Energy and Environmental Assessment of a Hybrid Dish-Stirling Concentrating Solar Power Plant
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Suggest to add recent literature work in the introduction.
Suggested to recheck minor errors in related to abbreviation and grammatical mistakes.
Analysis of the results is missing in the paper. There is a big gap between the results and conclusion.
English writing must be carefully revised.
Author Response
We are grateful for your efforts in revising the submitted work. The original manuscript has been revised and edited in accordance with your helpful suggestions.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper investigated the Energy and environmental assessment of a hybrid dish-Stirling concentrating solar power plant. The paper is interesting but, I do not think that the present manuscript is worth publishing in Sustainability journal.
Comments:
1- The abstract is not appropriate. It should be come to the point (especially in results).
2- The literature review should be improved and the author should investigate more research works in this area and add to the introduction.
3- Which criteria have been used to select the dimensions?
4- Based on what criteria the material type of the different parts has been chosen?
5- The results are not sufficient. The temperature distribution and thermal efficiency need also to be investigated.
6- Re-write and reframe the sentences throughout the manuscript to improve the quality of the paper.
Author Response
We are grateful for your efforts in revising the submitted work. The original manuscript has been revised and edited in accordance with your helpful suggestions.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study presents a numerical study on the energy and environmental assessment of a prototype of a hybrid dish-Stirling system considering three different locations. Different scenarios for managing the production period and different fuels, including renewable fuels were considered in the analysis. After reviewing the paper, I have the following main observations and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper:
- Abstract must be revised focusing on the performed work in the paper.
- The study is based on the information given in the current literature. The research contribution of the manuscript is not clear. While the authors conduct a detailed literature review, the specific gap that their work is addressing is not clearly presented. The simulation/modeling approach appears standard. Its innovative aspect is weak. The organization of the paper must be improved to focus more on the novel knowledge provided by the paper. Besides the environmental effects, additional economic aspects and cost analysis may improve the quality and impact of the paper.
- Although a hybrid system is employed in the paper, there is no acceptable validation based on the performance criteria such as energy conversion amounts, efficiencies, and COP values of the system. It is not possible to realize any useful outcome from the proposed system and the conducted work without any acceptable validation with experimental data and comparisons with the other works. An acceptable validation and error analysis for the numerical works must be performed.
- Some explanations, presentations, and justifications on the assumptions are not rigorous/clear enough to correctly understand the meaning of them. Such as paragraphs on lines 490-495; and, on lines 539-543; the title of Figure 5 (is not written in English.)
- There are several typing and language mistakes. I recommend the author read through the whole text and correct it to make it more reader-friendly.
In view of the above observations, I concluded that this paper must be substantially revised according to the comments given above for further consideration.
Author Response
We are grateful for your efforts in revising the submitted work. The original manuscript has been revised and edited in accordance with your helpful suggestions.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The results are not sufficient.
Reviewer 3 Report
After reviewing the revised form of the paper, I have the following observation. The subject is explained clearly, discussed and compared properly with enough credit given to the contributions of the authors in this field. References are well-chosen with the related subject in a time range as well as recent decades. Meaningful discussion and conclusions were made with the supporting data. All the comments from the reviewers were clearly responded by the authors, and necessary revisions were performed accordingly. In the view of the above observations, I concluded that the present form of the paper can be accepted for publication in the journal.
