Environmental and Economic Analysis of Heating Solutions for Rural Residences in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract:
Clarity of "impact comparisons" could be improved (English language issue). Percentages stated must be reduced to realistic significant digits (probably a maximum of two), or a detailed uncertainty propagation calculation must be given to support the digits given.
Line 43, "cleaner heating rate" ... unclear.
General: ASHP is more common than AHPS to my knowledge. Consider revising.
General: the initial discussion of reductions e.g. of CO2 when using electricity of course strongly depends on how electricity is generated in China to date. Likely, this will change to the better. Then, gas will increasingly be less favourable in comparison. Consider taking up.
DEHS higher CO2 than CBHS. What electricity generation scheme is assumed, here? What is the PE / CO2 factor of the electricity? How does this impact the results and what are expected developments here?
Line 90: using LCA does not have an environmental impact.
Line 103, EMP needs introduction prior to use.
Eqn 1 & 2 : can become < 0, define if then set to 0; give Units for eqns.
Eqn 3 (4, 5) : likely, unit conversion is necessary. State how this was done to be sure the units tally. What is "kgce"? This seems to be the final unit for PEC, however, does not seem to be "energy"?
Put a whitespace between number and unit. Is "kgce/kW*h" supposed to be kgce/kWh? or kgce h /kW (which would be the correct translation of what is written).
Line 166 : give range of COP used or reference figure (give figure).
Eqns 8 through N : (also) give units.
Figure 2 (and following) seems to use different acronyms for the heating solutions. Revise.
Lines 239 ff. see comment on nonsensical implied accuracy of percentages. Revise or give detailed uncertainty analysis.
Gas is a fossil, non-renewable fuel. This does not seem to be taken into account in the results. Possibly discuss if this is only a transitional "recommendation" or how the long term picture is envisioned.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The reviewed manuscript is at an average level when it comes to the originality of the solutions presented and the detail of the research carried out as well as the final conclusions formulated.
Despite the above reservations, the manuscript brings valuable comments to the discussion and indicates directions for further research related to the environmental and economic analysis of various heating solutions for single-family buildings in China and will certainly meet with the interest of readers from this region of the world.
This manuscript contains an environmental and economic analysis of four typical heating solutions for single-family buildings. However, it uses tools for analysis commonly known from the literature and containing significant simplifications.
The manuscript requires some changes, in particular as regards linguistic and stylistic correctness, and also requires corrections and additions to the presented text. For example, some of them are given below:
- please consider replacing the words "rural residences" with the words "single-family housing",
- it is recommended to introduce Nomenclature,
- it is recommended to introduce the List of Abbreviations used in the text,
- line 133: instead of five there should be six,
- line 313: instead of "6 x 6.14%", it is better to write "there is 6.14% for all analyzed cities
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this work, the authors investigated four heating solutions of CBHS, GBHS, DEHS and AHPS in six typical cities of China. They are compared and analyzed from the perspectives of primary energy consumption, environmental impact and heating costs. The work is interesting and meaningful.
- It is best not to have references in the abstract.
- There are many equations and models used in manuscript. If there were not created by authors, please add relevant references.
- The conclusion is a little long.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
