Actual Quality Changes in Natural Resource and Gas Grid Use in Prospective Hydrogen Technology Roll-Out in the World and Russia
, Kirill Gogolinskiy 1, Yousef Dellal 2, Ivan Sytko 1 and Abhishek Joshi 3,4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors present a bibliographic study where the possibility of implementing the existing natural gas grids for ensuring the development of hydrogen technologies is investigated.
The paper is well written, and focus especially about the current scenario of the hydrogen economy in some countries in the world.
The feedback is positive, and the article deserves to be published in Sustainability. Nevertheless, some questions/remarks are reported here:
- The purpose of the paper sounds unclear. The paper has been submitted as a Review about the possibility of adapting the current infrastructures for natural gas into hydrogen. Nevertheless, the structure of the paper, divided into an (I) Introduction, (II) General Information, (III) Results and (IV) Discussion, looks like a Research Paper. Indeed, it seems that the study focuses especially on the perspectives in Russia for the implementation of hydrogen energy in the next years to come. I would suggest to: either (i) keep the paper as a review, but focusing on a worldwide study (meaning that what is used as an Appendix must be used instead as the main body of the paper), or (ii) changing the paper as a Research Paper but, the most important, to change the name of the title, specifying here that the study focuses on Russian policies
- The paper mentions in several part the need of implementing efficient storage and transportation methods for liquid hydrogen. It would be interesting if the paper could also mention some information about the compressed hydrogen solution, which is the most cost-efficient solution to date to store and transport hydrogen.
- Likewise, it would be interesting to compare the implementation of turquoise hydrogen with the green hydrogen solution, giving some information about the policies and solutions about that for the next years.
Author Response
Point 1: The purpose of the paper sounds unclear. The paper has been submitted as a Review about the possibility of adapting the current infrastructures for natural gas into hydrogen. Nevertheless, the structure of the paper, divided into an (I) Introduction, (II) General Information, (III) Results and (IV) Discussion, looks like a Research Paper. Indeed, it seems that the study focuses especially on the perspectives in Russia for the implementation of hydrogen energy in the next years to come. I would suggest to: either (i) keep the paper as a review, but focusing on a worldwide study (meaning that what is used as an Appendix must be used instead as the main body of the paper), or (ii) changing the paper as a Research Paper but, the most important, to change the name of the title, specifying here that the study focuses on Russian policies.
Response 1: suggestion (i) was chosen prenending for a worldwide trends. Appendix contents has been transferred to the main body of the paper.
Point 2: The paper mentions in several part the need of implementing efficient storage and transportation methods for liquid hydrogen. It would be interesting if the paper could also mention some information about the compressed hydrogen solution, which is the most cost-efficient solution to date to store and transport hydrogen.
Response 2: There were added 3 abstracts coloured in turquise at page 4-5 including some new references, which deal with the pointed matter.
Point 3: It would be interesting to compare the implementation of turquoise hydrogen with the green hydrogen solution, giving some information about the policies and solutions about that for the next years.
Response 3: There are an abstact added at page 3 and the other one in 6. Provision section (coloured in turquise).
Thank you very much for incisive comments!
Reviewer 2 Report
In the present work, the authors studied “Actual quality changes for natural resources and gas grids use in prospective of hydrogen technologies expansion”. The manuscript needs to be improved with more references and some pictorial representation. As a reviewer, I would suggest that this manuscript is not acceptable at the present standard, but with major changes, it can be.
First of all, the Title is not suitable for the submitted manuscript, I suggest the change of Title.
The introduction of the manuscript should be modified and add more references.
I feel too many keywords, SO, keywords should be changed to a minimum number.
Sentences like “the current level of anthropogenic CO2 emissions only by an average of 20%, and primarily in cities” “scientific publications in the world on hydrogen energy and transport has reached new levels” and “the production of hydrogen fuel in various ways as well as hydrogen fuel cells and energy systems” etc. (in the whole manuscript) have no meaning without references.
A pictorial representation of “It should be noted that in recent decades, and especially in 2019-2023…” publications on hydrogen production should be presented.
The introduction should be modified in a way that this article and its significance at the end of the introduction, not in between the paragraphs. Place the significance of the article in a single paragraph at the end of the introduction, not like this “The purpose of this article…”“The part of the publications addressed to investors…”
“Such a low “future” cost of hydrogen can become an additional incentive for the speedy transition to the widespread use of such “economical” resource.” How?? Explain??
So many missing references throughout the article.
A pictorial representation of different colors of hydrogen is needed.
“Water electrolysis produces clean H2”: however, the majority of the current electricity is supplied by using carbon-based fuels, so how do you support the carbon neutrality with the H2 produced by water electrolysis?
Why do bullet points end with a semicolon (;) not with a pulstop (.)?
Fig1-4: there is no Y-axias. Why?
Fig 1 is based on the 2015 reports. Why do you prefer this old report?
“The average cost of HFCV engine for the period 2015-2022 has not decreased significantly.” How do you know? These kinds of unnecessary statements should be avoided.
“The United States was the leader in the number of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in use until 2020, followed by South Korea.” This statement is not true one can see it from Table 1.
