Potential Dynamics of CO2 Stream Composition and Mass Flow Rates in CCS Clusters
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript deals with an important issue – evaluating the impact of variations in CO2 stream flow rate and composition on pipeline design in CCS clusters. This topic is of interest to the readers of Processes. Overall, the manuscript is well-organized and well-written and can be recommended for publication after minor revisions. Please see my comments below:
- The originality of the research should be highlighted. In particular, a review of previously published simulation-based studies is necessary. It is also necessary to point out how the current manuscript is different from and/or builds on the findings of previous contributions.
- References are missing in some cases. For example, the first sentence in section 2.1.1.
- The manuscript needs proofreading to enhance its readability.
- Lines 127 to 136: Please elaborate the logic behind making the described assumptions. Citing pertinent references may be helpful.
- Lines 149 to 158: Are these assumptions in line with long-term governmental policies in Germany? Pertinent references would be helpful to justify the assumptions.
- It would be useful to suggest necessary modifications if the model is to be applied in other countries.
Author Response
Please, see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The subject of the paper clearly falls within the scope of this Journal.
The paper is very interesting, well written and well organized, and represents some advancement over the actual state-of-the-art. The ways and means are well described as well as the obtained results which are thoroughly discussed and conclusions are well drawn. The paper is also supported by some literature review. However, in order to make for a stronger paper, I suggest that the authors should cite and discuss the following reference:
– Gomes, J., “Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Technologies”, Nova Publishers Inc. Eds., New York, 2013 – ISBN 978-1-62257-187-1
I do recommend the publication of this paper, subjected to these changes.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see file attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have satisfactorily reviewed the paper according to the suggestions of the reviewers.
I do recommend publication of the paper.
