Analysis of the State of the Art of International Policies and Projects on CCU for Climate Change Mitigation with a Focus on the Cases in Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled "The state of the art analysis of international policies and project on CCU for climate change mitigation" describes 447 carbon capture Utilization & Storage projects in Korea over the past eight years including Korea's carbon resource development (CCU), major climate analysis, and energy plans, government-led project cases, institutional support, etc. related to carbon capture &Utilization(CCU) in major countries such as the US, EU (Germany), and China. The goals and motivation of such a study are rather clear.
The rewritten paper has a chance to become a contribution to the Sustainability after considering the issues outlined below.
Additional comments that need to be addressed:
- First of all, it is incomprehensible to choose Germany as the representative of Europe if the Prosper-Haniel mine in Bottrop in the Ruhr region was closed at the end of 2018 as the last coal mine in Germany. What about the Netherlands, Ireland, Cyprus or Poland?
- The English language and style (grammar) must be carefully revised throughout the whole manuscript. A number of typographical/grammatical issues need to be dealt with.
- Line 71: “2.CO2 storage-related technical tasks, 3.CO2 conversion and utilization-related technical tasks, 4.CO2 capture and conversion-related technical tasks, 5.CO2” In each sentence, 2 in CO2 should be subscript. Please correct throughout the manuscript.
- The chapter 3.2. The need for technology rather should be a part of introduction.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback.
We have revised the paper and made the recommended changes.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is a good compare and contrast of approaches to the topic of Carbon Capture and Storage, and in particular, it provides an analysis not from the US or Europe. In this sense, I find that the paper is useful, and should proceed forwards.
I appreciate that English is not the author's first language. The paper requires significant modifications of the writing and presentation approach. These are significant, in that there are many, but the issues are more about the formatting rather than about the technical content. I suggest that the authors work with someone with better English skills for the final draft. There are places where it is a struggle to understand the intention due to mismatches between the verbs and the subjects.
Specific topics which need to be addressed are:
Abstract - has 2 references “16.8” and “16.12” - which need to be cleared up, the abstract should stand on its own and the references do not link to anything.
Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) should be defined once (Capitalize the first letter of each word), and the CCU used thereafter. The same is true for CCUS. This occurs in the abstract and throughout the paper - use the abbreviation throughout.
Page 2 - Table 1 is an image that reproduces the text in sections 2.1 and 2.2, and does not add value - remove it.
Page 3 - Figure 1 is not described or introduced in the text; there should be a sentence that says Figure 1 presents the CCUS process etc.
Page 4 - line 128 (IEA has 2 references - add the year to designate which one)
- the sentence L129- 131 makes no sense - rewrite
-line 132 “Act of February 18” has no reference (it should if it is legislation
Page 5 - Table 2 is not referred to in the text - introduce what it shows.
Table 3 has a reference beneath it, which should be in the reference list; column 5 needs a header to indicate it as % reduction since 1990’s; then check the value of the etc line (5/39 is not 87%).
Page 7 - there is no introduction to Table 4.
Page 8 - Figure 3 - the units of the y-axis is not defined - add units
Page 10 - Figure 6 is not introduced; can you use units of millions of won (or billions go won); the zeros are not necessary
Page 11 - Figure 7 is not introduced in the text
References
The references are listed by numbers, and they are alphabetical. They are not referred to in the text by the numbers, but by authors; McKinsey (2014) is not in the reference list
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback.
We have revised the paper and made the recommended changes.
Reviewer 3 Report
This communication was very well drafted in my opinion. the results obtained clearly support the conclusions. Good work!
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback.
We have revised the paper and made the recommended changes.
Reviewer 4 Report
It is necessary to revise the title according to the purpose of the study; Is it a basic research for suggesting Korean policy and research based on the results of analysis of trends in major countries? Is this study that analyzes the trends of major countries and Korea, and suggests the direction to go for climate change mitigation globally? The content is about the former and the title is about the latter.
In Abstract, the background and methodology of the study is written, but it is recommended to additionally describe the reason (necessity) of this study and the analysis results obtained through this study.
Keywords cannot be written in Acronym (request to delete ccs, ccu, ccus), and must be expressed in words representing the study.
All Acronyms need to be organized. ex. After marking Carbon capture & Utilization (CCU), it should be marked as CCU in the next mention. It is required to delete unnecessary parentheses (duplicate parentheses) throughout the paper. ex. In line 27, you need to remove the')' from 'China)'.
All tables and figures need to be explained.
It seems good to change '2. A study of methods' to '2. Research methodology'.
In '2.2 method of analysis of data', you wrote that you analyzed statistically using Excel 2016 and SPSS 25 programs. Despite the fact that the paper used statistical analysis, it did not include any statistical numerical results.
In '4.1. Policy and Research Trends on Carbon capture & Utilization in the United States', there is only a description of the research trends in the United States, so it is necessary to briefly describe the analysis results in one paragraph at the end. In '4.2.Policy and Research Trends on Carbon capture & Utilization in the German', there is only a description of research trends in Germany, so it is necessary to briefly describe the analysis results in one paragraph at the end. In '4.3. Policy and Research Trends on Carbon capture & Utilization in the China', there is only a description of China's research trends, so it is necessary to briefly describe the analysis results in one paragraph at the end. In '5.1.Policy trends on Carbon capture & Utilization (CCU) In Korea', there is only a description of Korea's policy trends, so it is necessary to briefly describe the analysis results in one paragraph at the end. In '5.2.Research trends on Carbon capture & Utilization (CCU) In Korea', there is only a description of Korea's research trends, so it is necessary to briefly describe the analysis results in one paragraph at the end.
In the first paragraph of “6.The Implication,” Chapter 6 begins with a description of the support provided by the governments of each country. After describing in advance what content is to be followed, it is necessary to organize the analysis results into first, second, and third. Chapter 6 only describes the main contents of Korean trends. The implications and analysis results derived from research trends in major countries such as the United States, Germany, and China were omitted. Since the content as an implication is insufficient, 1) write additional content, or 2) change the title to ‘6.Conclusion’ and include the analysis results derived from this study.
Since this paper lists the trends of each country in the form of a report, a systematic analysis in the form of thesis is necessary overall.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback.
We have revised the paper and made the recommended changes.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I think that this revised manuscript is suitable for publication without further revision.
Author Response
"I think that this revised manuscript is suitable for publication without further revision."
Taking your comment into consideration, I'll upload without further revision.
Thank you for taking the time to review the manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
It is recommended to change “Centering on the Cases in Korea” to “Focused on the Cases in Korea” in the title.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: It is recommended to change “Centering on the Cases in Korea” to “Focused on the Cases in Korea” in the title.
The final revisions in regards to the title have been altered.
Thank you for taking the time to review the manuscript.
