Analyzing the Criteria of Efficient Carbon Capture and Separation Technologies for Sustainable Clean Energy Usage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is focused the analysis, based on the analytical network process (ANP), of importance of six criteria concerning the cost reduction in the carbon capture technology.

The method is well described in the §3 and the choose of the six parameters considered, divided in 3 main factors and in two sub-factors each one, is supported by the literature. Also the importance of each parameter is essentially described.

The discussion of the results, that find the organization as the most important factor, is exhaustive. The authors evidence also the strengths and the limitation of this research in the CO2 retentions technology.

However, I suggest a reduction of the abstract, eliminating or strongly reducing the initial part on the CO2 pollution, in order to best focalize the issue of this work.

This work is an interesting new contribute in the evaluation of the importance of the different factors in the cost management for the CO2 capture technology and it is suitable for the publication on Energies.

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewer 1

Reviewer Comment:

The manuscript is focused the analysis, based on the analytical network process (ANP), of importance of six criteria concerning the cost reduction in the carbon capture technology.

The method is well described in the §3 and the choose of the six parameters considered, divided in 3 main factors and in two sub-factors each one, is supported by the literature. Also, the importance of each parameter is essentially described.

The discussion of the results, that find the organization as the most important factor, is exhaustive. The authors evidence also the strengths and the limitation of this research in the CO2 retentions technology.

However, I suggest a reduction of the abstract, eliminating or strongly reducing the initial part on the CO2 pollution, in order to best focalize the issue of this work.

This work is an interesting new contribute in the evaluation of the importance of the different factors in the cost management for the CO2 capture technology and it is suitable for the publication on Energies.

Author Response:

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for her/his valuable comments. According to the suggestions, the first four sentences in the abstract part are removed. Hence, it is believed that with its current form, it can be possible to focus the main purpose more effectively.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript examines cost management strategies regarding carbon capture and separation technologies considering energy policies and sustainability. In this context, the authors apply an analytic network process in order to evaluate six relevant criteria in a decision making process. The main conclusion is that the most important criteria can be determined in terms of low-cost strategies. This is an interesting research topic in the field of cost management and sustainability in the energy industry in combination with decision-making analysis. It is also important for the readers of the journal.

Overall, I found this an interesting approach with useful data  considering the cost management in relation to sustainable production in the energy industry. There are, however, many concerns regarding the manuscript and several important issues that need to be clarified and further explained before the manuscript might become acceptable for publication.

1. The title needs to be revised. Are the investigated management practices based on carbon capture and separation technologies?
2. A more in depth analysis of carbon capture and separation technologies should be provided. In this framework, more references related to the subject of the manuscript need to be discussed and analysed. I would also expect a more critical and original literature review with particular reference to the research questions and the methods of the analysis.
3. A further analysis of the data is needed. In addition, the selection of the criteria needs to be further justified.
4. Another point of thinking is the new information and the original contribution of the work, comparing to previous work in the research topic. I think that the original approach to the analysis of the problem needs to be better presented.
5. A further interpretation of the results is needed. Moreover, the applicability of the results needs to be better highlighted in the conclusions.
6. The conclusions are not supported by the results
7. The uncertainties of the analysis should be discussed.

Additional comments and recommendations for the improvement of the manuscript:

Abstract

[Line 19] “6 significant criteria are generated by the essentials..” ?

[Line 28] “The second important strategy is for the new personnel to be employed in the company.” This is not clear. An explanation is needed.

1. Introduction

General note: The introduction does not provide sufficient background. There are also several unclear sentences.

[Lines 38-39] “In other words, this can be defined as the release of carbon dioxide.” This sentence needs to be revised.

[Line 46] “On the other hand, ..”?

[Lines 60-61] “For example, since the development of the technological infrastructure of the company creates high costs, it is important that this process can be achieved with low cost.” ? This needs to be revised.

[Lines 68-69] “On the other hand, using ANP method, which criteria are more important can be understood” This needs to be improved.

2. Literature of Cost Management

General note: A more critical review and in depth analysis is required in this section. The cost management approaches should be discussed in relation to the examined policies and technologies.

