Could Agrivoltaics Be Part of the Solution to Decarbonization in the Outermost Regions? Case Study: Gran Canaria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines how agrovoltaics could contribute to the decarbonization of the outer regions. The study title implies that the paper used the Grand Canaria as a case study. The paper is disorganized and difficult to follow because of the following issues:

Sentences are excessively long; in some sections, the entire paragraph is a sentence (e.g. L300-306; L307-312; L363-367). Refernces are not used properly behind quantitative values, or are not used at all (e.g., L345-351). Also, the references are cited in bundles (three references) for the same formula, or used in bundles after sentences without referring to specific findings in the papers (e.g., Page 2, and the rest of the article). Study contain 101 reference, but not many in the direct field, one of which: https://doi.org/10.3390/en18020416, and its following literature.  L326: "following this criterion" – Which criterion, you did not introduced one. L327: “the suporting structure of the instalation must …”Comment: Structure of what exactly? The final paragraph on page 9 repeats what was said in the first paragraph of section 2.3.1 (the same page). In the results section, the author presents materials (climate and location of G. Canaria), including the climate of Katmandui, with no logical link to their case study. The software used for simulations was not mentioned in this section, despite the authors' claims that they were simulations (L412). In 2.3 (Choice of configuration), the authors begin the paragraph with: the selection of this type of configuration, without describing the configuration at all. In 2.3.2, it is completely unclear whether the authors conduct analysis or if the entire section is dedicated to findings from other studies. Due to these flaws, I can not recommend the paper for publication. 

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript to address all the issues raised. Specifically, we shortened and clarified excessively long sentences, improved the use and placement of references, added relevant recent literature, and removed redundancies. We also clarified ambiguous expressions, focused the case study exclusively on Gran Canaria, and specified the software used in the simulations. Furthermore, Sections 2.3 and 2.3.2 were rewritten to clearly describe the configurations analyzed and to distinguish our results from previous studies.

We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s feedback, which has significantly improved the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript under review examines two agrovoltaic installation configurations of equal power in a potato field, specifically a Vertical Bifacial (VB) configuration and an Optimum Angle (OA) configuration. While the monthly production and potential economic income from grid integration are analyzed, the manuscript requires significant revisions to enhance technical clarity, methodological transparency, and overall presentation quality. Specific concerns and recommendations include:

1. The manuscript should include an additional chapter, similar to a second part, dedicated to introducing the island in question, its power source, and providing a clear explanation of the research objectives. A general framework diagram would also be beneficial to visually represent the study.
2. The methodology section requires a more detailed explanation beyond a simple introduction. It should include a comprehensive description of how the optimal angle was selected for the OA configuration. Furthermore, the conclusion should not be presented within this section.
3. Although the manuscript mentions the “Duck Curve,” there is a lack of analysis regarding the power supply and demand situation on the island, as well as corresponding data to support this discussion.
4. Figure 8 presents electricity price data, but lacks clarity regarding the specific type of electricity price (e.g., wholesale market price, retail market price, or price for the specific area). The authors should provide references to recent works discussing these aspects, such as “Grid Integration of Electric Vehicles within Electricity and Carbon Markets: A Comprehensive Overview” published in eTransportation.
5. The authors should present the algorithm used in the main text and provide an outline of its solution methodology to enhance transparency and reproducibility of the results

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive comments and valuable suggestions. In response, we added a new section introducing Gran Canaria, its energy context, and the research objectives, including a framework diagram. The methodology was expanded to detail the optimal-angle selection for the OA configuration, and the conclusions were removed from this section. We also included both the algorithm and its solution methodology in the main text for transparency and reproducibility. These improvements, guided by the reviewer’s feedback, have significantly enhanced the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
Thank you for allowing me to read your research and manuscript. The topic you addressed is interesting and important from both scientific and economic perspectives. You presented research on the use of panels in the OA and VB configurations, proving that in this case, electricity production from panels in the VB configuration is economically viable.

You provide a detailed introduction to the topic of island management, renewable energy production, and combining this with agricultural management. Section 2. The methodology is very extensive but contains all the necessary information and further expands on the content of Section 1. The combination of the results and discussion sections in this case is perfectly justified and well-executed. The summary is based on the results and observations. I see no need for improvement.

However, I am a little dissatisfied. I was hoping that your research would address another aspect – the impact of shading on agricultural production, depending on the VB and OA configurations. Perhaps this will be your next study.

I have a few comments regarding the manuscript:
1. Please check the article's method of notating numerical values, e.g., in section 2.3. Does it occur in: 50 cm, 2.1 m, 3 m, 5 m, or in l. 543? Please review the manuscript and standardise the content within the same sections/descriptions.

2. Please check the unit range for accuracy, e.g., the superscript for cubic meters (l. 541, 544, etc.).

3. In my opinion, Table 4 should include the calculations for every month of the year.

Reading your work was a pleasant experience. I accept the work after making minimal editorial corrections (detailed information in the comments above).

Author Response

Agradecemos sinceramente al revisor su evaluación positiva y alentadora de nuestro trabajo. Hemos revisado cuidadosamente el manuscrito para abordar los comentarios editoriales menores: se han estandarizado los valores numéricos en todo el texto, se han corregido las unidades para garantizar la precisión (incluido el superíndice para los metros cúbicos) y se ha actualizado la tabla 4 para incluir los cálculos de cada mes del año. También agradecemos la sugerencia del revisor sobre el análisis de los efectos del sombreado en la producción agrícola en configuraciones VB y OA, que tenemos previsto explorar en futuras investigaciones. Agradecemos los comentarios tan útiles del revisor, que nos han ayudado a perfeccionar y reforzar el manuscrito.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper can be accepted.