How the Use of Biomass for Green Energy and Waste Incineration Practice Will Affect GDP Growth in the Less Developed Countries of the EU (A Case Study with Visegrad and Balkan Countries)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript (energies-1625612) title “The use of biomass for green energy and waste incineration how will affect GDP growth in the EU developing countries: a case study from Balkan and Visegrad countries” presents the relationship between GDP per capita, CO2 emissions, Combustible Energy and Waste Consumption (CEWC), which is an interesting research and provide a valuable knowledge on the effect of biomass use for green energy and waste incineration on GDP growth. However, the following comments need to be considered before it can be accepted for publication. My recommendation is minor revision.
- Page 2; lines 54
- “[4 – 5]” instead of “[4], [5]”
- Page 2; lines 70
- “[10].” instead of “.[10]..”
- Page 2; lines 74
- “[12].” instead of “[12]..”
- Page 2; lines 75
- “[13].” instead of “..[13].”
- Page 2; lines 77
- “[15].” instead of “.[15].”
- Page 2; lines 91
- “[16], [15], [14], [13], [11].” Changes to “[11], [13 – 16].”
- In introduction section (Section 1)
- Change references from bold letter to normal letters
- “CO2” changes to “CO2” through the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. All corrections have been made according to the given list! From the list below, you can see that we have made progress with the fixes!
Csaba Fogarassy
******
"The manuscript (energies-1625612) title “The use of biomass for green energy and waste incineration how will affect GDP growth in the EU developing countries: a case study from Balkan and Visegrad countries” presents the relationship between GDP per capita, CO2 emissions, Combustible Energy and Waste Consumption (CEWC), which is an interesting research and provide a valuable knowledge on the effect of biomass use for green energy and waste incineration on GDP growth. However, the following comments need to be considered before it can be accepted for publication. My recommendation is minor revision."
- Page 2; lines 54 (Improved)
- “[4 – 5]” instead of “[4], [5]”
- Page 2; lines 70
- “[10].” instead of “.[10]..”-Improved
- Page 2; lines 74
- “[12].” instead of “[12].. Improved
- Page 2; lines 75
- “[13].” instead of “..[13].” Improved
- Page 2; lines 77
- “[15].” instead of “.[15].” Improved
- Page 2; lines 91
- “[16], [15], [14], [13], [11].” Changes to “[11], [13 – 16].” (Improved)
- In introduction section (Section 1) (Improved)
- Change references from bold letter to normal letters (Improved)
- “CO2” changes to “CO2” through the manuscript. (Improved)
Reviewer 2 Report
As an engineer, I found this manuscript both interesting and confusing. The interesting points include the hypothesis development and the causality test results to support the conclusion. The confusing points are described below – please clarify and/or revise the manuscript accordingly.
- As stated in section 2, there could be different relationships between the factors (GDP growth, CO2 emission and CEWC). The results show that the relationship is not identical between Balkan and Visegrad countries; in other words, country- or region-specific (no universal law). If so, wouldn’t it be better to find the relationship one by one for each nation, and then group the nations based on the relationship type, rather than make three nation groups first and then try all the tests as a group? In other words, selecting B10, B4 and V4 countries as the study targets may be an arbitrary grouping – any particular reasons to do so?
- The manuscript is well detailed in sections 1 and 2, but not in section 3-5.
- Section 3. No description of the computation (software, etc.).
- Section 4. It is titled “Results and Discussion”, but there is practically no discussion. Also, it mostly consists of the description of the statistics, but it is advised to add some more plain text to explain their meanings, as many of the readers of Energies journal would be engineers.
- Section 5. The discussion is speculative and seems rather weakly linked to the results in section 4.
- Please improve the readability of the text by avoiding very long paragraphs. Also, the language and style should be revised thoroughly. A few examples are below.
- The title does not make a perfect sentence.
- Check for style errors while citing a reference such as “[10]..”, “coal.[15].”, and “[16], [15], [14], [13], [11]” (it could be changed to [11, 13-16]).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. All corrections have been made according to the given list! From the list below, you can see that we have made progress with the fixes!
Thank you again for your time!
Csaba Fogarassy
" The confusing points are described below – please clarify and/or revise the manuscript accordingly.