[Lines 110-111] “Therefore, it was concluded that the necessary training to increase the success of the company in this process”. This sentence needs to be improved.

[Line 132] “As can be seen,” ?

[Lines 136-137] “These studies have often sought to determine which issues can be cost-effectively reduced. In these studies, case studies were generally performed”. This sentence needs to be improved.

[Lines 141-142] “Therefore, the aim of the study is to meet this need in the literature with the importance of the subject analyzed and the difference of the method.” The objective is not clear.

3. Methodology of Analytic Network Process

[Formulas 1 and 2] Parameters A and n need to be explained

[Formula 5] An explanation of RI needs to be provided.

[Lines 171-172] “The values are defined according to the number of criteria.” An explanation is needed.

[Formula 6] The presentation is not clear in the pdf file.

 [Lines 195-196] “Limiting results demonstrate the final weighting results of criteria under the interdependency condition. ANP methodology was used in different studies.” A clarification is needed.

4. Results

[Lines 198-199] “This analysis includes the sustainable factors of low-cost industrial developments and CO2 technologies.” It is not clear. Please explain.

[Tables 2 and 3] An further explanation of the date would help the readers.

Line 239] “ass”?  

5. Discussion

[Lines 265-269] Are the discussed references related to the to the capture technologies?

[Lines 269-270] “In this study, surveys were conducted with many different  companies.” In which study?

6. Conclusions

 General note: This section should be improved with main emphasis on the main findings and the original contribution of the research in relation to the research questions.

 

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewer 2

Reviewer Comment: The title needs to be revised. Are the investigated management practices based on carbon capture and separation technologies?

Author Response: Based on the reviewer’s comment, the title of the study has been changed. New title is given below.

“Analyzing the criteria of efficient carbon capture and separation technologies for sustainable clean energy usage”

 

Reviewer Comment: A more in depth analysis of carbon capture and separation technologies should be provided. In this framework, more references related to the subject of the manuscript need to be discussed and analysed. I would also expect a more critical and original literature review with particular reference to the research questions and the methods of the analysis.

Author Response: According to the reviewer’s comments, the literature review part is improved. In this context, we added new studies regarding carbon capture and storage technologies. For this purpose, 2 new paragraphs have been created. These paragraphs are given below.

“Carbon capture technologies were also discussed in the literature by many different researchers. The main purpose of these technologies is to capture, store and maintain the released carbon dioxide [31]. Thus, it is possible to greatly reduce greenhouse gas emission and slow down climate changes. A significant portion of the studies focused on the effects of these technologies on reducing carbon emissions [32,33]. In these studies, it has been mentioned that environmental pollution will be significantly reduced thanks to carbon capture and storage technologies. Another point emphasized in these studies is that this situation will have an impact on the social and economic development of the country [34]. In an environment without air pollution, people will be less sick. In this way, labor force participation in the country will be higher. This will contribute to the development of the industry. On the other hand, it may also be possible to reduce healthcare costs in a country where disease rates are falling [35].

Some of the researchers who consider carbon capture technologies have focused on the costs of this technology. Thanks to this technology, the resulting carbon gas will be captured without the atmosphere being released by an application. This captured carbon gas is then stored appropriately [36]. Oil and gas wells, coal deposits and oceans are alternatives that can be used for storage [37]. As can be seen, the implementation of this technology is very costly. Therefore, it is obvious that companies will not want to use this application unless the costs of carbon capture technology are reduced [38]. In such researches, it has been argued that in general, it should be focused on cost-cutting applications in carbon capture technology. In this context, it has been argued that low-cost applications should be learned quickly by following current technologies [39,40].”

 

Reviewer Comment: A further analysis of the data is needed. In addition, the selection of the criteria needs to be further justified.

Author Response: Based on the reviewer’s comment, the selected criteria are explained after Table 1 in a more detailed manner. New paragraphs are given below.

