Comparative Analysis of Gasification and Adiabatic Digestion of Corn for Practical Implementation in Conventional Gas Turbines
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General Comments:
The level of English is very poor; several grammatical errors can be found throughout the manuscript, and many sentences are really disordered and of difficult understanding. The manuscript needs to be severely revised from this point of view before being re-submitted
Based on theN2 percentage reported in Table 1, I suppose that the data in the first two cases (dry and wet CCG) are referred to a gasification with air (I can not read the content of the reference [1]). May I ask why the Authors choose an air gasification instead of a steam one? The steam gasification would imply, among several advantages, a higher LHV. The comparison between CADG and CCG with air is improper, and the relative resulti s trivial.
Specific comments:
Section 2.3: the acronyms should be uniform, i.e. corn cob gasification gas = CCGG and corn cob adiabatic digestion gas = CCADG.
Table 2 e 3: the Authors should report the variable adopted for composition and the relative dimension (if any).
Table 3: the CO2 composition corresponding to case 0% should be the same as reported in table 2, i.e. 0.0068.
Line 178: [xx biomass paper]???
Lines 180-183: are the fuels bends 8 or 5?
Table 6: the caption seems wrong.
Author Response
Cover letter
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
Thank you for your review of our paper titled COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF GASIFICATION AND ADIABATIC DIGESTION OF CORN FOR PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION IN CONVENTIONAL GAS TURBINES. We truly appreciate the reviewers for reviewing our paper and for their suggestions and corrections.
We have carefully reviewed the text of our paper and made suggested corrections. Corrections are presented in detail in the Rebuttal.
We would like to thank the reviewers for the given suggestions and we truly hope that this revised version is now suitable for submission. If there is anything else we should do to improve the quality of this manuscript, we will be more than grateful to do it.
Best regards,
Milana Guteša Božo
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. It is difficult to recognize the originality of the manuscript. Originality should be clearly revealed at the end of the introduction.
2. Although it is introduced in the references, there is not too much mention of models or methods.
The governing equations, boundary conditions, and the accuracy of the solution should be mentioned.
In particular, the calculation process of the adiabatic flame temperature and species mole fractions presented as the main results should be presented.
In addition, calculation formulas for heat and power and a method for predicting NOx concentration should be presented.
3. Figure 1 shows only the concept, but a picture with a specific shape should be presented.
4. The resolution of the graphical scheme in Table 6 is poor, making it difficult to find out the contents. It should be improved.
5. In Figures 2~6 and 9~17, all conditions of the case are the same except for the ER of cases 1~5.
It would be better to change the horizontal axis to ER.
If you want to use cases 1-5, a bar chart is more appropriate than a line graph.
6. For NOx, not only concentrations but also emissions must be analyzed.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
Thank you for your review of our paper titled COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF GASIFICATION AND ADIABATIC DIGESTION OF CORN FOR PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION IN CONVENTIONAL GAS TURBINES. We truly appreciate the reviewers for reviewing our paper and for their suggestions and corrections.
We have carefully reviewed the text of our paper and made suggested corrections. Corrections are presented in detail in the Rebuttal.
We would like to thank the reviewers for the given suggestions and we truly hope that this revised version is now suitable for submission. If there is anything else we should do to improve the quality of this manuscript, we will be more than grateful to do it.
Best regards,
Milana Guteša Božo
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All the Reviewer's comments have been addressed by Authors. The revised manuscript is suitable for publication.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review of our paper titled COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF GASIFICATION AND ADIABATIC DIGESTION OF CORN FOR PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION IN CONVENTIONAL GAS TURBINES.
We would like to thank the reviewer for the given suggestions and contribution to higher quality of our work.
Best regards,
Milana Guteša Božo
Reviewer 2 Report
- The authors stated that corn in a specific area and minimal modification of the existing gas turbine is novelty. In order to secure Novelty, it is necessary to specify how the corn used in the study differs from other sources or reduces the modification of gas turbines compared to other systems.
- Just using CHEMKIN does not allow readers to know the details of the simulation. Together with the equation, the activation energy of the sub-step configuration should be summarized.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review of our paper titled COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF GASIFICATION AND ADIABATIC DIGESTION OF CORN FOR PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION IN CONVENTIONAL GAS TURBINES.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors stated that corn in a specific area and minimal modification of the existing gas turbine is novelty. In order to secure Novelty, it is necessary to specify how the corn used in the study differs from other sources or reduces the modification of gas turbines compared to other systems.
R: The novelty of this paper is determination of the conditions for applying the corn cob adiabatic digestion gas in conventional gas turbine systems through three different criteria Wobbe index, fuel velocity in the fuel system and gas turbine propulsion. Three different fuel systems were analysed which have not been analysed for corn cob adiabatic digestion gas before. We appreciate the comment of the reviewer, although the main point of the study is not the type of the corn as a source. The main point is defining the optimal gas turbine configuration for corn cob adiabatic digestion gas application in conventional energy production technology, which is presented in this study and have not been presented before.
Just using CHEMKIN does not allow readers to know the details of the simulation. Together with the equation, the activation energy of the sub-step configuration should be summarized.
R: We appreciate the comment of the reviewer, although we do not see feasible the explanation of the equations/configuration of CHEMKIN to resolve these problems. CHEMKIN enables the resolution of transport and thermodynamic equations simultaneously on the basis of large files that include up to thousands of reactions to determine the chemical profile of a particular condition. For example, in our case, we have used perfectly stirred reactors where tens of species and hundreds of reactions are specified using the chemical mechanism of GRI-Mech 3.0. The latter includes Arrhenius constants of energy activation for all reactions, making it impossible to specify each of them in this manuscript. Similarly, the sub-step configurations that exist in the mechanism are too vast to be included, a problem that replicates with the transport (diffusion, flame speed, etc.) of each radical and its constituents in the field. Finally, and different to 0-D software that are based on balancing Gibbs equation, CHEMKIN resolves 1-D and quasi-1-D fields of greater complexity involving all these parameters. Hence, we can only suggest the readers to learn more about the use and application of CHEMKIN. We have added this line and reference as guidance. Further information about CHEMKIN and its applications can be found elsewhere (https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~radovic/ChemKin_Tutorial_2-3-7.pdf).
Best regards,
Milana Guteša Božo
