Decarbonising Universities: Case Study of the University of Exeter’s Green Strategy Plans Based on Analysing Its Energy Demand in 2012–2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is interesting and it is adapted to this journal. The manuscript in its current form of presentation is extremely difficult for the reader to follow. I suggest a major revision to improve the article.

1. The abstract is extremely long. For research articles, abstracts should give a pertinent overview of the work. Rewrite the abstract in a shorter way, giving a suggestive image of your work.
2. The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. In the Introduction Section, please provide more general information on the importance of research in order to emphasize the state of the art also (first general information, then specific). The authors have not made an emphasis on highlighting what the added value or differentiating character is with respect to other similar research found in the literature. For example, I recommend that authors carry out a thorough bibliographic search, including cases of success or failure, in order to carry out a comparative analysis with their tool. The authors need to clarify and explain the difference between the current study with the available literature, as well as the main contribution of the study in order to emphasize the main research outcomes of the paper.
3. It would also be useful to present the main highlights of the paper, and at the end of the introduction, an overview of the article structure would be helpful.
4. The Materials and Methods should be described with sufficient details to allow others to replicate and build on the published results. According to the presentation of this section, it is very difficult to understand what the authors want to claim. Objective-specific data are mixed with data taken from the literature without establishing logical links between this information. For example, 2.2.1. Buildings Standards - what is the importance of this statement in the context of the scientific methodology on which the case study is built? ... or ... What is the role of "Table 1: Wind generation as a percentage of grid electricity"? ... or ... Elements that would be essential to the case study are evasively presented.... e.g. L297 „The energy consumption data of the University of Exeter was acquired ...” ... how / under what conditions / in what period were these data acquired? ... like these examples are therefore found dilemmas in all subsections.
5. „3. Theory/calculation” Section. After the section title, expect to read a calculation methodology or a theoretical approach to the topic. When a series of data is found that could rather be included as "material" or "input data" for the case study. The data collection actions or the provenance sources of these data were not very clearly specified by the authors.

Although the methodology is unclear, its were difficult to appreciate the results and the discussions.

6. Usually, conclusions are supported by the analysis or by the discussions included in the main text of the paper. Please provide and highlight relevant aspects of your work that convey the essential conclusions of your article.
7. Presentation and language issues:

• the quality of the figures should be improved;
• converting the editable document to pdf probably broke the tables and figures;
• define all notations that are used where the concept appears first mentioned in the text;
• Why is this ... "Equation 1 ... 2 etc"?

Author Response

The topic is interesting and it is adapted to this journal. The manuscript in its current form of presentation is extremely difficult for the reader to follow. I suggest a major revision to improve the article.

Comment 1: The abstract is extremely long. For research articles, abstracts should give a pertinent overview of the work. Rewrite the abstract in a shorter way, giving a suggestive image of your work.

Reply to comment 1:

• We appreciate the reviewer for the insightful comments and suggestions. The abstract has been shortened to overview the work, more specifically the aim, method and result of the paper. All the useful detail that has been omitted is repeated anyway in results or in the discussion, so no valuable information has been lost.

 

 

 

Comment 2: The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. In the Introduction Section, please provide more general information on the importance of research in order to emphasize the state of the art also (first general information, then specific). The authors have not made an emphasis on highlighting what the added value or differentiating character is with respect to other similar research found in the literature. For example, I recommend that authors carry out a thorough bibliographic search, including cases of success or failure, in order to carry out a comparative analysis with their tool. The authors need to clarify and explain the difference between the current study with the available literature, as well as the main contribution of the study in order to emphasize the main research outcomes of the paper.

Reply to comment 2:

• This paper is aimed at being a case study for analysing the current place of a university in the process of becoming a cleaner, lower emissions institution. Most universities have a published sustainability policy specifying their timely aims for becoming operationally and eventually fully carbon neutral. All universities need therefore to do what this paper aims to do in order to keep working efficiently at reaching the required or promised emission goals. The added value that this paper is showing where emissions might be reduced and how effective changes might be. It therefore does not only acts as a guide for Exeter University but also to other universities. Showing the comaparable differences in emission reductions between certain changes will prove useful to other bodies. For example the change in emissions due to change in heating techniques or the potential effect of having onsite and efficiently used electric vehicle charging points or introducing solar on available campus ground. Most input data is shown in the paper so universities could compare and make use of the stated ideas and outcomes. Available literature seems to outline that universities have been behind on their targets and therefore need more attention.

 

 

 

 

Comment 3: It would also be useful to present the main highlights of the paper, and at the end of the introduction, an overview of the article structure would be helpful.

Reply to comment 3:

 

An overview of the structure of the paper has been included to describe which sections contain what information, hopefully this increases the clarity of the paper.

