3E Comparative Analysis of Brayton–ORC Cycle Using Two Thermal Sources: Solar Energy and Coconut Shell Biomass

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Technically, the paper demonstrates strong potential for publication. However, I have a few comments and suggestions that the authors should consider addressing to further improve the quality of the manuscript.

The English language in the manuscript should be reviewed and improved. Some sentences are overly long, and there are several grammar mistakes that need attention to enhance clarity and readability.

The references for the equations should be included to clearly indicate their origin. This will help readers better understand the theoretical foundation and context of the equations used in the study.

The study suggests that increasing turbine inlet temperature affects the performance of the systems. Could the authors further elaborate on the underlying thermodynamic mechanisms that lead to the observed differences in performance between the solar and biomass configurations?

How could the results of this study be affected by different environmental conditions or operational scales, such as geographical location, seasonal variations, or scale-up factors in real-world implementations?

While the paper discusses carbon emissions, could the authors provide more details on how the environmental impact analysis might change when considering long-term lifecycle impacts, including maintenance and operational phases, beyond the construction phase?

 

The results section should be expanded to provide more detailed explanations. Currently, the descriptions are brief, and a more thorough discussion would help readers better understand the implications and significance of the findings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper requires improvements in English grammar and contains ‎several typographical errors. Please carefully review your paper and ‎correct these issues to enhance the overall quality of your work.‎

Author Response

The response to the comments and recommendations can be found in the attached document, called “Response to reviewer 1”.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Several suggestions can be addressed by the authors, i.e:

1. In Table 1, What do you mean by "compressor efficiency", since the isentropic efficiency and mechanical efficiency would vary with different pressure ratio, which cannot be fixed. please justify. 

2. what is "high cycle pressure" in table 1, please justify.

3. In terms of your validation, since the input conditions are different (e.g. cycle pressure), how you can compare your results to the other model's result for validation ? please jutify.

4. Please improve the conclusion with a few short bullet summary. 

5. The introduction lacks enough background information, emphasizng the importance and context of this research.

Author Response

The response to the comments and recommendations can be found in the attached document, called “Response to reviewer 2”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have diligently addressed all the recommendations and comments provided during the review process. The revisions have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript. I am satisfied with the current version and find it to be complete and ready for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are still a few minor grammatical errors and typographical issues that the authors should carefully review and address before submitting the final version. Ensuring these are corrected will further enhance the overall quality of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have carefuly addressed the comments with the reflection in the revision. Now the paper can be considered for acceptance.