Prospective Life Cycle Costing of Electricity Generation from Municipal Solid Waste in Nigeria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Was an interesting read

Good study, well-argued and presented

 

In the results section to be more specific and indicate the projected results when doing a forecast

 

Figuren2 is projected results

 

I recommend the inclusion of the word projected in line 484

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

-          Some comments are provided below that could be helpful for the authors to improve their manuscript.

1)      According to the “Instructions for Authors” document, “The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum.”. It is too long.

2)      Do not put shortcuts in the abstract; you can mention it in the keywords section.

3)      Do not repeat the words mentioned in the paper title in the keywords section.

4)      The work evaluated requires a thorough review by the authors in the introduction section.

5)      The introduction does not show that the proposed objectives are new or contribute new knowledge to the topic under study. In addition, it should 2 pages max.

6)      There are still sentences in the text that are too long and hard to read. The sentence in lines 52-56 was only one example.

7)      Rewrite (see [18] and [19]) , [18-19]. In addition, others.

8)      Data in table 1. The Waste Composition of Lagos and Abuja (after [37] and [35]; complied by 193 the authors) are from 2015 (too old data)? And you mention its new data P1 L24 “Over a 20 year period (2022-2042)”.

9)      Development of Scenarios section should be removed or moved to intro section.

10)  Add reference to table 3. Molar Mass of respective element.

11)  Merge tables 5 & 6 into one table with short summarizing.

12)  Figures through 3 to 11 are hard to understand, on addition; the explanation and information’s are repeated.

13)  Conclusion part should be summarized.

14)  You should mention the impact of your work on SDG’s

15)  You should show the economic benefit from your work or add recommendations.

16)  Finally, I have to say that I do not see the own scientific research work in this study that would meet the requirements of research articles.

 

Good Luck

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the manuscript, the authors analyzed the life cycle cost prospects of generating electricity from municipal solid waste in Nigeria, for example in the two cities of Lagos and Abuja. The authors compared the potential of energy production from municipal waste in these cities. They demonstrated that Lagos showed a better economic performance for all the WtE systems than Abuja in terms of the economic indicators considered (LCC, LCOE, NPV, IRR, and PBP). The work was done correctly, and the authors well documented the conclusions with the analyzes carried out. In my opinion, the information on the solutions currently used in both cities should be supplemented. And what solutions are foreseen to be used in order to achieve the assumed values of energy yield? Can the expected differences result only from the size of the population of both cities? What other factors decide about the presented differences?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Good Work

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript can be published in preset form