Next Article in Journal
Understory Clearing in Open Grazed Mediterranean Oak Forests: Assessing the Impact on Vegetation
Next Article in Special Issue
Study on Carbon Emissions from the Renovation of Old Residential Areas in Cold Regions of China
Previous Article in Journal
The Discourse of Forest Cover in Vietnam and Its Policy Implications
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Techno-Economic Comprehensive Review of State-of-the-Art Geothermal and Solar Roadway Energy Systems

Sustainability 2022, 14(17), 10974; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710974
by Yuanlong Cui 1,*, Fan Zhang 2, Yiming Shao 3, Ssennoga Twaha 4 and Hui Tong 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2022, 14(17), 10974; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710974
Submission received: 8 August 2022 / Revised: 25 August 2022 / Accepted: 29 August 2022 / Published: 2 September 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an outstanding submission and should be published as soon as possible.  It addresses a problem using approaches which are only now practicable. It is noted all references are very recent. This paper will be thoroughly studied and cited.  For readers searching for references to costs there will be some questions asked.  In quoting the various experiments and trials there is an odd assortment of units of quantities and currencies.  The costs of some projects in a city or at an airport are reported as a total cost in a currency or as a NPV.  Other times costs of materials are compared as percentages. In cases the unit quantity is cost per square meter or a certain length of two lane highway.  Costs quoted by researcher Sable are in a currency designated as “R”, and only by checking the reference it becomes clear the tests are in India and the currency is Rupees. 

The submission has a wealth of figures, which are useful. I don’t know if the fonts that are small can be improved .  Eg Figure 4 a and b “Bridge slab unit” and “qconv” .

Author Response

A: Thank you very much for Reviewer’s comments. Yes, the labels in Figure 4 have been updated.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors provide an interesting and wide review within the stated topic. The paper is well organized and information presented accordingly, with the support of appropriate references. The main content of the revised studies is consistently reported and supported by adequate figures and tables. One remark deals with the methodological approach: the authors do not explain how they selected and retrieved the cited studies which is a relevant issue to understand the review coverage and the selection process (especially with reference to the time range). Which were the assumed boundaries and limitations? The authors are invited to detail these aspects immediately after the introduction within a short dedicated section (methods).

Author Response

A: Thank you very much for Reviewer’s comments. The short dedicated section has been added after the introduction section.

Back to TopTop