“As can be seen from Table 1, 3 different factors and 6 different sub-factors related to cost reduction were determined in carbon capture technologies. These issues contribute to the reduction of costs. Carbon emission is a very significant problem which affects the countries negatively in both social and economic manners. Hence, this problem should be eliminated. Carbon capture technology is a way to avoid this problem, but some factors should be taken into consideration to have effective carbon capture technology. Education is one of the most important criteria in this process [26]. Carbon capture technologies are very complex and require specific information. Therefore, it will be possible to reduce the costs during the implementation of this technology through the training of the personnel [27]. In other words, with the help of necessary education, it can be much easier to implement this technology. On the other hand, ensuring the effectiveness of the personnel in the working environment will help to reduce costs in this process [28]. The main reason for this is that the costs are minimized in an environment where personnel work effectively. Thus, companies should give priority to improve the qualifications of the personnel. In this regard, necessary educations should be defined, and they should be provided for the personnel.

Technological factors also help to reduce costs in the implementation of carbon capture technologies. Technological advances enable a product to be produced more easily. This is more important for carbon capture technologies [8]. Because of this situation, companies should make necessary investments to improve their engineering knowledge. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to be successful in the implementation of carbon capture technologies. As mentioned earlier, the implementation of these technologies is quite complex and difficult. Strong technological infrastructure of the company plays an important role in this process, which requires significant engineering skills [11]. In this context, companies with a strong technological infrastructure are expected to realize the process of applying carbon capture technologies at a lower cost.

In addition to the aforementioned issues, market conditions are another factor that stands out in this process. If a company wants to reduce its cost, it must first know its market very well. The prerequisite for getting to know the market closely is to follow the competitors [18]. In this context, it is important for companies to compare themselves with their most important competitors. In this way, companies will be able to see where they are compared to their competitors. This will contribute to the early detection of a possible problem. This is especially important for complex technologies such as carbon capture [19]. When companies compare themselves periodically with their competitors, they will also be able to master the technological developments in the market. On the other side, socio-demographic competencies are also very important for this regard. The main reason for this is that the public's environmental awareness is very effective on this technology. Companies may have to take measures to reduce carbon emissions if the public is sensitive to the environment in a country. Carbon capture and storage technology will also play a very important role in meeting the expectations of the people who are sensitive to the environment.”

 

Reviewer Comment: Another point of thinking is the new information and the original contribution of the work, comparing to previous work in the research topic. I think that the original approach to the analysis of the problem needs to be better presented.

Author Response: According to the reviewer’s comment, the contribution of the study is emphasized more clearly. In this context, a new paragraph has been generated in the introduction part. This new paragraph is stated below.

“The most important difference of this study from the others is that the significance set of criteria is analyzed. The fact that this method has been used very little in the aforementioned subject increases the authenticity of the study. On the other hand, by using the ANP method, interdependency between the criteria can be taken into consideration. Another important contribution of this study is that it presents different alternatives to implement carbon capture and separation technologies more effectively. Moreover, more significant items are also identified. These results pave the way for the companies to adopt this technology. Hence, this situation has a positive contribution to the decrease of carbon emission problem.”

Reviewer Comment: A further interpretation of the results is needed. Moreover, the applicability of the results needs to be better highlighted in the conclusions.

Author Response: Based on the reviewer’s comment, the conclusion part is improved. For this purpose, a new paragraph has been created. In this paragraph, the analysis results are explained more detail. This new paragraph is demonstrated below. The conclusions are not supported by the results.

“On the other side, with respect to the criteria, it is concluded that training is the most significant factor that affects the effectiveness of the carbon capture technologies. Similarly, it is also identified that personnel efficiency plays also important role within this framework. In addition to this situation, it is also determined that engineering improvements and technological infrastructure are also essential for this condition. Nevertheless, it is also seen that benchmarking and socio-demographic competencies have lower weights in comparison with the others.”

 

Reviewer Comment: The uncertainties of the analysis should be discussed.

Author Response: Based on the reviewer’s comment, the uncertainties in the analysis are underlined in the conclusion part. For this situation, both novelties and uncertainties are highlighted. In this scope, two different paragraphs are created, and they are given below.