 

 

Comment 4: The Materials and Methods should be described with sufficient details to allow others to replicate and build on the published results. According to the presentation of this section, it is very difficult to understand what the authors want to claim. Objective-specific data are mixed with data taken from the literature without establishing logical links between this information. For example, 2.2.1. Buildings Standards - what is the importance of this statement in the context of the scientific methodology on which the case study is built? ... or ... What is the role of "Table 1: Wind generation as a percentage of grid electricity"? ... or ... Elements that would be essential to the case study are evasively presented.... e.g. L297 „The energy consumption data of the University of Exeter was acquired ...” ... how / under what conditions / in what period were these data acquired? ... like these examples are therefore found dilemmas in all subsections.

Reply to comment 4:

 

• The materials and methods section has been changed to the original literature review and a methodology section has been highlighted which makes for clearer explanation.
• Building standards highlight the importance of building efficiency given the large amount of power that is consumed there and associated emissions.
• The role of Table 1 is to highlight that wind a good and proven method of generating renewable power in the UK and also therefore a good suggestion for further carbon offsetting for the university.
• Dates for consumption data have been inserted, this phrase stating that all available consumption data was acquired merely suggests one step in the process, more detail about the data follows and is present when portraying the data itself.

 

Comment 5: Theory/calculation” Section. After the section title, expect to read a calculation methodology or a theoretical approach to the topic. When a series of data is found that could rather be included as "material" or "input data" for the case study. The data collection actions or the provenance sources of these data were not very clearly specified by the authors. Although the methodology is unclear, its were difficult to appreciate the results and the discussions.

Reply to comment 5:

 

• I agree, more a methodology than theory/ calculation, section titles have been rewritten to more accurately portray their contents
• The sources of data are all from the university, acquired through liaising with the university sustainability team and site managers.

 

Comment 6: Usually, conclusions are supported by the analysis or by the discussions included in the main text of the paper. Please provide and highlight relevant aspects of your work that convey the essential conclusions of your article.

Reply to comment 6:

• The essential conclusions are sourced from changes and their effects shown in Figures 18-21 and Table 13. The calculations and/or sources that have effected those changes are explained in Section 5 (Results).

 

 

Comment 7: Presentation and language issues:

• the quality of the figures should be improved;
• converting the editable document to pdf probably broke the tables and figures;
• define all notations that are used where the concept appears first mentioned in the text;
• Why is this ... "Equation 1 ... 2 etc"?  

Reply to comment 7:

 

• Yes indeed, figures have been effected by multiple changes in file format, these issues have been fixed.
• A nomenclature was omitted but has been put back into the document
• Referral to equations and figures etc in text to show relevance and roles has been revised to show their relevance.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper provides a detailed insight into the University of Exeter's power consumption and emissions, that can be linked to infrastructure, waste and energy consumption in university buildings. Apart from that, the text is on the level of an excellent seminar, but not a serious scientific paper. 
In contrast to the overview of available data, the analysis and methodology lacks many details, such as the investment required, comparison with other studies on energy efficiency of large building complexes, and the availability of space/areas to include RES in the system. Energy storage systems are not analysed in detail, including ground source heat pumps, which could be analysed separately for heating as a closed deep well heat pump (typically up to 200 m depth) or as an open (using nearby groundwater) or horizontal (shallow depth) GSHP. 
The analysis only gives a suggestion for future energy use, but there is a gap between the current state and achieving the targets they propose as optimal. 
It also appears that some facilities could be replaced by new buildings, so a techno-economic analysis of improving the energy efficiency of old buildings versus constructing new ones is needed.
The paper does not offer any innovations, but merely summarises a number of options without seriously considering alternatives. 
More detailed comments can be found below:
The first paragraph (and the first three references cited) is not necessary and is too trivial for a scientific paper.
The sentence in line 68 is not clear, how can journals be completed?
The statement in line 70 (that universities are carbon intensive) should be put in some context. Compared to industry, universities' CO2 emissions are not significant.
Delete the title "Equation 4" on page 8.
In Figure 3, kindly please insert a space between figure number and title. Is it useful to compare the average energy consumption of residential buildings with that of non-residential public buildings? For example, is there any information on the use of the buildings, the number of people in these buildings, the room heights in the halls, etc.?
Table 8 is not adequately referenced. The information on food and beverages in the table is indeed strange. Perhaps it would be useful to explain in more detail what these numbers refer to (food preparation or only emissions from food waste or something else).

Author Response

The paper provides a detailed insight into the University of Exeter's power consumption and emissions, that can be linked to infrastructure, waste and energy consumption in university buildings. Apart from that, the text is on the level of an excellent seminar, but not a serious scientific paper. 

Comment 1: In contrast to the overview of available data, the analysis and methodology lacks many details, such as the investment required, comparison with other studies on energy efficiency of large building complexes, and the availability of space/areas to include RES in the system. Energy storage systems are not analysed in detail, including ground source heat pumps, which could be analysed separately for heating as a closed deep well heat pump (typically up to 200 m depth) or as an open (using nearby groundwater) or horizontal (shallow depth) GSHP. The analysis only gives a suggestion for future energy use, but there is a gap between the current state and achieving the targets they propose as optimal. 

