Application of Flexible Tools in Magnesia Sector: The Case of Grecian Magnesite

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This review is about the manuscript " Application of flexible tools in magnesia sector. The case of Grecian Magnesite." The research paper focuses on the potential solution of substituting fossil fuels and upgrading energy processes. Simulation tools, including a CO2 emissions/cost tool and a CFD tool, were developed to analyze the production process of Grecian Magnesite (GM) and draw economic and technical conclusions about substituting fossil fuels with various biomass types. I am over all satisfied with quality and novelty of the paper. The authors shall address the following comments in the revision.

1. Clreary mention weather a commercial software is used for RANS simulations or authers have developed their own code. In each case give complete coverning equations, which is missing in the manuscript.

2. CFD calculations are always questionable about mesh sensitivity. Add discussion what is done about mesh independence study.

3. The conclusion part is very lengthy. Revise it and add only main conclusions in this section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1- The abstract needs revision with the quantative results of the study.

2- In the intruduction sections, authors mentioned about eh CO2 emissions. Also the legal status of the CO2 should be added to the introduction section.

3- What is the contribution of this study to the engineering literature? The novelty of this study have to be added to the end of the introduction section.

4- Part 2. Use of biomass in the case of GM; looks like a introducing of private company. This section need rechecked and reorganised as differences between other calcination plants.

5- The Methodology should be concise and logical allowing interested researchers to be able to repeat your work. If needed, it could be provided with references. 

6- Uncertainty of the results needs to be discussed, especially in the context of the main findings.

7- The results and discussion are not presented well. In this context, results section have to be revised. It should be quantitative, discussed and compared with the results published in the literature.

8- 3. Materials and Methods section is to complex to understand. And repetitive expressions have been made with comparison to literature.

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors should carefully highlight the changes they made in the revised manuscript. The following recommendations are provided to enhance the quality of the manuscript:  

1)    It is crucial to incorporate more quantitative analysis to enhance the abstract.

2)    To strengthen the paragraphs in the section 1, consider including additional evidence or examples that support the statements made. This could involve referencing specific case studies, policy initiatives, or research findings related to carbon pricing and its impact on decarbonization efforts.

3)    From section 2, It is helpful to include specific details about the type and reasons of biomass used as a partial substitute for pet coke in order to reduce CO2 emissions in the text.

4)    Detailed explanation about the TGA/proximate/ultimate analyses are needed on page 10 last paragraph, also addresult trends which can be found in of  10.1016/j.seta.2023.103346. I recommend that you read and reference it.

5)    How does using flexibility tool for GM contribute to the decision-making processes, cost optimization, or environmental sustainability efforts?

6)    It is recommended that author should provide a greater depth of discussion about each figure in section 4, and not just an interpretation of what is shown in the figure. In addition, the result trends should be compared with the existing literatures; this is to ensure that they offer expected outcomes.

7)    I suggest that the author should systematize and point out the most important conclusions or take-home message from the analysis in summary. 

8)    It would be beneficial to provide a brief summary of the potential limitations or areas for further research in order to provide a balanced perspective on the study's scope and future directions.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All is done. It can be accepted.

Reviewer 3 Report

All comments from the previous version have been corrected and well done. Therefore, I recommend the article for publication.