“The most important contribution of this study from the others is that the significance set of criteria is analyzed. Another important contribution of this study is related to the methodology. In this context, by using the ANP method, interdependency between the criteria can be taken into consideration. On the other side, there are also some criticisms for ANP methodology. The main reason is that inner dependency between the variables are defined subjectively. This situation increases the uncertainty in the analysis. Another important contribution of this study is that it presents different alternatives to implement carbon capture and separation technologies more effectively. Furthermore, more significant items are also identified as a result of the analysis. These results lead the companies to adopt this technology much easily. Owing to this issue, it can be said that this situation has a positive contribution to the decrease of carbon emission problem.

The main limitation of this study is that only carbon dioxide retention technologies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions are focused. This is one of the most important limits of the study. In future studies, different methods can be analyzed according to their importance in order to reduce the mentioned problem. For example, new technological improvements to reduce the cost problems of carbon capture and separation technologies can be evaluated. On the other hand, the methodologies used especially in recent years can be used in new studies. In this way, it will be possible to avoid the problem of carbon dioxide emission which has negative effects on both economy and environment. On the other side, in this study, the weights of the dimensions and criteria are only calculated. The exact effect can be calculated with regression analysis. In the future studies, this analysis can be performed.”

 

Reviewer Comment:

[Line 19] “6 significant criteria are generated by the essentials..” ?

[Line 28] “The second important strategy is for the new personnel to be employed in the company.” This is not clear. An explanation is needed.

Author Response: New sentences are given below.

In order to use this technology more effectively, 6 significant criteria are defined by considering the essentials of the international Loss Control Institute and the supported literature.

The second most important strategy is for the new personnel to be employed in the company.

Reviewer Comment:

[Lines 38-39] “In other words, this can be defined as the release of carbon dioxide.” This sentence needs to be revised.

[Line 46] “On the other hand, ..”?

[Lines 60-61] “For example, since the development of the technological infrastructure of the company creates high costs, it is important that this process can be achieved with low cost.” ? This needs to be revised.

[Lines 68-69] “On the other hand, using ANP method, which criteria are more important can be understood” This needs to be improved.

Author Response: New sentences are given below.

The first sentence is removed

Moreover, the use of electric vehicles has a very important role in this process.

For example, the development of the technological infrastructure of the company is important to decrease cost.

On the other hand, ANP method can be very helpful to defined which criteria are more important.

 

Reviewer Comment:

[Lines 110-111] “Therefore, it was concluded that the necessary training to increase the success of the company in this process”. This sentence needs to be improved.

[Line 132] “As can be seen,” ?

[Lines 136-137] “These studies have often sought to determine which issues can be cost-effectively reduced. In these studies, case studies were generally performed”. This sentence needs to be improved.

[Lines 141-142] “Therefore, the aim of the study is to meet this need in the literature with the importance of the subject analyzed and the difference of the method.” The objective is not clear.

Author Response: New sentences are given below.

Therefore, it was concluded that the necessary training should be given to the personnel for this framework.

This expression is removed.

These studies have often sought to determine which issues are important to minimize the costs. In these studies, case studies were generally considered as the methodology.

For this purpose, ANP method was used. Therefore, the aim of the study is to satisfy this need.

 

Reviewer Comment:

Formulas 1 and 2] Parameters A and n need to be explained

[Formula 5] An explanation of RI needs to be provided.

[Lines 171-172] “The values are defined according to the number of criteria.” An explanation is needed.

[Formula 6] The presentation is not clear in the pdf file.

[Lines 195-196] “Limiting results demonstrate the final weighting results of criteria under the interdependency condition. ANP methodology was used in different studies.” A clarification is needed.

Author Response: New sentences are given below.

In this equation, a_ij is the pair-wise comparison evaluation among the related factors and i,j=1,2,…n. Additionally, n represents the number of criteria.

The sixth step is to select the value of random index (RI) [35]. The values are defined according to the number of criteria. In this study, the values of 0.58 and 1.24 are defined for the pair-wise comparison matrices with 3 and 6 criteria respectively.

It is corrected.

This expression is removed.

 

Reviewer Comment:

[Lines 198-199] “This analysis includes the sustainable factors of low-cost industrial developments and CO2 technologies.” It is not clear. Please explain.

[Tables 2 and 3] An further explanation of the date would help the readers.

Line 239] “ass”? 

Author Response: New sentences are given below.

