Long-Term Demand Forecasting in a Scenario of Energy Transition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an interesting application regarding the forecast of energy demand, based on decomposition models. 

The literature review is missing from the article. Develop an adequate literature review regarding energy demand forecasts. Are there any other researches, who have tried to make scenarios regarding energy demand?

You should describe more clearly the objectives and hypothesis of the paper. 

There are some spelling mistakes that need to be corrected. 

Author Response

Please, find reply in the enclosed file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1)      Abstract: should be improve by adding more conclusions

2)      All acronyms should be explained the first time they appear (Ex.:OCDE) and there should be a list of variables (nomenclature)

3)      Figures 8 and 10 are very similar (remove one)

4)      Concerning plots: all them should have the variables and the units in which they are expressed; legends should be after the axis.

5)      Page 12: sectors 1 to 20?

6)      Please check data mentioned in text related to figure 14

7)      The paper should have a section named conclusions

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript focused on energy demand forecasting for Spain in the time frame of 2005-2030. The authors have used standard econometric techniques to generate a long-term forecasting for energy transition in Spain. The results of the paper confirm that due to the improvement in energy efficiency, 30% decreasing in energy intensity can be reported for 2005-2030. 

The topic of the paper is interesting and important. Moreover, as Spain is one of the active countries in renewable energy market, the results and discussions of the paper is practical and useful for readers in the field. However, there are some major rooms in the paper that should be addressed by the authors before the paper could be considered for publication in Energies: 

1- First of all, the literature review of the paper in not comprehensive and helpful. The literature review should result in a gap analysis to justify the necessity of doing this piece of research. So, the author are recommended to extend the literature review, to add more relevant and recent studies, and to analyse the literature to clarify the relative merits of the proposed work. 

2- There are lots of equations (50) in the paper. Most of them are straightforward and can be found in academic textbooks and/or can be derived easily. I suggest to move lots of them to the appendix part. 

3- The results analysis chapter should be modified with more description and professional explanation (specially figures 9-11). 

4- There is no conclusion chapter in the paper. The conclusion chapter should be added to summarize the main achievements and results of the paper and to give a clear vision about the research to the readers. 

5- There are some typos and grammatical errors in the paper. The authors are recommended to check their work once again from English language point of view. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All suggestetd changes have been made!

Reviewer 3 Report

The author have gone through all the pointed rooms and the new version of the manuscript has been enhanced noticeably. The paper could be considered for publication in Energies in its current form in my view.