A Comparison of Different District Integration for a Distributed Generation System for Heating and Cooling in an Urban Area

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript proposes a comparison of several district integration options for a distributed generation system for heating and cooling in an urban area. MILP method was applied to optimise the system performances. The total annual cost and the total CO2 emissions are used to evaluate the performance of each district integration option. This manuscript can be accepted if the authors can properly address the following comments.

1.      Please check the English grammar.

2.      Please provide the keywords.

3.      Please take care of the front size and spacing.

4.      For each short form, please indicate the full form when mention the term at the first time.

5.      The introduction section should be extended, especially for the literature review part (i.e. please improve the literature review).

6.      In figure 1, it would be clear and easier to read if the author indicates the full form of each component in the figure caption.

7.      In figure 2, please also indicate the description of ‘C’ in the figure caption.

8.      In Figure 4 caption, it should be ‘top’ and ‘bottom’, instead of ‘left’ and ‘right’.

9.      Line 649, it should be 36.7 % instead of 37.6 % based on Table 7. Please check and correct.

10.  Please revise the figures 8, 11, 15. It is straight. Why some points are connected with line, but some are not. Moreover, the marker size can be enlarged.

11.  Please revise Table 16.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1) Keywords should be given

2) Check manuscript to avoid repeated words like "The reduction" in the begining of Introduction

3) 91-98 must be changed to few separate sentences

4) Introduction must be rewritten......starting from description of the work and continuing by rewiev of literature is not a proper order

5) Presentation of eqs. in 2.2-2.6 is not good. It looks very strange and authors should consider any improved form. Besides they are not well explained.

6) Nomenclature part would be useful

7) 435 - please clarify temperature for DHW and heating

8) many typos, for example 474 15pm (3 p.m. ?), 469 Hospital (hospital?) 509-510 Electricity (electricity?) etc.

9)  Author Contributions is not filled

10) conclustions is not a place for tables

Generally, manuscript is too long, hard to read, not well presented and needs improvements.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have well addressed our comments. This manuscript can be accepted.