Analytical Study for the Determination of the Energy Use Potential of Forest Dendromass in the Czech Republic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the age of the global energy crisis, the issue of energy production from renewable energy sources is very topical. In this paper, the authors presented the possibilities of energy production from biomass in the next few decades, which is very important for the national economy. Although the work was approached ambitiously, several important problems arise in it:
- there is a lack of adequate analysis of the literature, i.e. examples from the world (Literature review) on the basis of which,
- wrote a more precise discussion.
- On the other hand, the methodology is not explained in detail in the paper. How did the authors arrive at the presented results?
- The data given in the tables would be good to present with a map, considering that they are given at the regional level.
- In addition, there are minor technical errors in the work that I noted in the reviewed version of the work.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Firstly we would like to really thank the reviewer for the comments. The comment were really useful and absolutely to the point. We hope that we followed all the corrections needed and that the article is now better than before the review.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract
The abstract addresses the European Union's (EU) push towards the Green Deal and the "Fit for 55" package, emphasizing the need to achieve the 2030 climate targets. It raises a pertinent issue about the feasibility of meeting these targets, using the Czech Republic's reliance on forest dendromass as a specific case study. The abstract suggests that the current usage of forest dendromass for renewable energy production is already at its peak, indicating challenges in expanding its share in the energy mix. Additionally, it highlights potential threats to sustainable forest management due to increased dendromass utilization.
- "European Union's current pressure on Member States": The wording implies a negative connotation. It might be better to rephrase it as "The European Union's current encouragement to Member States..."
- "dendrmass" in line 19: This seems to be a typographical error and should be corrected to "dendromass".
- The use of "analytical study" and "results elaborated" in lines 13 and 14 could be streamlined for clarity. Consider merging the two sentences to convey the study's primary focus succinctly.
- "forest dendromass from primary pro-duction": The hyphen in "pro-duction" seems out of place. It should be "production".
Introduction
- Several points are repeated multiple times. For instance, the definition of ‘gross final energy consumption’ from the Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC (RED I) is mentioned twice (lines 72-76 and 87-91). Similarly, details about the share of gross final energy consumption from renewable sources at the EU level and in the Czech Republic in 2021 are also repeated (lines 77-80 and 91-94).
- Check for consistency in citation numbering. For instance, there's a jump from [25] to [47], and later [59-61] appears, suggesting some citations might be missing or misnumbered.
- Some sentences are overly long, making them hard to follow. For example, the sentence starting from line 129 to 134 could be broken down for clarity.
- The introduction to the importance of renewable energy and the focus on forest logging residues is clear. However, the transition between the two could be smoother.
- When mentioning the Czech Republic's contribution and goals, it would be beneficial to have a clear transition that delves deeper into the specifics of the country's forestry sector and its role in renewable energy.
- The ending does a good job of summarizing the article's aim, but it might be more impactful to emphasize the broader implications of the research, especially in the context of global efforts towards sustainability and energy security.
- It would be beneficial to have a more coherent flow, starting with the broader context of climate change, narrowing down to renewable energy, then focusing on biomass, and finally zooming into the specifics of forest logging residues in the Czech Republic.
Materials and Methods
- There's repetition in the explanations. For example, the description of how the outlook is processed for individual regions and converted for the entire Czech Republic is repeated multiple times.
- The introduction to the section starts by referencing the "Results" section, which is unusual for a "Materials and Methods" section. Typically, the introduction should focus solely on the methods employed.
- Variant I has two subpoints (Ad a and Ad b) that both discuss the outlook for different periods (2021-2061 and 2014-2053). However, the description of Variant II is somewhat redundant with Variant I – Ad a.
- The text contains overly long sentences, making it challenging to follow the methods clearly. Breaking them down could enhance clarity.
- The distinction between "economically usable forests" and "forests with economic restrictions" is made, but the description is a bit convoluted. The bullet points under these categories also seem to overlap.
- The section is dense with technical terms and coefficients, which is expected in a scientific article. However, simplifying some of these explanations or providing a brief context might make it more accessible to a broader audience.
- While tables are mentioned, they aren't provided in the text you've shared. It's essential to ensure that tables are clear, correctly labeled, and properly referenced in the main text.
- The text sometimes references data sources without introducing them first, like "Institut for FM CR". It would be better to introduce and explain these sources when they're first mentioned.
- Information about the Biomass Conversion and Expansion Factors (BCEF) and its derivation by ass. Prof. Cienciala is repeated in both Variant I – Ad a and Variant I – Ad b.
Results
- The terms "processed by the authors based on data from Institut for FM CR" and "Source: own processing based on data from Institut for FM CR" are repeatedly mentioned after figures and tables. It might be more efficient to mention the source once at the beginning or end of the results section.
- In the description of "Table 8", it mentions "Individual decades in (m3)", but the values provided in the table below are in tons.
- For "Central Bohemian Region; Prague" in the same table, there seems to be a space in the value "284 063", which should likely be "284,063".
- The sentence "The potential used by the industry, limited by unperformed projects, logistics and fossil fuel prices on the one hand and by increasing requirements for keeping biomass..." is lengthy and somewhat unclear. Breaking it into shorter sentences would enhance clarity.
- The paper uses both "Institut for FM CR" and "FCR, s.e." to refer to an institution. It's unclear if they are the same entity or different; if they're the same, it's essential to maintain consistency in naming.
- When presenting data from figures and tables, it would be helpful to provide some context or a brief interpretation for the reader. For example, after presenting data from "Figure 1", a short sentence summarizing the primary observation or trend would help the reader understand the significance of the presented data.
- The text refers to multiple figures (e.g., Figure 1, Figure 2), but the actual graphical representations are not provided in the provided text. It's crucial to ensure these figures are included in the final publication to give readers a visual understanding of the discussed trends.
Discussion
- The text mentions the "Net Zero Emissions scenario by 2050" but doesn't provide context about what this scenario entails or who proposed it. Further clarity might be needed for readers unfamiliar with this scenario.
- The statement "Countries need to step up their efforts to stay above the baseline set in Regulation 2018/1999" might benefit from specifying which countries or if it pertains to all EU member states.
- The text states that "wood waste plays only a complementary role" due to its limited nature but later mentions that "wood biomass can be a sustainable source of energy." This seems contradictory and might benefit from further elaboration or clarification.
- The ending suggests more research is needed regarding the "constraints of logging residue disposal." This could be elaborated upon to provide specific directions for future research or implications for policy and practice.
Conclusions
- The statement "the share of forest biomass from primary production in the energy mix of the Czech Republic is at its maximum available limit" appears twice in close succession. This is redundant and can be streamlined for clarity.
- The phrase "goals that our country, as one of the EU Member States, has set for itself" could be simplified to "goals set by our country as an EU Member State."
- The abbreviation "i. e.," is used with a space in between, which is not the conventional formatting. It should be "i.e.," without an extra space.
Need major revision.
Author Response
Firstly we would like to really thank the reviewer for the comments. The comment were really useful and absolutely to the point. We hope that we followed all the corrections needed and that the article is now better than before the review.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made significant changes (literature review), so i recomend this paper for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
I can accept the article in its current form.
Need a deep proofreading.
