Resource Assessment of Renewable Energy Systems—A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

reviewer comments.

 

In this review manuscript, the authors report a “Resource Assessment of Renewable Energy Systems - A Review”. However, there are some scientific problem needs more detailed discussion and modification. This considering, it is suitable for publication after Major Revisions. Additional comments and suggestions to justify my decision are as follows:

Comment 1. The literature shows the many related papers, how this is new and informative. In the ‘Introduction’ section, authors should further emphasize the significance of the renewable energy systems and the latest related literatures need to be added in the “references” section, for example, “Electrochimica Acta, 330 (2019), pp. 135261”; “Dalton Trans., 49 (2020), pp. 3622-3629”; “Journal of Energy Storage, 31 (2020), pp. 101619”; “Electrochimica Acta, 364 (2020), pp. 137318”. So, please add these references in your revised manuscript.

Comment 2. The author needs to explain more clearly about the “Methodology structure”.

Comment 3. Please check clearly about “Table 3.List of publications by category”

Comment 4. Authors need to discuss results in more details and future directions should be highlighted in this work.

Comment 5. In the section of “3.3. Resources accessed”, author should be informed clearly about “different publications based on different rationales”. In addition, please elaborate discussion of the “Figure 2”.

Comment 6. The data of this review article is simple and lack of comparison, making people confused that whether the article have the novel thought. Please include comparison table in revised manuscript. For example: “Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31 (2014), pp. 611-621”; Dalton Trans. 49 (2020), pp. 4050-4059 “Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62 (2016), pp. 908-923”;  

Comment 7. In the “Supplementary Material” section; author only focuses on resources and an assessment of complete energy systems, it is recommended that the author further study the novel energy systems.

Comment 8. There are many grammatical and spelling errors through the whole manuscript. I recommend the manuscript to be polished by some native speakers or professional institutions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript does not refer to the latest publications from 2021, which are thematically related to the problem raised by the authors.

Please consider whether it is necessary to refer to the same publication more than once in the same paragraph, for example: 

• "Only two reviews focusing on the resource assessment of energy systems were identified [19,20], but both covered a specific subsystem of energy systems and not the complete energy systems. Whereas Habib et  Wenzel [19] presented  a  resource  criticality  assessment  of  specific  types  of  wind  turbines, Leisegang et al. [20]supplied an in-depth review of resource assessment of aluminumion batteries."
• "Other reviews like [21–29] partly included the resource assessment but did not focus on it. Romero et Linares [29] for instance, reviewed methods using exergy as a basis for  the  assessment of energy. Multi-criteria decision analysis methods for  the sustainability assessment of energy systems were reviewed by Martín-Gamboa et al. [22], but resource assessment was not explicitly covered. [21,23,26] included different subsystems and did not focus on the resource assessment."
• "One of the reference systems for the evaluation of the publications is based on Berger 80et al. / Sonderegger et al. [31,32]. They [31,32] introduced seven questions related to the impacts of mineral resource use (see supporting information, Section 3), based on aspects identified as relevant for  resource  assessment. For  each question, a method was recommended, in order to supply an application-dependent recommendation. A broad range of 84methods and indicators have been developed to assess the different aspects, identified as relevant by [31,32], reaching from Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP) [33,34], over Surplus Ore Potential (SOP) [35], LIME [36], Cumulative Exergy Extraction from the Natural Environment (CEENE) [37] to  ESSENZ [38,39] and  GeoPolRisk [40–42]. The methods are treating: physical depletion,  resource  quality,  resource  quality  change  and  its  consequences,  (economic) externalities due  to overexploitation of resources, thermodynamics and the midand short-term supply of mineral resources [31,32]."

The authors noted the potential of the LCA technique. Perhaps it is worth referring to the publication that analyzes the potential of using biomass co-firing in a coal-fired power plant, for example: Dzikuć, M.;Łasiński, K. Technical and economic aspects of biomass co-firing in coal-fired boilers. International Journal of Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2014, 19(4), 849-855, doi:10.2478/ijame-2014-0060.

The last chapter (Conclusions) requires some fine-tuning. Please emphasize the importance of the analyzes carried out and indicate the directions of future research. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After I careful evaluation, I am pleased to inform you that this manuscript should be accepted for publication.