An Experimental Demonstration of the Effective Application of Thermal Energy Storage in a Particle-Based CSP System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper proposes solutions to mitigate charging losses in thermal energy storage bin.

I enjoyed reading the manuscript. The paper establishes a link with previous related literature, and it brings a contribution to scientific research. The choices of materials and methods of analysis are duly substantiated and the potential use for the proposed solutions in commercial plants context is discussed. Overall, the paper readability is quite good.

My suggestions and remarks for the authors are:

1) Add to the introduction a paragraph with the main findings the paper provides. This will further stimulate the reader to continue reading the paper carefully.

2) Exemplify the interpretation of values in Table 2, for example using data for one case. Also, regarding the last sentence prior to the table, given that (although slightly) the rate heat loss effectively changes along the different conditions tested in the 5 cases, I suggest that “heat loss remained constant” is replaced per “heat loss remained relatively constant”.

3) Typos’ corrections. The following few minor issues should be corrected:

a. In the antepenultimate sentence of the abstract, starting with “lastly”, this word should start with a capital letter.

b. In page 2, the 4th sentence of the first paragraph starting at that page requires a closing of parenthesis after >1200⁰C.

c. In the same paragraph the lasts sentence starts incorrectly with a lower case.

d. In page 7, conclusions ii. and iii. have a higher spacing between lines than conclusion i. and the rest of the text.

e. In page 11, third line of the first paragraph, there should be a full stop after “… the results of those tests” instead of a comma.

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer Comments

First of all, we would like to thank you for the valuable comments. After incorporating the comments, we believe that the paper is in a much better shape. We would like to inform you that, we did respond to most of the comments in the second version of the submission, for convenience, replies for the all comments are listed herein.

Reviewer 1

The paper proposes solutions to mitigate charging losses in thermal energy storage bin.

I enjoyed reading the manuscript. The paper establishes a link with previous related literature, and it brings a contribution to scientific research. The choices of materials and methods of analysis are duly substantiated and the potential use for the proposed solutions in commercial plants context is discussed. Overall, the paper readability is quite good.

My suggestions and remarks for the authors are:

• Add to the introduction a paragraph with the main findings the paper provides. This will further stimulate the reader to continue reading the paper carefully.

Response: Done; the following is added to last paragraph of the introduction “The charging heat loss is minimized by minimizing/eliminating the amount of entrained air. When the charging loss decreased in the KSU test facility, the temperature of the circulated particles increased.”

2) Exemplify the interpretation of values in Table 2, for example using data for one case.

Response: Done; the following is added to line 301 just prior to Table 2 “In Table 2, case number 3 is the one for which results are shown in Figure 7.”

• Also, regarding the last sentence prior to the table, given that (although slightly) the rate heat loss effectively changes along the different conditions tested in the 5 cases, I suggest that “heat loss remained constant” is replaced per “heat loss remained relatively constant”.
• Response: Thank you. Added

3) Typos’ corrections. The following few minor issues should be corrected:

1. In the antepenultimate sentence of the abstract, starting with “lastly”, this word should start with a capital letter.

Response: Thank you. Fixed

1. In page 2, the 4th sentence of the first paragraph starting at that page requires a closing of parenthesis after >1200⁰C.

Response: Thank you. Fixed

1. In the same paragraph the lasts sentence starts incorrectly with a lower case.

Response: Thank you. Fixed

1. In page 7, conclusions ii. and iii. have a higher spacing between lines than conclusion i. and the rest of the text.

Response: Thank you. Fixed

1. In page 11, third line of the first paragraph, there should be a full stop after “… the results of those tests” instead of a comma.

Response: Thank you. Fixed

Reviewer 2 Report

 The manuscript entitled "An Experimental Demonstration of the Effective Application of Thermal Energy Storage in a Particle-Based CSP System" aims at the particle-based CSP test facility at King Saud University to demonstrate viable solution to overcome the limitations of using molten salt as a working medium in power plants.  This work is interesting and well done.  The comments are presented as follows:

1.  The use of solid particles as a working and storage medium in CSP systems
overcome issues that have been realized with molten salt such as stability limit, corrosion, the need for heat tracing, and operating temperature [1-4].  

 The latest literatures about hydrogen energy need be cited, such as C. Wan, L. Zhou, S.M. Xu, B.Y. Jin, X. Ge, X. Qian, L.X. Xu, F.Q. Chen, X.L. Zhan, Y.R. Yang, D.G. Cheng, Defect engineered mesoporous graphitic carbon nitride modified with AgPd nanoparticles for enhanced photocatalytic hydrogen evolution from formic acid, Chem. Eng. J. 429 (2022) 132388; Zhang Chenyang，Pan Kunming，Xu Liujie，Zhou Yucheng，Li Xiuqing，Zhang Qiaobao. Preparation and Development of Single Crystals of High Temperature Structural Metal Materials. Chinese Journal of Rare Metals. 2021,45(5):541-550.

