Ensuring Southern Spain’s Energy Future: A LEAP-Based Scenario for Meeting 2030 and 2050 Goals

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a highly relevant topic concerning the energy future of Southern Spain, utilizing the LEAP model to project and assess energy scenarios that aim to achieve decarbonization targets by 2030 and 2050. The paper is comprehensive and addresses significant aspects of energy planning, renewable integration, and emission reductions. However, substantial improvements and clarifications are necessary before the manuscript can be considered for publication. The following major revisions are recommended:

1. The manuscript requires extensive English language editing.
2. The introduction and literature review sections should be expanded with additional recent references to enhance context and rigor. Specifically, integrate and critically discuss recent relevant studies to better position the manuscript within current research frameworks. Consider recent papers like: 10.1088/1742-6596/2177/1/012033, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145602
3. Specify the assumptions underlying each scenario, the parameters used, and the justifications for scenario choices (e.g., the EEUJA scenario). Including a comparison table that summarizes the main differences between scenarios would greatly improve clarity.
4. Figures and tables need improvement in resolution, readability, and clear labeling.
5. Expand the discussion on the economic feasibility and scalability of the proposed EEUJA scenario. Clarify the required investment, potential sources of funding, and any possible economic impacts or barriers that might hinder implementation.
6. Provide a more structured and comprehensive policy implications section. Clearly articulate specific policy recommendations emerging from your findings, and discuss how these policies can realistically be implemented given current socio-economic and political contexts.
7. The discussion section should provide deeper insights by critically assessing potential barriers to the real-world implementation of the proposed measures, such as technological constraints, infrastructure needs, regulatory obstacles, and public acceptance issues. 
8. Add a paragraph titled “Limitations of the study”. 
9. Rewrite the conclusion in a more concise and structured format, preferably as a bulleted list by explicitly stating the key contributions of your work to the literature and practical policy-making.

Addressing these points will significantly improve the manuscript’s quality, making it suitable for publication and impactful for both researchers and policy-makers.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires extensive English language editing.

Author Response

Comments:

Comment 1; The manuscript requires extensive English language editing.

Response 1: We acknowledge the reviewer’s comment and confirm that the manuscript has undergone thorough English language editing to improve clarity, grammar, and overall readability.

Comment 2: The introduction and literature review sections should be expanded with additional recent references to enhance context and rigor. Specifically, integrate and critically discuss recent relevant studies to better position the manuscript within current research frameworks. Consider recent papers like: 10.1088/1742-6596/2177/1/012033, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145602

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. Following this, we have expanded the Introduction and Literature Review with two additional paragraphs (highlighted in red) that discuss in detail recent relevant studies, including the two recommended references (DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/2177/1/012033 and https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145602). These works are now critically analysed in relation to our research focus, which strengthens the context and clarifies how recent findings connect with the Andalusian case study.

Comment 3: Specify the assumptions underlying each scenario, the parameters used, and the justifications for scenario choices (e.g., the EEUJA scenario). Including a comparison table that summarizes the main differences between scenarios would greatly improve clarity.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have added a dedicated subsection describing in detail the assumptions and parameters for each scenario, including technological, political, and socio-economic aspects. The rationale for the EEUJA scenario is now clearly stated, and a new comparative table summarises the main differences between the AAE baseline and EEUJA scenarios for 2030 and 2050. These additions make the scenario design and comparison more transparent and easier to follow.

Comment 4: Figures and tables need improvement in resolution, readability, and clear labeling.

Response 4: We have improved the resolution and overall quality of the figures, ensuring clearer visualisation. Figure titles and captions have been revised to provide more detailed explanations of the content, enhancing legibility and clarity for the reader.

Comment 5: Expand the discussion on the economic feasibility and scalability of the proposed EEUJA scenario. Clarify the required investment, potential sources of funding, and any possible economic impacts or barriers that might hinder implementation.

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have added a subsection on the economic feasibility and scalability of the EEUJA scenario. It includes preliminary investment estimates, possible funding sources, and an assessment of the main economic barriers, together with an analysis of potential long-term socio-economic benefits. The subsection also outlines the conditions required for large-scale implementation.

Comment 6: Provide a more structured and comprehensive policy implications section. Clearly articulate specific policy recommendations emerging from your findings, and discuss how these policies can realistically be implemented given current socio-economic and political contexts.

Response 6: We have addressed this comment by adding a fully restructured section entitled Policy implications and implementation pathways. This section clearly articulates specific policy recommendations derived from the EEUJA scenario and outlines realistic implementation strategies considering the current socio-economic and political context. It addresses sectoral electrification, renewable integration, financing mechanisms, regulatory streamlining, social acceptance, and multi-level governance, providing a comprehensive and actionable policy framework.

Comment 7: The discussion section should provide deeper insights by critically assessing potential barriers to the real-world implementation of the proposed measures, such as technological constraints, infrastructure needs, regulatory obstacles, and public acceptance issues. 

Response 7: We have expanded the Discussion section to include a more detailed and structured analysis of the practical challenges involved in implementing the EEUJA scenario. The revised text addresses technological constraints, infrastructure requirements, regulatory hurdles, and public acceptance, while also considering how these factors interact. In addition, we outline possible strategies to turn the proposed measures into workable public policies and add a Limitations subsection that clearly states the main assumptions, uncertainties, and external factors influencing the results.

Comment 8: Add a paragraph titled “Limitations of the study”. 

Response 8: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. A new subsection entitled Limitations of the Study has been added. It outlines the main assumptions, methodological constraints, and external factors affecting the EEUJA scenario, and notes the absence of a quantitative cost–benefit analysis. The section also discusses uncertainties related to technology scalability and suggests avenues for future research to improve the scenario’s feasibility under different real-world conditions.

