should be improved as they lack the concnrete result description and rather focus on describng the same advantages and disadvantages of diffeent fuels/technologies, and providing general thoughts, that on their own dont really represent any results. I suggest rewriting the conclusions and presenting the outcomes for the selected case of the OSV.
Author Response
Please see the attached for the responses to Reviewer 1's comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I have reviewed you paper and I find it very interesting. You managed to cover many aspects related to marine applications fuels and the chosem methods are relevant. The obtained results and conclisions may be used as starting point for a more in-depth evaluation in this field.
However, I consider that the Introduction part is too long and needs to be shortened and also, you must use the journal template for your paper.
Be careful with the numbering of the sub-chapters since you repeat sub-chapter 1.1 2 or 3 times (e.g. 1.1. Case ship analysis (Step 1), 1.1. Credible design solutions (Step 2), etc.). The same goes for other sub-chapters of yur paper.
Please revise the paper accordingly and it will be suitable for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attached for the responses to Reviewer2
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRemarks in the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attached for the responses to Reviewer3's comments
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Some remarks about the previous review
The paper was very marginally improved compared to the previous version, not all remarks were addressed.
Some practical suggestions.
1. In the discussion section it is stated that this paper excludes consideration of ship-specific restrictions such as space restrictions for fuel tanks, refuelling periods, and limitation of battery usage such as volume, weight and charging time. These issues will be further studied based on the results of this paper. In the methodology section it also stated that required space is assessed. I suggest removing or rephrasing this statement.
2. As the authors do not address any space or positioning constrain for the fuel, I would suggest removal most of the information from table 1, as it creates the impression that this data is addressed in the analysis when in fact it is not and focus on what vessel data is used in analysis – propulsion plant characteristic.
3. Figures 2, 4 and 5 are of poor quality and is difficult to read in both pdf/printed version. I suggest increase the size and quality of the figure. Figure 6 is unreadable.
4. in the newly added text, there is a statement, that “This vessel-specific approach is relatively unexplored, offering new perspectives on how these fuels perform under conditions unique to SOVs, such as range, refuelling, and safety”. These unique conditions should be specified in the text, in the methodology section.
5. Lines added 104-106 should also be moved to the methodology section as they address conditions vital to the calculation.
6. There are nor references in terms of fuel descriptions and the fuel description were not improved/edited. The previous remark (remark 4) was not addressed at all.
7. I would also suggest that the authors consider changing the main direction of the manuscript, since it is inherently difficult to describe anything specific to the offshore supply vessel if you avoid range, refuelling, and safety requirements and rewrite the publication with focus on Comparative Analysis on Marine Alternative Fuels, even though it would limit novelty.
Author Response
Please see the attached; responses to the Reviewer's comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA significant work was done to improve this publication. I believe it is now interesting and important for the scientific comunity.
