Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments,
The submitted manuscript describes the advanced hardwood biofuels northwest commercialization challenges for the renewable aviation fuel industry. The authors have well studied about the commercialization and consequences of advanced renewable fuels. Overall the manuscript is written well, and scientifically strong. Therefore, the current version of the manuscript is suitable for applied science.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind review.  We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This communication is a summary or an analysis of the evolution of a bioenergy summit organized by Advanced Hardwood Biofuels Northewest. Despite the interest of the topic analized, I consider that a scientific journal is not the best alternative to publish this manuscript. I support my decision in the lack of any experiment or any analysis of state-of-art (if this tries to be something similar to a review). These pages only sum up what has happened in this conference, paying attention to the structure are order (panel by panel), more than to the content. Is the first time I see this type of manuscript is a journal such as Applied Sciences. I admit that a summit including science, industry, academia and economy is very complete and the conclusions can be very useful for the research advance, but I do not consider a scientific journal as the best option to its publication.

I would like to highlight other aspects that reinforce my decission: 

This quite-long text is very difficult to read since there is not any graph or table to make easier the visualization of main data.

There are too many topics or aspects cited, but they are not deeply analysed.

Moreover, authors state that one of the main aim of this summit is to define the objectives for the next five years. This summit was on August 10, 2017. It means more than two years ago. Thus, the relevance of results published can be questioned if they are only for the following three months (or less).

In my opinion, there are relevant conclusions from the informative point of view. However, they do not affect to the scientific world, since there is not depth enough in any of the aspect cited. So, no new results, and a very superficial analysis of this summit, without a real analysis.. 

Author Response

Advanced Hardwood Biofuels Northwest: Commercialization Challenges for the Renewable Aviation Fuel Industry

Response of authors Stanton and Gustafson to comments of Reviewer # 2

Review Comment: A scientific journal is not the best alternative to publish this manuscript. But I do not consider a scientific journal as the best option to its publication.

Lacks experiment or any analysis of state-of-art (if this tries to be something similar to a review). Many of the perspectives are based on AHB research and experimentation that is quite current. All of section three list findings of five years’ research and development. Examples include: 1) yields of newly developed clonal varieties, 2) breakeven biomass pricing in four geographic markets, 3) expected rate of investment returns, 4) reduction in global warming potential for poplar-based fuels conversion, 5) catalysis chemistry of the conversion process, etc. Pages only sum up what has happened in this conference, paying attention to the structure are order (panel by panel), more than to the content. The structure of the summit was based on topic areas that are distinct in terms of their analytical content, feedstock production, conversion technology, and markets and policy issues. First time I see this type of manuscript is a journal such as Applied Sciences. (I admit that a summit including science, industry, academia and economy is very complete and the conclusions can be very useful for the research advance.) We are pleased that the reviewer sees the completeness and usefulness of the summit’s findings and conclusions. The guest editor of the special edition (Dr. Christopher J. Chuck from University of Bath, UK felt that our paper would be an interesting review article would well fit the scope of the special issue. ("Effective Biorefineries through the Co-production of Chemicals and Biofuels".)

Review Comment: I would like to highlight other aspects that reinforce my decission: 

This quite-long text is very difficult to read since there is not any graph or table to make easier the visualization of main data. We agree that the text is long, but we believe the syntax and composition is quite readable. There are too many topics or aspects cited, but they are not deeply analysed. We have tried to condense the topics to the three major areas of focus. These are synthesized to provide the key findings. We did not feel we could delve too deeply into anyone topic because, as you, observe that would lengthen the draft into an unwieldly final paper. Moreover, authors state that one of the main aim of this summit is to define the objectives for the next five years. This summit was on August 10, 2017. It means more than two years ago. Thus, the relevance of results published can be questioned if they are only for the following three months (or less). It is true that the summit took place two years ago. However, since that time the findings of the summit have undergone debate and updated with current market information. We believe the five-year, forward-looking recommendations are current.

Review comment: In my opinion, there are relevant conclusions from the informative point of view.

However, they do not affect to the scientific world, since there is not depth enough in any of the aspect cited.

We appreciate that the reviewer see relevancy in our conclusions. Our hope and intent are that the findings of the summit will stimulate new scientific investigation in the area of biofuels and bio-products. In this way we feel our paper makes for the ideal introductory paper for the special issue, ("Effective Biorefineries through the Co-production of Chemicals and Biofuels".)

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is very useful from the economic point of view for development  and commercialization of biofuels industry in the Pacific Northwest and northern  California. The paper can be published in the present form.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind review.  We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have the same opinion as in my first review. This is not a scientific article