Sino-American Building Energy Standards Comparison and Recommendations towards Zero Energy Building

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

The paper is a clear presentation and comparison of the standards

I have no special comments

Only, in line 489 "...neutralization in 2060.5. Conclusions" a correction is needed as the 5.Conclusion shall be erased

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The type of the paper is difficult to define since it not reviews a vast amount of papers, only compares two nations build energetic attitude through few standards. The work is interesting, yet it is hard to find a new scientific conclusion. Yet I think this work can be interesting for those who have US or Chinese building energetic researches.

Some minor editing is advised:

line 163 “severe cold and cold regions” should be corrected

figure 5, if you show reduction then the minus should be plus

figure 8, 11 is domestic hot water, 12 is what kind of power (heat or electric or both)?

Figure 10, values are independent of each other, please do not use lines to connect the dots

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

It is evident that at present the study of energy standards for buildings is of great interest in order to reduce energy consumption as much as possible, that is to say, to reach what is called "zero energy".

That is why the research presented is interesting to advance in this field of knowledge.

However, it is necessary to make some comments regarding the research presented below:

As the most important issue to take into account when improving the work, first of all it should be indicated that, since this is a study with a first comparative phase between the existing standards in China and the United States, the authors must present their conjectures and results in another way, since they repeatedly introduce more favorable value judgments to some standards than to others, without taking into account that these comments must be rethought with more caution.

Regarding the work itself, it is considered that although the comparison of standards is interesting, this is not enough to classify the research presented as  novel and suitable for publication, since it is about known standards and the results of their comparison must be supported by other factors, as well as by more empirical works to make valid the aforementioned value judgments expressed by the authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

It is considered that the changes made and the explanations offered, although they are of interest, are not sufficient to correct the indications made in the first review, since there is still a certain evaluative bias for comparative purposes and therefore the need for an experimental verification, as well as the verification of the current reality of the existing buildings, and not only in the future, to be able to adequately evaluate the achievements of both countries. However, the manuscript could be published as long as the editor considers that these evaluative comments between countries can be admitted and accepted by its publisher, since they could be the subject of some opposition and controversy on the part of other technicians and researchers specialized in the matter.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx