Experimental and Numerical Study on the Characteristics of Motion and Load for a Floating Solar Power Farm under Regular Waves
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks for your valuable comments. The manuscript was revised to reflect all your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
A concerning aspect of this article is the lack of references and comparisons with the available results/studies in the literature. This is needs an absolute improvement before publishing, or else the paper will sound just like a technical report of experiments made, rather then a scientific paper.
The article has a considerable interest due to 2 key reasons, first it addresses a rising field of marine energy - floating solar plants and secondly because it combines physical model results to validate numerical modelling ones. This is a key adcantage of the article that gives him a very good potential to become an interesting publication. However, the discussion and background references must be improved. There are no considerable concerns in terms of methodology, results and just minor aspects may need improvement in addition to the major concerns referred before. Graphical elements as figures and so on require huge improvement in quality.
L29 - do you mean 2030?
L38 - I would suggest a mention to the fact that floating solutions can often overcome the problems related to scour phenomena and the harsh loading caused by breaking waves near the coast, where the bathymetry might be shallower, e.g. as addressed in DOI: DOI: 10.3390/jmse9030297 and DOI: 10.1016/j.coastaleng.2021.104077
Also for the purpose of benefiting the reader, I believe it would be good to provide numbers on the importance of solar energy in offshore applications such as in DOI: 10.1680/jmaen.2020.10
Introduction is shorter that what I would recommend, however, it is straight to the point and I do appreciate that. Still, I think it would be great if you could end the introduction by making it clear what is the novelty of the paper, and please note that I do think the paper has novelty and that it addresses a rising field of research where many studies are needed. Yet this is still not clear in the literature. Some additional commented references would be good in the intro as well.
Figure 2 is way too small, figure 4 and 5 as well. Please adjust all images to have a proper resolution for the article. Most of them are blurry and very small.
Why only regular waves were considered? there is no problem in this, but a justification is needed.
L121 - modelling
The proposal of the methods, sensitivity analysis of the grid as well as the discussion of results is way too poor, no references, or similar cases are used to justify the choices/approaches made or to compare with the results. This needs clear improvement before the paper is published. The very short number of references (just 11) is an indication of the poor discussion made. Please improve this.
L 256 - Results instead of results.
Colour scale on the right side of figure 15 is important, or else how can one understand what is a crest of the wave etc...?
L510 - what about studying different incident wave directions?
Author Response
Thanks for your valuable comments. The manuscript was revised to reflect all your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made an effort to attend to my concerns and paper is now good to be published.