2. The clarity of the Figure 3 should be improved.

3. The subscripts and subscripts of some characters should be carefully checked.

line 193: 75% (Al2O3), 11% (SiO2) 9% (Fe2O3), 3% (TiO2), and

line 365: 1 m3.  

4. There should be a space between the number and the unit.

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer Comments

First of all, we would like to thank you for the valuable comments. After incorporating the comments, we believe that the paper is in a much better shape. We would like to inform you that, we did respond to most of the comments in the second version of the submission, for convenience, replies for the all comments are listed herein.

 

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 The manuscript entitled "An Experimental Demonstration of the Effective Application of Thermal Energy Storage in a Particle-Based CSP System" aims at the particle-based CSP test facility at King Saud University to demonstrate viable solution to overcome the limitations of using molten salt as a working medium in power plants.  This work is interesting and well done.  The comments are presented as follows:

1.  The use of solid particles as a working and storage medium in CSP systems overcome issues that have been realized with molten salt such as stability limit, corrosion, the need for heat tracing, and operating temperature [1-4].  

 The latest literatures about hydrogen energy need be cited, such as:

• Wan, L. Zhou, S.M. Xu, B.Y. Jin, X. Ge, X. Qian, L.X. Xu, F.Q. Chen, X.L. Zhan, Y.R. Yang, D.G. Cheng, Defect engineered mesoporous graphitic carbon nitride modified with AgPd nanoparticles for enhanced photocatalytic hydrogen evolution from formic acid, Chem. Eng. J. 429 (2022) 132388;
• Zhang Chenyang，Pan Kunming，Xu Liujie，Zhou Yucheng，Li Xiuqing，Zhang Qiaobao. Preparation and Development of Single Crystals of High Temperature Structural Metal Materials. Chinese Journal of Rare Metals. 2021,45(5):541-550.

Response: Thanks indeed for this valuable comment. We have thoroughly searched the up to date research, updated the literature review and included at least 10 more research papers which are latest and relevant to our research field. Unfortunately, we could not find relevance of the suggested papers with our field.

2. The clarity of the Figure 3 should be improved.

Response: We have modified he Figure clarity.

3. The subscripts and subscripts of some characters should be carefully checked.

line 193: 75% (Al2O3), 11% (SiO2) 9% (Fe2O3), 3% (TiO2), and

Response: Thank you. Fixed

line 365: 1 m3.  

Response: Thank you. Fixed
4. There should be a space between the number and the unit.

Response: Thank you. Fixed

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

After reviewing the article, I noticed the following:

1. The title of the research is well-matched and related to the work done. Also, appropriate key studies have been included in this research.
2. The abstract section is generally good and contains the aims of work, the summary of work and contain some quantitative analysis of the results.
3. The manuscript needs the Nomenclature.
4. From a scientific point of view, this paper presents good information about the effective application of  thermal energy storage in a particle-Based CSP System.
5. The references are sufficient and up-to-date.
6. The control strategy and proposed method are very good.
7. The manuscript's analyses, results, and conclusions were logical for the data used.
8. The topic subject of this paper may be somewhat matched with the topic of the sustainability journal.

 

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer Comments

First of all, we would like to thank you for the valuable comments. After incorporating the comments, we believe that the paper is in a much better shape. We would like to inform you that, we did respond to most of the comments in the second version of the submission, for convenience, replies for the all comments are listed herein.

 

Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the article, I noticed the following:

1. The title of the research is well-matched and related to the work done. Also, appropriate key studies have been included in this research.

Response: Thank you.

1. The abstract section is generally good and contains the aims of work, the summary of work and contain some quantitative analysis of the results.

3. Response: Thank you.

1. The manuscript needs the Nomenclature.

Response: Done, nomenclature is added after the conclusion.

1. From a scientific point of view, this paper presents good information about the effective application of thermal energy storage in a particle-Based CSP System.

Response: Thank you.

1. The references are sufficient and up-to-date.

Response: Thank you.

1. The control strategy and proposed method are very good.

Response: Thank you.

1. The manuscript's analyses, results, and conclusions were logical for the data used.

Response: Thank you.

1. The topic subject of this paper may be somewhat matched with the topic of the sustainability journal.

Response: Thank you.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx