Development of Rice Husk Power Plants Based on Clean Development Mechanism: A Case Study in Mekong River Delta, Vietnam
, Thai Van Ha 2,*, Tran Duc Thuan 3, Nguyen Van Hanh 4, Dinh Van Tien 2, Nguyen Cong Tiep 1, Nguyen Thi Minh Phuong 5, Phan Anh Tu 6 and Tran Ba Uan 7Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper "Clean Development Mechanism – Based Development of Grid Connected Rice Husk-Fuelled Bio-Power Plants in Mekong Delta, Vietnam" is interesting repost about the possibilities to incorporate Bio-power in the Vietnam regions. The paper is easy to follow, but has low significance on the wide audience. I found it more like the report for policy makers, but not like research paper. Maybe the other journal should be selected.
Research results are not discussed with literature therefor it is not clear the significance of them. Conclusions are linked to one region and more related to policy issues than environment.
According to the my remarks I would suggest to find an other journal for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review comments and suggestions are provided in attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review Report on
Clean Development Mechanism – Based Development of Grid- Connected Rice Husk-Fuelled Bio-Power Plants in Mekong Delta, Vietnam
To assess the Clean Development Mechanism based potential of rice husk-fuelled bio-power development projects and to recommend a regional strategy of developing a bundle of rice husk-fuelled bio-power development projects of 11 MW installed capacity per project for minimizing the uncontrollable dumping of unused rice husk discharged from local dense paddy milling centers to rivers and canals in the Mekong delta
Area of strength
The best of manuscript, in my humble opinion, is the subject that is current, relevant and suitable for the Journal
Areas of Weakness
The manuscript has some basic flaws that are shown below:
- The literature review section should be rewritten in a more orderly way and with shorter paragraphs, because it is difficult to read.
- The data collection section has to be improved, it would be necessary to explain more deeply how all the data have been obtained, for example how have been measured, the willingness to participate in the Pilot Project of current local milling centers in the capacity of Project developers or the willingness to sell the stored rice husk, the rice husk selling capability and the acceptable rice husk pricing level of current rice milling centers. It would be convenient that the model of the interview was attached in an annex of the paper.
- The presentation of calculation of GHG emissions by sources should also be improved. Maybe it would be convenient to use the equation editor.
- There are many acronyms in all sections of the paper. The full denomination must be shown the first time the acronym is used, because that would make easier the reading and understanding of the paper.
- In conclusions and recommendations section are only recommendations, so the conclusions part should be written focusing on the main contributions of the paper and the limitations of the study, which may lead to further works. As all studies, this paper has limitations but, more importantly, that the authors thought about how to sort out or to reduce them.
The authors should rewrite the paper according these major changes so that the publication could be considered.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
If the topic is relevant to the Journal I suggest to accept.
Author Response
Thank you so much for useful comments and guides for improving and revising our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The comments and suggestion for the authors are provided in the file attached here.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you so much for useful comments and guides for improving and revising our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have made the proposed changes and the paper has considerably improved. I believe that it can be published.
Author Response
Thank you so much for useful comments and guides for improving and revising our manuscript.
