Barriers and Drivers to the Implementation of Onshore Power Supply—A Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The current paper reviews the importance of Onshore Power Supply and their applications. The paper needs more attention must provide the following:

1. A clear background about the OPS
2. Organization of the paper must be revised. 
3. Allocation of references is not in harmony with the outcome.
4. Figures are of low quality. 
5. Discussion on the development of OPS strategies
6. Update the conclusion section with the main challenges and future
7. Check the citation of all recorded references.  

Author Response

Dear reviewer #1, below follows a point-by-point response.

Reviewer 1. The current paper reviews the importance of Onshore Power Supply and their applications. The paper needs more attention must provide the following:

1. A clear background about the OPS

The introduction has been rewritten to clarify the background.

1. Organization of the paper must be revised. 

Discussion has been added and conclusion rewritten.

1. Allocation of references is not in harmony with the outcome.

References have been added to the results table.

1. Figures are of low quality. 

Two figures have been removed.

1. Discussion on the development of OPS strategies

Discussion has been added.

1. Update the conclusion section with the main challenges and future

The conclusion has been rewritten.

1. Check the citation of all recorded references.  

Citations have been checked but we could not identify a specific problem

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a good review paper that presents an overview of barriers and drivers to the implementation of OPS and identifies potential areas for future research.

In general, related papers are well reviewed and their advantages and disadvantages are stated.

• In body of the Paper, using figures and/or tables to present your own synthesis of the original data or to show key data taken directly from the original papers is very important. Please explain this to me and highlight it.
• One of the main parts of a review paper is the conclusion section. Rewrite this section by considering the following four items:

Succinctly summarize your major points.

Point out the significance of these results.

Discuss the questions that remain in the area.

 Keep it brief.

• The writing of the article should be re-checked in terms of the necessary structure and standards.

Author Response

In body of the Paper, using figures and/or tables to present your own synthesis of the original data or to show key data taken directly from the original papers is very important. Please explain this to me and highlight it.

Dear reviewer #2, thank you for your suggestions. We have introduced Table 2 and made adjustments in Table 3 to link each barrier to sources as examples.

One of the main parts of a review paper is the conclusion section. Rewrite this section by considering the following four items:

The conclusion has been completely rewritten. Major points have been summarized. The significance of the results have been added. Suggested research is discussed in chapter 4 and mentioned in the end of the conclusion (5).  

The writing of the article should be re-checked in terms of the necessary structure and standards.

This has been done to the best of our ability.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have no observations on the content of the paper or on its presentation. However, in my opinion, in order to increase the attractiveness for the readers, it would have been desirable the addition of some technical data: the power required for a given type of ship (possibly depending on its deadweight or its type: ore carrier, oil tanker, container ship etc.), power level/ levels of required voltage, frequency, etc. Of course, detailed research is needed, but imposing a solution may not always be productive. The largest port in Europe, Rotterdam operates daily about 80 ships. The infrastructure to be developed is therefore substantial and distributed on a very large surface.

Author Response

1. it would have been desirable the addition of some technical data: the power required for a given type of ship (possibly depending on its deadweight or its type: ore carrier, oil tanker, container ship), power level/ levels of required voltage, frequency, etc.

Dear reviewer #2, thank you for your suggestions. We have added text in 3.1.3 that clarifies the differences between types of vessels and that different ports may struggle due to their clientele.

2. Of course, detailed research is needed, but imposing a solution may not always be productive. The largest port in Europe, Rotterdam operates daily about 80 ships. The infrastructure to be developed is therefore substantial and distributed on a very large surface.

We note in 3.1.1 that port design and size is an issue and not just the complexity.

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper presents a survey in the domain of barriers and drivers. Below are my comments for improving the manuscript.

 

• The reference list must be updated with the recently published works. It is recommended to add more references that are published after 2020.
• The authors must provide a table that summarizes the published surveys in the domain of barriers and drivers and describes what are the missing in these papers that motivate the authors for writing this manuscript.
• The authors must provide a comparison table that includes various reported references with number of references. The table must provide items such as the summary, features, advantages, and disadvantages of each reported reference.
• One table for summarizing the abbreviations must be added.
• The authors must determine that what a reader will achieve after reading this manuscript. What benefits does this manuscript provide for future readers?

Author Response

The reference list must be updated with the recently published works. It is recommended to add more references that are published after 2020.

Dear reviewer #3, thank you for your suggestions. We have added the following sources:

Zhao, X.; Liu, L.; Di, Z.; Xu, L. Subsidy or punishment: An analysis of evolutionary game on implementing shore-side electricity. Regional Studies in Marine Science 2021, 48, doi:10.1016/j.rsma.2021.102010.

Nguyen, D.-H.; Lin, C.; Cheruiyot, N.K.; Hsu, J.-Y.; Cho, M.-Y.; Hsu, S.-H.; Yeh, C.-K. Reduction of NOx and SO2 Emissions by Shore Power Adoption. Aerosol and Air Quality Research 2021, 21, doi:10.4209/aaqr.210100.

Wang, X.; Yuen, K.F.; Wong, Y.D.; Li, K.X. How can the maritime industry meet Sustainable Development Goals? An analysis of sustainability reports from the social entrepreneurship perspective. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 2020, 78, doi:10.1016/j.trd.2019.11.002.

Inclusion of Maritime Transport in the Emissions Trading System for Shipping Companies. Engineering 2021, 7, 554-557, doi:10.1016/j.eng.2021.01.007. Research 2021, 21, doi:10.4209/aaqr.210100.

 

The authors must provide a table that summarizes the published surveys in the domain of barriers and drivers and describes what are the missing in these papers that motivate the authors for writing this manuscript.

Dear reviewer #3, we have added Table 2 that summarizes the previous central categorizations and drawbacks.

We have added a motivation in the introduction.

In Table 3 we added sources for each barrier as examples.

We also added an appendix with the identified papers.

The authors must provide a comparison table that includes various reported references with number of references. The table must provide items such as the summary, features, advantages, and disadvantages of each reported reference.

Table 2 and the discussion done before the table explains the reason for providing a new framework.

 One table for summarizing the abbreviations must be added.

We have added a list of abbreviations at the end of the paper.

The authors must determine that what a reader will achieve after reading this manuscript. What benefits does this manuscript provide for future readers?

Thank you for the valuable suggestion. We have made changes to the motivation for the paper and also rewritten the conclusion so that it clarifies the contribution.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No further comments. 

Author Response

Thank you for reading the paper and giving valuable comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have provided the comments and I have no further comment.

Author Response

Thank you for reading our paper and giving valuable comments!