Sustainable Heating and Cooling Management of Urban Quarters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work demonstrates the sustainable energy resources and the corresponding management for the heating and cooling of urban quarters, which is an interesting investigation on this topic. However, the manuscript totally looks more like an engineering report rather than a study paper. I see the following major issues that should be resolved:

(1) The introduction is not well presented. There are only two literatures in this section. The reviewer suggests that more literatures discussed this topic should be added in the introduction of this manuscript.

(2) Section 3.3. Numerical investigations: The reviewer cannot find the mathematical model and the corresponding boundary conditions. In addition, the numerical calculation measure and the validation are also absent. Therefore, the readers are incapable of determining the correctness of the numerical results.

(3) Section 4. Ecological evaluation of the concept: The detailed model and the calculation process of the life-cycle assessment are also not provided in this section.

(4) The figure number is not correctly displayed and well organized. For example, L234, L238, L240, L246, etc. In addition, L314: Figure 6.b may be Figure 4.b. L400: Figure 8 b may be Figure 6 b. Figure 10 in the original manuscript should be Figure 9, and Figure 9 may be Figure 10.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This work presents a project namely IWAES for the distribution and generation of thermal energy. The project uses an available infrastructure of urban water management system. The innovative concept bases on the proposed approach modifies the sewers to transport thermal energy between users in the same urban quarter and to extract thermal energy from the sewage. This manuscript is will-written and can be accepted after minor revision. The comments are shown as follows.

1. The abstract should highlight more about the core idea or the proposed method of this work.
2. In the main context, the authors should point the advantage of the proposed method compared with the previous ones in literature.
3. It is recommended to present more context in the Section “Study area Rosenstein district”. This will make the manuscript more understandable.
4. The conclusion section should be rewritten and some data of the test result can be included in it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The article addresses the highly topical issue of finding new energy sources, in this case wastewater. The proposed methodology for obtaining and transporting thermal energy is interesting, but I am not sure whether it is also applicable in real conditions. The authors refer to the newly built district where such a system should be used.

I have a few comments about the article

• Not all references show me correctly, e.g. lines 234, 238, 240, etc.
• There are errors in the numbering of the figures as well as in the references to them.
• In the text from line 393, the authors state that in the figure below the temperature of the sewer air is constant and largely independent of the surface temperature and also not directly dependent on the wastewater temperature. However, as continues from line 398, authors stated that there is a direct relationship between sewer air temperature and wastewater temperature. I think these are conflicting conclusions.
• Equation 1 does not explain the variables.
• Fig. 8 on page 11: it is not entirely clear to me how the authors determined the Global Warming Potential of their proposed IWAES.
• I think that the article could be shortened.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is extremely interesting and actual. It is a great contribution to scholarship.

For sure, the readers will appreciate it and will have a high impact.

I only suggest the authors to do a last proofreading to eliminate any language errors and flaws.

Congratulations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Authors have advocated in their study for sustainable management of heating and cooling in urban districts. The subject that is exposed in the work is of special interest, the authors make a predominantly descriptive presentation, the chosen example study area being the district of Rosenstein in Stuttgart. The authors highlight the use of hybrid sewers to extract thermal energy from wastewater, as well as to transport thermal energy through urban neighborhoods.

However, there are some aspects that would help the authors to improve the article:

On line 96 of the manuscript there is an error in the reference. Similarly, lines 234, 238, 240 and 246 of the article seem to refer to each of the sections in Figure 2, but errors appear in the manuscript. I also get the same error on line 360.

The Introduction section allows space for further elaboration. It would be useful to refer to a greater number of sustainable heating and cooling management systems, and thus considerably increase the number of bibliographical references and subsequently, compare the results with those of this study.

Adapting the article to a format with analysis, discussion and conclusion could improve the form and structure of the article, the authors must previously define some research questions and develop those sections around them. This contribution will help the reader to understand all the aspects that the authors wish to cover and to better detect the indicators of strengths and weaknesses of their proposal on heating and cooling in urban neighborhoods, in addition to obtaining deeper and more grounded conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript can be accepted.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is sufficiently improved and can be published.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear authors,

Once it has been verified that the modifications suggested in the previous review have been made and some formal aspects of the article have been clarified, I will proceed to reevaluate it.

.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.