The Role of Renewable Energies for the Sustainable Energy Governance and Environmental Policies for the Mitigation of Climate Change in Ecuador
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This scientific paper is a well-written, well-organized and well-illustrated piece of art. It presents the results of original research and makes a valuable contribution to knowledge and understanding of the impact of economic growth on energy consumption and the CO2 emission system of Ecuador.
Author Response
We want to thank the referee for the time it took to read the entire manuscript and point out all his valuable suggestions.
I am attentively addressing you
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper raises an important issue of reducing CO2 emissions. As the method, the scenario based approach has been adopted. I have the following comments, recommendations, questions for this manuscript.
Putting two large figures in the introduction looks awkward. Since the time horizon considered is the same, maybe combing the two figures is recommended. This will make the introduction shorter, too.
I would recommend replacing “production of CO2” by CO2 emissions.
Putting before line 208 a sentence listing the two approaches is necessary like “Our methodology considers two scenario approaches: the Business as Usual (BAU) and National Policies (NP)”. Then describing these scenarios in detail. Using the word scenario in line 216 is confusing.
In Figure 3 it is necessary to explain the differences in the meaning of arrows and the boxes. At this moment the figure looks chaotic.
The vertical axis in Figure 4 must be clarified.
I recommend creating a list of all abbreviations used in the manuscript, which can be put in the appendix.
From Figure 7, do I understand correctly that the use of RES has been at the minimal level in 2006 and remained so even after a decade? This should be described in the manuscript in more detail.
A detailed description of methodology is needed. It seems that the manuscript uses a standard scenario based approach.
What is the difference between Scenario1 and Scenario2?
These comments, recommendations, and questions need to be reflected before evaluating the manuscript.
Author Response
All the reviewer's recommendations have been followed, thanking you for all the valuable comments and suggestions that have helped in this regard. We want to thank the referee for the time it took to read the entire manuscript and point out all his valuable suggestions.
I am attentively addressing you
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript meets the submission criteria of the journal and complies with journal’s guidance. The abstract is concise and accurately summarizes the essential information of the paper. A short literature review on the research subject is included. The evaluation and scenario analysis using system dynamics, leads to reasonable outcomes.
Some weaknesses are identified in the manuscript, which could be improved. These are as follows:
- The Materials & Methods chapter: I would have wished to see the section “2.3 Summary of the energy sector in Ecuador’ at the beginning of this chapter. The “2.1 Scenario Analysis” and “2.2 Modeling & Simulation” need to be afterwards because it makes more sense since after them will follow the section of the results of the simulation. Hence, the 2.3 section interrupts the readers' flow between the methodology and the results.
- The diagram shown in Figure 3, needs to be improved in order to be easily legible.
- The Discussion could be improved by providing some more references from similar researches.
- Please check also: Line 51 & 52 - the reference style needs to be corrected. Lines 59-60, 207-208 - line spacing
Author Response
All the reviewer's recommendations have been followed, thanking you for all the valuable comments and suggestions that have helped in this regard. We want to thank the referee for the time it took to read the entire manuscript and point out all his valuable suggestions.
I am attentively addressing you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I suppose that this manuscript lags behind the quality standarts required for a scientific publication in terms of building a focused and coherent narrative allowing to interpret and expand the, necessarily limited, results/state of the art in knowledge.
Author Response
We want to thank the referee for the time it took to read the entire manuscript and point out all his valuable suggestions for improvement.
I am attentively addressing you
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I would suggest the following title:
The role of renewable energies for the sustainable energy governance and environmental policies for the mitigation of climate change in Ecuador
My suggestion of replacing “production of CO2” by CO2 emissions has not been fully addressed. The last sentence in abstract needs paraphrasing.
Figures 1 and 2 remained in the text. In fact, I think that two versions should have been submitted: with and without changes being highlighted.
I would suggest using Mboe instead of kboe in figures on pages 7-8. This also refers to line 270 for “70 million BOE”
My earlier comment was misunderstood. I suggested calling:
Scenario 1 - The Business As Usual (BAU)
Scenario 2 – The National Policies (NP)
Scenario 3 - Global policies and trends
Otherwise, the expression “three scenarios” is confusing.
Since the methodology is not described, I doubt to what extent the results are reproducible.
Lines 196-198 look to be taken from some other source.
Replace the word “Minister” by “Ministry” in source 62.
The paper should have been more carefully prepared. It does not look prepared as ready submission for a journal.
I think Sustainability journal might be a better fit for this paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I suppose that the manuscript does not gather the conditions for acceptance as a scientific paper. The introduction is too long and not focused, the number of references, 105, is too high, covering four pages, there exist information in methodology and results which should come in Introduction and even Conclusions show information which does not exist in the remaimin text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
My comments are reflected in the paper.
There are no objections. But in the final version the following minor comments should be reflected:
Include the description of three scenarios in the Abbreviations
USD, US dollars, and $ are used. I recommend using just one choice.
In discussion why are references in bold?
The methodology could have been described in more detail.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