Comment 9: Rewrite the conclusion in a more concise and structured format, preferably as a bulleted list by explicitly stating the key contributions of your work to the literature and practical policy-making.

Response 9: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The Conclusions section has been revised to present the content in a more concise and clearly structured bullet-point format. The updated version highlights the study’s main contributions to academic research and practical policy-making, covering strategic vision, technological feasibility, economic and regulatory drivers, social acceptance, sector-specific opportunities, energy justice, and the role of coordinated governance.

 

Additional comments from the authors:

We have fully reviewed the English by an expert to express the research more clearly.

All figures and tables have been processed and improved for better understanding.

We would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the reviewers for their excellent and constructive work, which helped us improve the research, and the Editor for their work, assistance, and understanding.

Changes in the manuscript in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript focuses on the energy transition in the Andalusia region of southern Spain to assess the feasibility of achieving the decarbonisation targets for 2030 and 2050. The Low Emissions Analysis Platform (LEAP) is used for long-term scenario analysis of energy supply, demand, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The results indicate that Andalusia has the potential to become a leading region in Europe's energy transition through energy exports. This manuscript is suitable for publication in this journal if the authors can further address the following issues.

(1) In the EEUJA scenario, there is a lack of detailed analysis of the technical maturity, cost-effectiveness, and policy implementation pathways for large-scale electrification and green hydrogen applications. Specific case studies or empirical data needs to be added to enhance persuasiveness.

(2) The Sankey diagrams in Fig. 5 and Fig. 8 show energy flows. However, the key flows such as the contribution of biomass energy to the industrial sector or its export potential are not discussed in depth.

(3) The analysis of the mechanisms behind the failure to achieve the renewable energy integration targets in ES01 could be further deepened. It is suggested that sensitivity analysis (such as the impact of fluctuations in key parameters on the results) should be added

(4) For the energy system with some conservation laws, can the authors give an outlook on the mathematical model and numerical method for such energy system. In this field, the generalized multi-symplectic method, especially, the structure-preserving iteration method (the most recent progress of the generalized multi-symplectic method) based on the approximate conservative system, should be discussed.

In summary, this manuscript provides a valuable framework for the energy transition in Andalusia using the LEAP model application and scenario design. Thus, it is recommended to publish an enhanced manuscript in this journal.

Author Response

Comments in green in the manuscript

Comment 1: In the EEUJA scenario, there is a lack of detailed analysis of the technical maturity, cost-effectiveness, and policy implementation pathways for large-scale electrification and green hydrogen applications. Specific case studies or empirical data needs to be added to enhance persuasiveness.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for their comment regarding the analysis related to green hydrogen. We have taken this into account and added several more references to analyse the situation. We have also taken into account current case studies to carry out the analysis in a more up-to-date framework in line with the technology in question.

Comment 2: The Sankey diagrams in Fig. 5 and Fig. 8 show energy flows. However, the key flows such as the contribution of biomass energy to the industrial sector or its export potential are not discussed in depth.

Response 2: We have addressed this comment by carefully reviewing the description of the energy flows in Figures 5 and 8. In the original version, the 2050 section included a statement referring to Andalusia as a net exporter of clean electricity, which is consistent with the 2030 projection (Figure 5) but is not explicitly shown in the 2050 projection (Figure 8). To avoid any inconsistency, we have revised the text for the 2050 scenario to emphasise Andalusia’s high renewable penetration, energy self-sufficiency, and contribution to national and European decarbonisation targets, without making explicit reference to electricity exports. The reference to exports has been kept in the 2030 section, where it is supported by the visualised data.

Comment 3: The analysis of the mechanisms behind the failure to achieve the renewable energy integration targets in ES01 could be further deepened. It is suggested that sensitivity analysis (such as the impact of fluctuations in key parameters on the results) should be added

Response 3: We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments and observations, which undoubtedly contribute to improving the quality of our work.

Regarding your suggestion on analysing the mechanisms that explain the failure to meet the renewable energy integration targets in scenario ES01, we would like to point out that the article already delves into the differences between the scenarios and offers a detailed explanation of why one of them fails to meet these targets while the other does.

On the other hand, the sensitivity analysis you propose, evaluating the impact of fluctuations in key parameters on the results, involves a much more exhaustive study that is beyond the scope of this paper. This type of analysis would require an independent evaluation based on different data sets and variables, and is currently being considered for future studies, given that the main objective of this article is to identify and analyse the different possible paths to achieving renewable integration targets.

Once again, we greatly appreciate your contribution and the opportunity you have given us to clarify these aspects.

Comment 4: For the energy system with some conservation laws, can the authors give an outlook on the mathematical model and numerical method for such energy system. In this field, the generalized multi-symplectic method, especially, the structure-preserving iteration method (the most recent progress of the generalized multi-symplectic method) based on the approximate conservative system, should be discussed.

Response 4: We would like to thank you again for your comments and for the opportunity to clarify the methodological approach of our study. It is true that the LEAP tool is based on mathematical models to represent energy systems, but we do not work directly with the numerical methods underlying the software. Instead, we use LEAP as a simulation environment into which consumption, production and energy planning data are incorporated without modifying internal parameters.

We appreciate your suggestion and believe that the incorporation of more detailed numerical analyses could be an interesting complement to future research focused on physical simulations or more in-depth techniques.

Additional comments from the authors:

We have fully reviewed the English by an expert to express the research more clearly. All figures and tables have been processed and improved for better understanding.

We would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the reviewers for their excellent and constructive work, which helped us improve the research, and the Editor for their work, assistance, and understanding.

Changes in the manuscript in green

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version is good and ready for publication