Economic and Environmental Analysis of Woody Biomass Power Generation Using Forest Residues and Demolition Debris in Japan without Assuming Carbon Neutrality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The authors responded in a very basic way to the comments I made to them in the review. I think the article is interesting to publish, but the authors could have worked more on the issues I mentioned in the initial review.....

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The manuscript "Economic and Environmental Analysis of Woody Biomass Power Generation in Japan without Assuming Carbon  Neutrality" assesses woody biomass power generation's economic and environmental impact on the local economy. The problem discussed in the reviewed study is topical and worthy of publication in a journal like Forests. In general, the paper is relatively short, but all paragraphs are sufficiently presented/described. The manuscript fills a gap in the economic and environmental assessment of the use of woody biomass for power generation.

 

Minor errors that were in the previous version of the manuscript have been corrected, and according to the reviewer, the manuscript is worth publishing in Forests.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript “Economic and Environmental Analysis of Woody Biomass Power Generation in Japan without Assuming Carbon Neutrality” is interesting research in which it is displayed that the use of biomass as renewable energy does not always have an impact in controlling CO2 emissions as evidenced by the forest industry sector.

however, as the authors agree, this study has several limitations, one of them is that the data period is too brief and the second is, and the second is the great fluctuation in the market prices in the third-place final aspects must be taken into consideration.  In any case, and considering all these limitations, and other internal ones that can be corrected in the reviews, I believe that the manuscript should be accepted for publication, by putting in context and debating a topic that should be addressed in depth and from a scientific perspective. In this sense, I fully agree with the authors that power generation does not necessarily reduce CO2 emissions, and the exploitation of forests for this purpose can pose a significant environmental problem, which reduces biodiversity and does not contribute much to the fight to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.

Aspects that the authors should incorporate or correct in the manuscript:

(1)  The first thing is to review the wording of the document, and although I am not a native speaker of English, there are aspects that can be improved, such as avoiding repetitions in the same paragraph of words like: Most of the, However, Several studies, etc, etc.

(2) In the introduction section should clearly indicate the importance of using the biomass resource in a sustainable way that is environmentally compatible with the conservation of ecosystem functions and processes.

(3) The standard approaches should be explained more precisely in section 2.1. In its present form, it is difficult to understand and apply. For example: what is the gross output? What is or what does an intermediate demand mean?.

(4) Section 2.2 should be expanded and explained in greater detail. The weight of carbon contained in the chips could be specified much more precisely, especially knowing the main species. But I think it could be between 0.46-048.

(5) section 3.2. “When forest residues are used”.  In this case, I understand that forest residues are used as the main resource, but what happens if all the wood from the felling is used? It is very important to specify and analyse this aspect.

(6) In the Results it would be convenient to reference CO2 emissions on the total absorption capacity of a typical forest plantation and by rotation.

(7). Section 4.2 should be addressed in greater depth, highlighting the most relevant risks and impacts for ecosystems and biodiversity derived from the intensive use of biomass to produce energy. Rotations that are too short, degradation of the soil, and risk of pest and disease attacks.....

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript " Economic and Environmental Analysis of Woody Biomass Power Generation in Japan without Assuming Carbon  Neutrality" assesses woody biomass power generation's economic and environmental impact on the local economy. The problem discussed in the reviewed study is topical and worthy of publication in a journal like Forests. The paper is generally relatively short, but all paragraphs are sufficiently presented/described. The manuscript fills a gap in the economic and environmental assessment of the use of woody biomass for power generation. 

 

Specific remarks: 

Line 24 – “3EID” - avoid abbreviation/acronym as a keyword if it is not commonly used. (It is firstly explain in lines 107-108 

Line 40 “ … incorrect. [2] (p. 9)” - move dot at the end of the sentence. 

Line 79 “ … was introduced based on the German model.”  - please give references / source with some characteristics of German model 

Line 198 “ When fuel wood is burned, woody biomass is generated,” – probably it should be “… energy is generated” 

Line 232 “lumber production reaching 370,000 m3” –annually? 

Table 1 – last line Amount – please check/explain counts. 

Line 292- 293 Table S1, Table S2 – where are such Tables?