Review of Bioenergy Potential from the Agriculture Sector in Iraq

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper, entitled Review of bioenergy potential from the agriculture sector in Iraq, is a scholarly work and can increase knowledge on this domain. The authors provide an interesting and orginal study, the content is relevant to Energies. The manuscript is quite well written and well related to existing literature. Abstract and keywords are meaningful.

I have some specific and general comments:

• why not considering wood as biomass feedstock for this study, especially for thermochemical processes? This feedstock could be used as biomass for energy production.
• Authors propose a review about bioenergy potential, it could be interesting to discuss about the current situation. What is currently the energy production from bioenergy?
• Why not considering other organic waste (effluents, garbage, ...)? Authors discuss in a short paragraph about municipal solid waste but there's not enough data or information in this section.
• If possible, please provide recent data, some of them provided in this paper were for 2015, 2018, 2019. Having data for 2021 could be useful for the discussion.
• Please provide also methodology for the collection, compilation and discussion of data. Maybe it could be interesting to add a section dedicated to the methodology applied in this study.

As it, this paper is not fully acceptable for publication and requires major revision according to the comments listed previously. I recommend the following decision: RECONSIDER AFTER MAJOR REVISION.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This presents the bioenergy potential from agriculture, livestock and MSW in Iraq. It appears this has not been done before and is worth reporting.

General remarks:

• Add references and comparison of method/results to the work of Brosowski et.al. and others, on biomass residues in Germany/Europe.
• Sections 3 and 4 appear to be redundant for the assessed topic and could be removed without losing necessary information.
• What is the connection between section 2 and 5? In my mind section 2 should come after section 5 and build upon it to calculate the bioenergy potential.
• The bioenergy potential from different sources should be summarized in a table.
• A language check is necessary
• Be more restrictive on the use of decimals, and being too exact when stating values.
• introduction: suggest to go through and focus the introduction more towards the assessed topic. It states quite a few details on irrelevant issues.

Some specifics, but a language check is still necessary from the Authors:

18: burned --> burnt

18: “According to” --> “Based on”?

20: 115.13 --> remove decimals

24: probable is the wrong word here

238: Cost --> Price

246-247: “Cost … is cost-effective”. Reformulate

249: electrical --> electricity generation

426: Why use HHV, usually LHV is better?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors provide detailed and justified answers for all comments made, I agree with all these answers and I recommend to accept the manuscript for publication. I recommend the following decision: ACCEPT IN PRESENT FORM.