- As stated in section 2, there could be different relationships between the factors (GDP growth, CO2 emission and CEWC). The results show that the relationship is not identical between Balkan and Visegrad countries; in other words, country- or region-specific (no universal law). If so, wouldn’t it be better to find the relationship one by one for each nation, and then group the nations based on the relationship type, rather than make three nation groups first and then try all the tests as a group? In other words, selecting B10, B4 and V4 countries as the study targets may be an arbitrary grouping – any particular reasons to do so?
Answer: Due to the economic policy and the historical background, we have grouped the countries in this way (EU member post communist countries/post communist candidate countries), which also determines the future prospects! We did not specify the countries separately because, for example, the V4 countries politicize very much together, so the economic consequences (change in GDP) are similar, the problems related to development are essentially the same. In many cases, technological developments do not have a clear impact on GDP due to economic specificities, so these groups of countries (V4) behave equally in certain situations, regardless of their resources.
- The manuscript is well detailed in sections 1 and 2, but not in section 3-5.
- Section 3. No description of the computation (software, etc.).
Stata 14, and Eviews 10 are used in the study, we have mentioned this in the section 3.
- Section 4. It is titled “Results and Discussion”, but there is practically no discussion. Also, it mostly consists of the description of the statistics, but it is advised to add some more plain text to explain their meanings, as many of the readers of Energies journal would be engineers.
The text has been simplified and shortened in the critical parts.
- Section 5. The discussion is speculative and seems rather weakly linked to the results in section 4.
The sections have been modified and shortened in the mentioned parts.
Please improve the readability of the text by avoiding very long paragraphs. Also, the language and style should be revised thoroughly. A few examples are below.
- The title does not make a perfect sentence.- modified version: „The use of biomass for green energy and waste incineration how will affect GDP growth in the EU less developed countries (a case study with Visegrad and Balkan countries)”
- Check for style errors while citing a reference such as “[10]..”, “coal.[15].”, and “[16], [15], [14], [13], [11]” (it could be changed to [11, 13-16]).
Improved, we have changed all the reference styles based on your suggestions.
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript
Title: „The use of biomass for green energy and waste incineration how will affect GDP growth in the EU less developed countries: a case study from Balkan and Visegrad countries”
Authors: Shahjahan Ali, Shahnaj Akter, Prespa Ymeri and Csaba Fogarassy.
Dear Authors
I revised the manuscript: " The use of biomass for green energy and waste incineration how will affect GDP growth in the EU less developed countries: a case study from Balkan and Visegrad countries " submitted to the “Energies” Journal. The paper is very interesting. However, I have some concerns, which need to be addressed.
Line 2-4. The title of the article is logical but not communicative. Please pay your attention to the clarity of the statement. In this regard, I propose to simplify the topic of the article.
Abstract
Line 12-31 The abstract has a logical layout and is understandable to the reader. I have a comment on the presentation of the layout: research scope - research results. The significant amount of information in terms of conclusions dominates over the limited information about the scope of the research and the goal of the research. Please improve the proportion of information.
Line 13. "GDP" Any abbreviations of names should be preceded by a descriptive explanation in the text. Please correct this. An abbreviation in the title without explanation is acceptable. The first explanation immediately after the abbreviated name appears cancels the need to introduce an explanation each time later in the text of the article.
Line 13 and across the text of the paper. "CO2" - lacks correct notation of chemical formula with lower apostrophe. Please correct elsewhere in the full text of the paper.
Line 30. "GHG" Any abbreviated terms should be preceded by a descriptive explanation in the text. Please correct this. The first explanation immediately after the abbreviated name appears cancels the need to introduce an explanation each time later in the text of the article.
One of the conclusions " line 24 - 25. „The study strongly advises developed European Union countries to raise energy production as of waste and renewable energy to promote sustainable energy development….” The conclusion indicates that the less developed countries should logically follow the indicated direction. This conclusion is justified because the countries belonging to the European Union have access to the latest technologies on the free technological market and on the market of scientific knowledge.
Line 25 – 30 „….On the other hand, biomass energy use can dramatically hamper GDP growth in Visegrad and less developed Balkan countries without sea water due to low energy productivity and lack of technical innovation. The study recommended that instead of using energy production from simple biomass, these countries can use other circular, platform-based models to prevent unexpected rises in CO2 emissions and achieve GHG reductions. …” Conclusions for 'less developed countries' indicate a logical collision when inferred from line 24-25. We could ask why the scheme of recommendations for developed and less developed countries is different.
