Assessment of Energy Efficiency Measures’ Impact on Energy Performance in the Educational Building of Kazakh-German University in Almaty

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors calculate energy reduction by retrofitting commercial buildings using energy-efficient appliances, additional insulation, and solar panels. In terms of novelty and technicality, this paper contributes enough to get published in this journal. But before that, some minor points and explanations should be included, which are listed below:

Comments:

- The monetary cost of retrofitting has not been included. There should be a rough calculation, including the costs of interventions, and equivalently, calculate and deduct the carbon footprint of such renovations from the final numbers that the authors proposed. E.g., using solar panels adds 50 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt (it’s far less than the coal-based power plant, but still, these calculations need to be included to have a more accurate conclusion. The exact process needs to be applied for insulation and more energy-efficient appliances.

- It’s worth mentioning whether Kazakhstan has been on track to reduce carbon emissions by 15% by 2030 since the Paris agreement seven years ago. A brief discussion on what has been done so far and how much of that promise has been achieved.

- There is a missing symbol (assuming delta), in equations 7 & 8, perhaps due to PDF conversion.

- Please check the text for some minor typos. There are some extra spaces throughout the manuscript.

- The buildings’ temperature is assumed to be around 25 Celsius during winter. The suggested ambient temperature for best body functionality is 21 to 22 degrees. Therefore, without any cost (of course, there are educational and awareness costs) and only by lowering the temperature more than 5% energy will be saved (Liu et al. 2016, Using social norm to promote energy conservation in a public building, Energy and Buildings). There are similar references debating such points of view. I suggest authors add a brief paragraph discussing such intervention and its effect on their calculation. Perhaps we can save even more by integrating behavioral changes more cost-effectively.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are glad to send you corrected version of the paper according to the commentaries:

1. All references were checked and corrected
2. The revisions to the manuscript have been marked.
3. The details of revision are presented in the attached documents.
4. The text of the manuscript was checked and corrected.

If you have other questions,  let us know.

with best regards,

autors of this article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Journal: Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1771669

The paper titled "Assessment of energy efficiency measures impact on energy performance in educational building Kazakh-German University in Almaty" has the potential to be a valuable contribution to the scientific community. However, major revisions are required before this paper is of publishable quality. 

 

 

Major Comments: 

 

1. Section 1.2. References for residential and educational buildings are being mixed. You can't apply the findings of a residential building to an educational building. Please revise the references in this section pertaining to residential buildings.
2. Major language editing is required. For example, on page 5, lines 211-213 do not make any sense.
3. On page 5, Line 223, you mentioned plastic windows with double glazing. Do you mean fiberglass windows? Provide more details related to windows specifications.
4. Figure 2 needs to be improved. Specify the main dimensions and various spaces present and enhance the quality of the image.
5. Page 6, Line 229, you have mentioned a rough energy analysis for energy consumption data. Please explain how this was performed?
6. Figure 3 also does not make any sense. You cannot combine energy type (electricity) and energy usage (heat water) in one graph. Use only one form or write both associated energy types and usage for each pie chart section.
7. Page 6, Line 229-241, Explanation of energy use is confusing. Are you dealing with only electricity?
8. What do you mean by technical equipment?
9. Page 6, Line 239, what equipment was used to measure interior temperature?
10. Page 5, Line 252, "….in figure is presented"; which figure are you talking about
11. In figure 4, it seems you are using data from 2015. How were cost calculations adjusted?
12. Figure 4 needs to be improved. Any specific reason for showing data for less than two months. How is this figure adding value to your paper?
13. Figure 6 seems to have some major errors. Since annual energy consumption is the end result it should only come once in the diagram, and all related paths should be connected. Where are the economic and environmental outcomes from this study? Those should be part of this diagram. 
14. Page 8, Line 282-Line 290, are missing references.
15. Page 9, Line 327, what do you mean by "widespread and easily assessable solutions"?
16. In Table 1, what do you mean by "economic stimulation"?
17. How is replacing a window a minor renovation? Windows are not cheap and would come with significant economic costs. Furthermore, since this building was already upgraded with double glazing, the triple-glazed windows will be uneconomical.
18. Page 12, lines 414-422, tells about sub-scenarios. However, in the previous two paragraphs, you explained Windows and Roof in detail. Either provide detail of every sub-scenario or give a list.
19. What is the difference between "Full renovation scenario" and "major scenario." For me, full should be after major, as names indicate. Please remove this confusion.
20. I recommend making a single table with all four scenarios and related sub-scenarios. This will improve the readability of your work.
21. Is renewable energy generation integration another scenario? If yes, combine it with the previous section.
22. Figure 9 can be removed or made part of appendices.
23. Figure 10 needs to be improved. The text is not clear; there is overlapping in text and lines. Also, use left aligned graph as used in Figure 9 for consistency.
24. There seem to be several different figures, such as those related to U-values of insulation. Please reduce the number of figures and make the text concise.
25. Minor Comment:

• The authors' names are consistently missing from the paper. The only reference number is present. Example Sentence on Page 1, Line 44 starts with [4].
• Units should be consistent. Figure 4 uses the Celsius scale, while Page 6, Line 247, uses Kelvin.
• Figure 5 represents generic data and is not specific to the building under study. Hence, this diagram can be removed.
• Equations 7 and 8 are missing symbols and need to be corrected.
• Section 2.3, Line 376, replace "in this chapter" with "this study".
• The reference style needs to be updated to the journal format.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are glad to send you corrected version of the paper according to the commentaries:

1. All references were checked and corrected
2. The revisions to the manuscript have been marked.
3. The details of revision are presented in the attached document.
4. The text of the manuscript was checked and corrected.

If you have other questions, let us know.

best regards,

Nassipkul Dyussembekova

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All my comments have been addressed in a proper way. From my side, the paper is now ready for publication.