Pictorial representation for the roadmaps is required for the easy understanding of readers.
Table 2 has no meaning without references.
Fig5 & 6 should be redesigned in an interesting way.
Section 4 title should be re-written without discussion.
A prospective section should be added.
The current conclusion section should be renamed.
Conclusions should be short and pinpointed.
I believe the authors need one more chance to provide more characterization study and good interpretation of data.
no english mistakes are found but nee to check one more time.
Author Response
NB. All modifications in text of the paper were made in blue color
Point 1: First of all, the Title is not suitable for the submitted manuscript, I suggest the change of Title
Response 1: We moved the Appendix contents to the main body of the paper in a pursuit to keep about the initial title and also changed it slightly
Point 2: The introduction of the manuscript should be modified and add more references
Response 2: We placed several new abstracts to the Introduction and added about 20 new references
Point 3: I feel too many keywords, SO, keywords should be changed to a minimum number
Response 3: Keywords were reduced to: “natural resources use; hydrogen energy; hydrogen production method; hydrogen fuel–cell vehicle (HFCV), complex efficiency index for hydrogen synthesis (conversion)”
Point 4: Sentences like “the current level of anthropogenic CO2 emissions only by an average of 20%, and primarily in cities” “scientific publications in the world on hydrogen energy and transport has reached new levels” and “the production of hydrogen fuel in various ways as well as hydrogen fuel cells and energy systems” etc. (in the whole manuscript) have no meaning without references.
Response 4: These were fixed out as we feel. Referenes added.
Point 5: A pictorial representation of “It should be noted that in recent decades, and especially in 2019-2023…” publications on hydrogen production should be presented
Response 5: That work we were not able to perform with a sufficient quality in September, unfortunately, but it could be made in some future. Several referenced were supplied
Point 6: The introduction should be modified in a way that this article and its significance at the end of the introduction, not in between the paragraphs. Place the significance of the article in a single paragraph at the end of the introduction, not like this “The purpose of this article…”“The part of the publications addressed to investors…”
Response 6: The point was considered, introdiction modified.
Point 7: “Such a low “future” cost of hydrogen can become an additional incentive for the speedy transition to the widespread use of such “economical” resource.” How?? Explain??
Response 7: The phrase at the bottom of the page 2 was rewritten to: “Abstractly, taking into account the multiple prices growth for natural gas and electricity in the markets of the EU and Asia-Pacific countries during the peak months of 2022, such a low “future” cost of hydrogen virtually serves as an additional incentive for the speedy transition to the wide spread use of such “feasible” resource”.
Point 8: A pictorial representation of different colors of hydrogen is needed.
Response 8: It was made at the page 3, table 1.
Point 9: “Water electrolysis produces clean H2”: however, the majority of the current electricity is supplied by using carbon-based fuels, so how do you support the carbon neutrality with the H2 produced by water electrolysis?
Response 9: The phase in the abstract was modified. It could be seen from the table 1 that today hydrogen is supplied by using carbon-based fuels. While China started to implement huge projects of Green H2, using "solar and wind" electricity.
Point 10: Why do bullet points end with a semicolon (;) not with a pulstop (.)?
Response 10: We used to mark it that way, however it was not a problem to change.
Point 11: Fig1-4: there is no Y-axias. Why?
Response 11: At the names of the figures the units and info for Y axias are given. If needed we’ll fix it also in pictures
Point 12: Fig 1 is based on the 2015 reports. Why do you prefer this old report?
Response 12: We commented under the figure and in Provision section.
Point 13: The average cost of HFCV engine for the period 2015-2022 has not decreased significantly.” How do you know? These kinds of unnecessary statements should be avoided.
Response 13: Some references were added
Point 14: “The United States was the leader in the number of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in use until 2020, followed by South Korea.” This statement is not true one can see it from Table 1.
Response 14: fixed
Point 15: Pictorial representation for the roadmaps is required for the easy understanding of readers.
Response 15: It was made – figure 6.
Point 16: Table 2 has no meaning without references.
Response 16: Some references could be seen in the excel table, which is suppled for the table 3 (now) and figure 7 (latter figure 5). To find the appropriate reference for every point with a sufficient dedication it was not possible for us in September, unfortunately (as the information is controverial enough), but it could be made in some future.
Point 17: Fig5 & 6 should be redesigned in an interesting way.
Response 17: We tried to perform that (now figuree 7 & 8).
Point 18: Section 4 title should be re-written without discussion.
Response 18: fixed
Point 19: A prospective section should be added.
Response 19: added
Point 20: The current conclusion section should be renamed. Conclusions should be short and pinpointed.
Response 20: tried to do that.
Thank you very much for incisive comments and a lot of Your attention to our paper!
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I recommend the publication of the paper in the present form
Reviewer 2 Report
In the present work, the authors studied “Actual quality changes for natural resources and gas grids use in prospective of hydrogen technologies roll-out in the world and Russia”. The revised version of the manuscript is greatly improved in many sections. As a reviewer, I would suggest that this manuscript is acceptable.
I suggest authors add the y-axis to the figures.
Finally, I would like to suggest authors make thorough language corrections.
English language is good