In my opinion the reason is not the access to the sea or other artificial barriers indicated by the authors. The reasons of the authors' guidance are not well explained. It seems that the reasons are far from the technological rationale for renewable energy sources, from access to the latest pro-ecological technologies, etc. Reviewer's own opinion.
Keywords
In my opinion, the order of the keywords is not correct. I suggest starting with "energy use of biomass and waste", the next element could be the emission effect "CO2 emissions", which affects the economic effects. Please take this into account.
Introduction
Line 35 - 124 The way of using bold font to cite literature sources is puzzling. Please establish a unified and correct citation scheme in the chapter. The numbering order of literature sources in the chapter is correct.
Line 122-124. „…The main research question is to what extent, in developing countries, will meeting the climate change preferences affect the use of biomass for energy and waste incineration, and how will this affect GDP growth?.....” The main research goal has been clearly defined. The authors forget that the lack of consideration for other sources of renewable energy such as solar energy, wind energy, flowing waters and low-temperature geothermal energy does not give a complete picture of the possibilities of fighting against energy exclusion. I understand the limitation of the research topic to biomass, but an analysis of the state of knowledge in such an important subject should provide a full view of the following issues: the problem of climate change, diversification of energy sources, energy modernisation of countries and regions, energy poverty and the participation of governments in promoting and co-financing energy modernisation for the economy and for individual users of heat and electricity. I invite the authors to introduce into the statement a more extensive aspect of the considered issue.
Line 97-113. The example of Brazil is comprehensive and thematically convergent, but the geographic-economic reality and the natural potential of Brazil generate cognitive dissonance in relation to, analyzed in the content of the article examples, countries of the region. Please highlight the common, with the scope of research, cognitive element.
Line 36, 44, 54, 61, 105"....energy[1]. ...." No spaces in the notation with the literature source.
Line 61 "...1.2 billion m3)...." Failure to correctly write the unit of measure with a power exponent.
Line 67."....85 and 100 percent...." The notation of the symbol "%" and the verbal notation appear interchangeably. It is advisable to standardise the form of notation in the content of the article.
Line 70, 74, 77 "....sources.[10].. ...." Punctuation and space errors in notation of statements.
Line 89."....(World Development Indicator (WDI), 2020). ...." The notation with doubled parentheses is unreadable and difficult to unambiguously interpret. Please reorder the notation in this case.
Line 54, 91, "...s [16], [15], [14], [13], [11]. ...." Multiplication of parentheses is not the optimal way to present literature sources. Please determine the correct citation scheme.
Line 117."....use [24]-[30]. ....." The notation with multiplying parentheses is puzzling. Please determine the correct citation scheme.
Chapter 2. Review of the Literature
Line 125 - 318 If the chapter "introduction" already introduces an element of analysis of the state of knowledge, why create an informational alternative in the form of chapter no. 2? Please consider unifying the names of chapters 1 and 2.
Line 129 - 130 The World Bank is not a primary source for formulating overview information on biomass and other bio-raw materials, it is not a specific source like scientific publications of the biotechnology, agricultural and waste management industries. Please consider introducing an additional modified reference in addition to the primary source of information.
Line 214-228 Polemic. Some Visegrad countries promote nuclear energy as a balance to unstable renewable energy sources. This situation is not necessarily surprising, but a closer look is already surprising. In view of the visible political symptoms of the denial of climate change and the minimalist approach to the use of wind and solar energy, the state's monopolistic tendencies in the creation of energy sources that negate decentralised energies, and the many years of unproductive spending of funds from the sale of CO2 emission rights (Poland), it is not surprising that the only remedy is a proposal to reduce energy consumption. In my opinion, the conclusion is fundamental misguided with respect to causes and consequences for countries where political decisions contribute to persisting in the energy realities of the 20th century. Especially the repeated hypothesis, about the connection between GDP growth and energy consumption growth, is thought-provoking.
Line 255-257/ „….Fossil fuels power energy fusion by contributing more to natural gas, according to a report conducted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe…..” Polemic. Natural gas is a fossil, non-renewable fuel (apart from biomethane) and its 'environmental friendliness' is due to the structure of its exhaust gases, which in the presence of the human respiratory system do not have the same effects as the products of combustion of petrol or diesel. Please take this into account in terms of uncritically reproducing simplistic information messages.
Line 308 - 310. "....The study strongly recommends that the developed European Union countries increase renewable energy and waste energy production from biomass to stimulate economic growth [67, 68]. ....." This statement appears as a partial conclusion at the state of the knowledge analysis stage. This conclusion is also present in the abstract (line 24 - 25). The emphasis on the relevance of the conclusion is strange in the context of the need to highlight the authors' own research findings. Please take this into account.
Line 310 - 318. The indicated further scope of research is formulated in such a way that the indicated main research goal (line 122- 124) and the currently indicated scope are partly difficult to connect directly. In fact, how does sub-goal no. 2 differ from sub-goal no. 1? Please explain to the reader the answer to this important question. In my opinion, the indicated scope of research needs to be rethought in relation to earlier general announcements.
Line 298-299. "...Business solutions that promote modern financial growth should be prioritized over energy-storing and proficiency-oriented technological solutions. ...." Very interesting formulation. Could you please elaborate your reasoning in a logical way?
Line 301 - 303 "....This study's main aim is to investigate the relationship among per capita GDP, waste consumption, combustible energy, and CO2 emissions [66]. Once again there is support in terms of introducing the goal and scope of the work. Please integrate the messages scattered throughout the chapter in one place. The chaotic nature of the statement is not conducive to readers' understanding of the article's content.
The numbering order of literature sources in the chapter is correct
Line 129, 141: "...[31]-[33]. ..." The notation with multiplying parentheses is puzzling. Please determine the correct citation scheme.
Line 136, 152, 250, 275: "...[35], [36]. ...." Multiplication of parentheses is not the optimal way to present literature sources. Please determine the correct citation scheme.
Line 167, 177, 228, 235, 246, 250, 269, 275, 284."....use[44]. ...." No spaces in the notation with the literature source.
Line 253-254. „…According to the results[60], further studies should involve 254 econometric study to assess the long-term correlation between GDP and CO2 emissions ………” Deficiencies in the punctuation. Lack of a dot at the end of a sentence.
Line 255."....6-8% ....." The unit of measure should be present with both range values.
Line 310: "...growth [67, 68]. ....." There appears, considered to be correct, a way of presenting several literature sources. Please standardize the notation of citations in the article content.
Chapter 3. Methods and Materials
Line 324, 325. "....This research is organised as follows: In the second part, you will learn about the materials and the process. ...." The meaning of the sentence is not obvious to the reader. Please convert this statement and remove punctuation errors.
Line 347. The mathematical equation "??? = ?? + ??t" is listed without an assigned number. Please complete the numbering.
Lack of citations and references to literature sources. Please complete the sources of knowledge for the introduced methodological solutions.
Chapter 4.
The results were presented in a clear and understandable way. The division into subsections is logical and presents aspects of the aim of the paper well.
Line 445."....Pedroni suggested a method for testing...." Lack of reference in the text to a literature source. Please complete this.
Chapter 5. Discussion and conclusions
The discussion of the results is too undeveloped due to the scarcity of literature sources. The authors have not avoided duplicating the results information. Please reinforce the communication relating to the achievement of the scientific goal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your suggestions and professional opinion. We agree with all his suggestions and amendments, they have been examined item by item and transferred to the manuscript. Answers are marked in red letters in the text below. The manuscript also includes corrections in red and a change tracker. Thank you so much for taking the time to read the paper and write your opinion.
Your suggestions have greatly increased the quality of our paper!
Best wishes, Csaba Fogarassy
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
It makes the second-round review elaborate if the authors do not specify the revised contents in the new manuscript. EVERY CHANGE should be marked (in red font or using track changes option, for example) to clarify the amendments.
The title still does not make a perfect sentence. Specifically, “The use of … incineration” followed by “how will affect …”, what are the subject and the verb?
There are still some, very long paragraphs. Please re-structure them.
“Also, the language and style should be revised THOROUGHLY. A few EXAMPLES are below.”
- It seems that the authors only responded to the examples (Though I cannot check this thoroughly, because the authors did not mark all the amendments!). Please reconsider this comment and provide what were changed other than the examples.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you very much for your feedback! Changes in the word version were marked with the track changes option and the red font color was also used for better visibility. Previously when we converted the last version to PDF, we accepted the changes and therefore could not keep track of what happened. That is why we apologize! Now we attach the PDF version along with the versions! Thank you very much again for the useful information, your opinion helped me a lot in finalizing the paper. Thank you for taking the time to read the paper, it was an honor for us!
The Authors
