Spatial Distribution of Future Demand for Space Cooling Applications and Potential of Solar Thermal Cooling Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author´s:
Is necessary added the kind of software you used for analysis the data, due to interest of the investigation and repeatability.
Correct the name of figure 11 and 12 in section 3.2.
In the figure 13 and 14 is necessary explain the range 0-5 in the label of graphic.
According with the results the countries of development will have needs of refrigeration devices, but these have a minor power economic. Exists any alternative for serve the problem considering a low cost?.
Author Response
We are very grateful for your taking time on reviewing our manuscript in such a detail and pointing out some important questions in our paper. Your comments are detailed and helpful. We have tried our best to improve the paper in accordance with all of your insightful comments and thoughtful suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please refer attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Entire proofread is required.
Author Response
We are very grateful for your taking time on reviewing our manuscript in such a detail and pointing out some important questions in our paper. Your comments are detailed and helpful. We have tried our best to improve the paper in accordance with all of your insightful comments and thoughtful suggestions. And the improper writings have been modified according to your comments. We amplified the description of our methodology and put more references for validation of our results.
The detailed responses to all of your comments are listed as follows. We really hope that these revisions could be satisfactory. Thank you very much for your great help!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Page 2 lines 55-60: better explain why you cited these states (indonesia, ...). Are the states higher in percentage? .... Later on, an insight is on the electricity grids of the different states would be interesting (e.g. ratio between cooling power and total electricity production? Or something else about the grade of ramification or resilience of the grid? Look for that)
Page 2 lines 79: rephrase to explain why you cite Nepal (it's clear after the explaination, but better to anticipate it )
Page 2 line 88: you cite the coverage of electricity demand by renewables, that is indeed important, but since the cooling has also health and wellbeing imoact, it's important to know something about the energy coverage in general, apart from renewables (that of course are important but not the only way to keep people cool and healthy). Maybe you explain it later, but I take notes as a reader that does not know that.
2.1.1: very well written chapter. Just mention the effects of a good ventilation on indoor air quality too (it's not advantageous to reduce to zero the ventilation)
2.2: you already jump to solar options, and that's fine since it's the main topic of the paper. Nevertheless, it's worth to at least mention about the alternative viable options.
LIne 275: you mention 2016, is there a most recent study?
2.2.2 seems to be out of topic considering the 2.2 chapter context. Consider moving it
Lines 328-330: consider rephrasing, it's not clear enough. I don't understand the role of the semicolon
CHapter 2.3 is hard to understand for the novel unskilled reader. COnsider modifications.
Line 381: explain QGIS software
Line 390: a full stop dot seems to be missing , the phrase is not clear
LIne 413: is there a reference behind the choice for a linear trend? if not, please justify the choice
Line 519: there's an error on "no dry summer", it shoud be "dry summer"
Figure 8: consider changing the color scale, the map results almost uniform and there are almost no details apart in the higher values regions
Line 596: why have these 3 specific cities been selected?
Figure 13: explain better white and black color legend
General comments:
- the economic expense factor is taken into account, but I think it's needed to explain better how it is put in relation with the capability to afford cooling. I guess this depends on the starting level, indeed cooling is a priority if base level goods are already present, but it will skipped otherwise. If it's not possible to include these effects in the study, at least stress on them for future studies.
- linked to the previous point, wet and dry chiller have different costs, and it's not said that where the most expensive is suitable on a technological point of view, it's affordable in cost by the population. If it's not possible to evaluate this, mention and highlight the point.
make an effort to make the paper more easily readable, many acronyms are used and that's good on one side, but they many times force the reader to scroll over the paper to understand the term.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking your time to read and review or manuscript! We are very grateful for all your interesting and expressive comments and ideas. We believe that the comments have been highly constructive and very helpful for improving our manuscript. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed corrections are listed below point by point.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Building Design and Structure Strategies - For Space cooling- the authors have mentioned about application of materials in Building Envelope for Space Cooling, but Material and Technology also plays a major role for SPACE cooling like composite walls, insulated walls etc
Mutual shading caused due to orientation and placement of buildings in site will also have major impact for space cooling.
Most of the statements are generic, the authors can take research findings from previous publications (cite it) and discuss on the conclusions
Author Response
We are very grateful for your taking time on reviewing our manuscript in such a detail and pointing out some important questions in our paper. Your comments are detailed and helpful. We have tried our best to improve the paper in accordance with all of your insightful comments and thoughtful suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
none
Author Response
We are very grateful for you taking time on reviewing our manuscript a second time. Thank you very much for your high praise! We feel very honored by your evaluation and encouraged in our work. We sincerely hope that the latest revisions and responses could be satisfactory and our paper could be acceptable.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Refer attached file.
Comments for author File:
In my point of view, the quality of the manuscript has been improved a lot by the authors.
However, some corrections are still required.
Here are my concerns/comments:
1. The authors are yet to response on my 1st comment in the previous review process.
2. English typing errors are still detected in the manuscript. Please proof read entirely.
3. As my previous comment, review on previous studies that in the same research domain as yours is required. Besides to locate the contribution of this study, this review is also important to justify the originality and/or novelty of this study (if any). If there is no previous study related to this current study, the authors can state/justify somewhere that this is new study and nobody has been done this kind of study previously (at least to the knowledge of the authors).
4. Regarding of my previous comment (comment no 14), some of the graphs i.e. Fig 8a (in new revised manuscript) is not properly presented. In this case, no unit for axis Tm-Ts is observed, while in axis of collector efficiency, unit should be only mentioned just after the name of the axis, as in Fig. 8b (not in all values in the axis). This is small issue, but give major impact on the quality of manuscript and the journal as well. Please check all Figs and Tables and do appropriate amendment.
5. Results validation is necessary for simulation study to justify the reliability of the results. It must be discussed somewhere in this article. Based on the authors’ response, direct comparison is not possible. If this is not possible, it is suggested to compare in the other aspect whichever possible and make sense and these must be discussed in the new revised manuscript.
6. In addition, the authors highlighted that the new section of general validation has been presented. Unfortunately, this section is unclear in the revised manuscript.
Many thanks.
Extensive proofread and editing of English language are required.
Author Response
We are very grateful for you taking time on reviewing our manuscript a second time in such a detail. Your comments were very helpful to improve the quality both in terms language and content. The detailed responses to all of your latest comments are listed as follows. This has greatly improved the quality of the paper. We sincerely hope that these revisions and responses could be satisfactory and our paper could be acceptable.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I think you did a nice review, even if you skipped some suggestions. Nevertheless, just give the work a final check up and for me it would be ok
Author Response
We are very grateful for you taking time on reviewing our manuscript a second. This has greatly improved the quality of the paper. We sincerely hope that these revisions and responses could be satisfactory and our paper could be acceptable.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