This analysis includes the factors that affects the cost of carbon capture technologies

It is corrected

 

Reviewer Comment:

[Lines 265-269] Are the discussed references related to the to the capture technologies?

[Lines 269-270] “In this study, surveys were conducted with many different  companies.” In which study?

Author Response: New sentences are given below.

These studies are not related to carbon capture technologies. However, in this paragraph, two new studies, which are related to carbon capture, are included.

Moreover, Liu et al. [27] also focused on cost management by conducting a survey analysis with many different companies.

 

Reviewer Comment: General note: This section should be improved with main emphasis on the main findings and the original contribution of the research in relation to the research questions.

Author Response: Based on the reviewer’s comment, the conclusion part is improved. For this purpose, a new paragraph has been created. In this paragraph, the analysis results are explained more detail. This new paragraph is demonstrated below. The conclusions are not supported by the results.

“On the other side, with respect to the criteria, it is concluded that training is the most significant factor that affects the effectiveness of the carbon capture technologies. Similarly, it is also identified that personnel efficiency plays also important role within this framework. In addition to this situation, it is also determined that engineering improvements and technological infrastructure are also essential for this condition. Nevertheless, it is also seen that benchmarking and socio-demographic competencies have lower weights in comparison with the others.”

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript ID: energies-791747

Title: Cost management strategies based on carbon capture and separation

technologies: Policy recommendations for the sustainable energy economies

Comments:

1. Sentences in lines 13-17 are not necessary. The background information regarding the value of the study is not really needed in the abstract. Should be left for the introduction. Similarly, with line 31.
2. Line 19: change ‘6’ to write six.
3. Rephrase line 28. This sentence seems vague/incomplete.
4. Paragraph of lines 36-48 introduces various renewable technologies and energies that are not relevant to the study in the paper, so it is not needed. Recommend starting the introduction with a discussion of the carbon capture technology, like in line 50.
5. Line 57-58: this sentence sounds simple and pointless. Recommend starting this paragraph with the sentence on line 59.
6. Line 60-61: see the previous comment. Again, this statement is too plain and sounds meaningless. Either its already obvious that cost should be reduced, or a more compelling argument with evidence and fact needs to be presented to make your point. Just simply saying that something expensive should be cheaper is pointless and sounds poorly written.
7. Line 68: please define ANP the first time it is used in the main text.
8. Lines 83 and 90 start the same way (“another important…”). Recommend rephrasing one of them.
9. Line 102 and 109, using “in this study” sounds strange when talking about other literature. This is the same phrasing you use to talk about your current paper (line 65 and line 139), and it confuses the reader. Please consider rephrasing.
10. Line 184: looks like the ‘(6)’ got misplaced.
11. Lines 198-229 and Table 1 sound like they should be in the methodology or even literature review sections. Since they do not present any new contributions made in the study and are simply a summary of gathered information from other sources (ILCI and literature), it is unclear what makes these the “results” of the study.
12. Lines 230-236 look like they should be placed in the methodology since they explain how the pairwise comparison was performed and how the importance values were generated.
13. Line 237: Table 2: Formatting: ensure that the numbers fit nicely into the cells.
14. Line 239: please change ‘ass’ to ‘as.’
15. Line 240: Supplementary materials (table A1-A3) were not available, so cannot provide comments on it.
16. Following the comments made regarding lines 198-236, The discussions section could probably be combined with the results since these sections would be small otherwise.
17. Lines 284-285: Remove the sentence “this is one of the most important limits” since it was already mentioned in the previous sentence that it is the “main limitation.” It sounds redundant.

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewer 3

Reviewer Comment: Sentences in lines 13-17 are not necessary. The background information regarding the value of the study is not really needed in the abstract. Should be left for the introduction. Similarly, with line 31.

Author Response: First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for her/his valuable comments. According to the suggestions, the first four sentences in the abstract part are removed. Hence, it is believed that with its current form, it can be possible to focus the main purpose more effectively. New abstract is given below.

“Abstract: In this study, carbon capture and distribution technology, which is a new approach to the solution of this problem, has been focused. In order to use this technology more effectively, 6 significant criteria are defined by considering the essentials of the international Loss Control Institute and the supported literature. Moreover, analytic network process (ANP) is applied for measuring the relative importance of each factor. The findings demonstrate that organizational factor has the greatest importance whereas market factor is the weakest element. In addition, education of the personnel is the most important criterion for low-cost industrial carbon dioxide capture and separation technologies. In this context, it is seen that companies need competent personnel in order to reduce the costs of these products. There are two types of strategies that companies can develop to achieve this goal. Firstly, it would be appropriate for companies to provide their staff with the necessary training on carbon capture and storage technologies. The second most important strategy is for the new personnel to be employed in the company. When choosing new employees, it is necessary to measure whether they have sufficient knowledge about this technology. These strategies will contribute to lower costs when developing products for carbon capture and storage technology.”

 

Reviewer Comment: Line 19: change ‘6’ to write six.

Author Response: It is changed as six.

 

Reviewer Comment: Rephrase line 28. This sentence seems vague/incomplete.

Author Response: It is changed as “The second most important strategy is for the new personnel to be employed in the company.”

 

Reviewer Comment: Paragraph of lines 36-48 introduces various renewable technologies and energies that are not relevant to the study in the paper, so it is not needed. Recommend starting the introduction with a discussion of the carbon capture technology, like in line 50.

Author Response: These two paragraphs are removed.

 

Reviewer Comment: Line 57-58: this sentence sounds simple and pointless. Recommend starting this paragraph with the sentence on line 59.

Author Response: These sentences are removed.

 

Reviewer Comment: Line 60-61: see the previous comment. Again, this statement is too plain and sounds meaningless. Either its already obvious that cost should be reduced, or a more compelling argument with evidence and fact needs to be presented to make your point. Just simply saying that something expensive should be cheaper is pointless and sounds poorly written.

Author Response: This sentence is changed according to reviewer’s comments.

 

Reviewer Comment: Line 68: please define ANP the first time it is used in the main text.

Author Response: It is firstly taken place in the abstract and we gave full expression of this issue in this part.

 

Reviewer Comment: Lines 83 and 90 start the same way (“another important…”). Recommend rephrasing one of them.

Author Response: The line 90 is changed as the following.

“Moreover, benchmarking is also accepted as an important factor in effective cost management.”

 

Reviewer Comment: Line 102 and 109, using “in this study” sounds strange when talking about other literature. This is the same phrasing you use to talk about your current paper (line 65 and line 139), and it confuses the reader. Please consider rephrasing.

Author Response: The expression of “In this study” is removed in the literature review part.

 

Reviewer Comment: Line 184: looks like the ‘(6)’ got misplaced.

Author Response: It is corrected.

 

Reviewer Comment: Lines 198-229 and Table 1 sound like they should be in the methodology or even literature review sections. Since they do not present any new contributions made in the study and are simply a summary of gathered information from other sources (ILCI and literature), it is unclear what makes these the “results” of the study.

Author Response: In our study, we aimed to find the more important factors of these criteria. Hence, it is believed that this is the main contribution of this study.

 

Reviewer Comment: Lines 230-236 look like they should be placed in the methodology since they explain how the pairwise comparison was performed and how the importance values were generated.

Author Response: This paragraph is removed because it is already explained in the methodology.

 

Reviewer Comment: Line 237: Table 2: Formatting: ensure that the numbers fit nicely into the cells.

Author Response: It is corrected.

 

Reviewer Comment: Line 239: please change ‘ass’ to ‘as.’

Author Response: It is corrected.

 

Reviewer Comment: Line 240: Supplementary materials (table A1-A3) were not available, so cannot provide comments on it.

Author Response: They are stated on the appendix part.

 

Reviewer Comment: Following the comments made regarding lines 198-236, The discussions section could probably be combined with the results since these sections would be small otherwise.

Author Response: They are combined.

 

Reviewer Comment: Lines 284-285: Remove the sentence “this is one of the most important limits” since it was already mentioned in the previous sentence that it is the “main limitation.” It sounds redundant.

Author Response: It is removed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

In the revised edition, the manuscript has been significantly improved and covered my main comments

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have carefully addressed the reviewer’s questions, and hence the current manuscript can be considered for publishing.