Reply to comment 1:

• We appreciate the reviewer for the insightful comments and suggestions. The purpose of paper was for initial planning for discussion by trend analysis from available raw consumption data, the objective was to investigate emissions. Required investment and energy storage were outside the objective of paper, even though they areas that needs much focus, however the aim of the paper was to analyse available data more so. The paper aims to investigate current situation of energy consumption more so than all other required implementations.

 

Comment 2: It also appears that some facilities could be replaced by new buildings, so a techno-economic analysis of improving the energy efficiency of old buildings versus constructing new ones is needed.

Reply to comment 2:

• I agree construction of buildings is something that needs to be considered but more so when further researching a full application of changes such as the ones mentioned in the paper. This paper does not aim to detail application of such plans as such, it is aimed more at using available data and reaching conclusions through trends.

Comment 3: The paper does not offer any innovations, but merely summarises a number of options without seriously considering alternatives.

Reply to comment 3:

• The innovation is the suggested change presented by the paper in order to meet a sustainability policy target. The paper acts as a service to present trends and areas for improvement by analysing past data.

 

Comment 4: More detailed comments can be found below: The first paragraph (and the first three references cited) is not necessary and is too trivial for a scientific paper.

Reply to comment 4:

• The trivial pieces have been omitted

 

Comment 5:

The sentence in line 68 is not clear, how can journals be completed?

Reply to comment 5:

• The comment means that work has been done, documents published or research undertaken – the line has been rewritten for clarity.

Comment 6: The statement in line 70 (that universities are carbon intensive) should be put in some context. Compared to industry, universities' CO2 emissions are not significant.

Reply to comment 6:

• The comment refers to institutions not to industry. Due to density of facilities and campus users energy consumption is very high compared to any other land other than industry.

Comment 7:

Delete the title "Equation 4" on page 8.

Reply to comment 7:

• Done

Comment 8:

In Figure 3, kindly please insert a space between figure number and title. Is it useful to compare the average energy consumption of residential buildings with that of non-residential public buildings? For example, is there any information on the use of the buildings, the number of people in these buildings, the room heights in the halls, etc.?

Reply to comment 8:

• Errors again from format changes, the spaces have been
• Residences were compared alone as data for number of residents was available offering a useful comparison method for both gas and electricity consumption. Residences were also compared by internal area to each other and also to other buildings on site which would highlight buildings that may have poor heating systems or some other inefficient energy use.
• Further information for all buildings such as how many people use buildings or are present in them at any one time was not available. They only practical comparable data between all buildings was there gross internal area.

 

Comment 9:

Table 8 is not adequately referenced. The information on food and beverages in the table is indeed strange. Perhaps it would be useful to explain in more detail what these numbers refer to (food preparation or only emissions from food waste or something else).

Reply to comment 9:

• Data (Table 8) came directly from the UoE sustainability team. According to the university, all data in the table was purely from the waste, and they said that the emissions values came from published reference values. Further specific data was unfortunately unavailable.

Reviewer 3 Report

Conclusion to be precise

Analysis more explanation is required

Highlight contribution

Author Response

Comment 1:

Conclusion to be precise

Reply to comment 1:

We appreciate the reviewer for the insightful comments and suggestions. The conclusion summarises the problem, methods, results and recommendations. Precise pieces of information such as numerical information can also be found and better visualised in Section 6.2. under the results overview as to not include figures and tables in the conclusion itself.

 

Comment 2:

Analysis more explanation is required

Reply to comment 2:

A methodology section header has been put in which may better explain how analysis fit in. The main aim of the analysis is first to present data that was made available, that effects either one of the three scopes of emissions. The data is then explained along side initial analysis such as comparing building consumption by either m^2 of by resident in order to single out inefficient or over intensive buildings. This highlights areas that need attention (one of the main aims of the paper).

Comment 3:

Highlight contribution

Reply to comment 3:

The contribution is purely as a guide to the reader to see where the University of Exeter stands in its sustainability policy target. The results show how much might have to be done in order to reach these targets with a number of different methods to achieve this. Many factors come into play but hopefully a great deal has been covered in the paper. The ‘path to net zero’ does not aim to be the official route that must be taken but concentrates more on showing the extent of the work that must be done to reach their goals. Before this paper was completed, all data from the university was in raw form, no data had been reduced or combined, therefore this paper also acts as a data presentation device for the university’s energy consumption and emissions of mainly scope 1 and 2.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed the suggestions. The main manuscript has been improved according to the comments. However, the figures and tables are not of good quality. I am convinced that the conversion between the editable format and the pdf format spoils their quality. Certainly, when editing the final version, these deficiencies will be remedied.