An Evaluation of ASEAN Renewable Energy Path to Carbon Neutrality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presented article is an overview of the opportunities to increase the share of renewable energy in the ASEAN countries. The topic of the article is relevant and may be of interest to specialists and researchers in the fields of ecology, optimal use of resources, renewable energy sources, geography and sustainable development. The authors have done a fairly deep search and analysis of publications on the issue under consideration, however, as comments and recommendations, several points should be noted:

Authors should remove blank lines throughout the entire text of the article. Figure 1 should be enlarged to fully understand the information depicted on it. The description of the figures should follow before the figures themselves. All figures and tables used should be referenced in the text, as well as their descriptions. 

Figures 5-7, 9, 15, 19 are missing. Subsections 2.2 and 2.3 are missing - they they might have valuable information (wind energy and hydro energy - they should also be considered in the article). Section numbering should be corrected. Figures 13 and 23 made by the authors? All used abbreviations should be deciphered at the first mention of them.

In some places, the authors mention the low expediency of using solar energy in the region under consideration due to small free areas and low efficiency of solar modules (page 3-4, 7), however, the use of solar roofing panels with the possibility of obtaining thermal and electrical energy and installing on roof, as well as with increased overall efficiency and service life (for example, DOI: 10.4018/IJEOE.2020040106, etc.) may have great potential for implementation in the specified region and, thus, solar energy still has great potential for implementation in the region in question.

In general, the presented article leaves a positive impression, is of an overview nature, however, it is not without minor shortcomings. After eliminating these comments and taking into account the recommendations made, the presented article can be recommended for publication in the journal "Sustainability".

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to follow up on the submission of my article . I would like to express my gratitude for taking the time to review my work and for providing insightful suggestions for improvement.

I have carefully considered your comments and have made the necessary corrections to the article. I have included a detailed point-to-point correction list in the attached word file for your review. I believe that these changes have greatly improved the quality and impact of the article.

I would like to thank you again for your time and dedication in helping me improve my work. I am confident that the revisions I have made fully address your comments and that my article is now ready for publication consideration.

I would appreciate it if you could let me know your thoughts on the revised article. If there are any additional comments or suggestions, I would be happy to make any further revisions as necessary.

Thank you again for your time and guidance.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

It is a research paper from an interesting policy perspective in relation to renewable energy in ASEAN countries. Through the content and context of the article, it is judged that the potential of renewable energy in ASEAN countries was not emphasized. Rather, it is written in such a way that it has very unfavorable conditions compared to China. Overall, it was a reasonable and effective analysis of policies and the direction the country should go. However, in the potential energy evaluation, it is not felt whether ASEAN countries have potential compared to the world or whether renewable energy generation is impossible. Regarding the analysis of renewable energy facility capacity in ASEAN countries, it is necessary to accurately reproduce the effect of whether ASEAN is insufficient or slow in development compared to the world. Regarding COVID-19, it would be effective and persuasive if analyzed in relation to the current status of renewable energy facilities and government policy changes by classifying countries that have overcome the COVID-19 issue well and those that have not. The explanation of the figure is too poor. The reviewer thinks it is necessary to kindly explain the contents of the figure in detail. It is judged that a considerable level of supplementation is needed for the basic presentation and context that should be equipped as an academic article.

 

Line 33

In “In 2015, fossil fuel burning accounted for 74% of worldwide anthropogenic GHG emissions.” What is full-name of GHG ??

 

Line 49

In “Today, the globe is battling the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) with major lockdowns and limitations on movement. The COVID-19 dilemma has implications for energy supply and demand and climate change activities.”

The reviewer thinks it would be clearer if written like this, “Due to COVID-19, investment in renewable energy development is limited to overcome national financial difficulties.”

 

Section 2

In Figure 1, we think that the potential for renewable energy generation by country should be evaluated in the same way as, for example, wind power 20% and geothermal heat 30%.

 

Line 92-93

In “As a result, more installed solar PV capacity is required for the same unit of electricity generation compared to other energy sources.” Looking at Figure 2, the potential for solar power generation in ASEAN countries is low. Is the logic that additional power generation capacity should be installed to overcome this problem?

 

In Figure 4, the wind speed map seems irrelevant to the article of this paper.

 

In Section 2.4 Geothermal

 

When doing quantitative analysis, how much facility capacity does ASEAN have in the world? What I want to say is that ASEAN has less capacity for geothermal power generation. Or is it a lot?

 

In 2.5. Bioenergy

Line 144

Figure 10 seems like an odd graph out of context.

The reviewer thinks the main topic is the assessment of renewable energy potential, installed capacity, and policies for improvement in ASEAN countries. However, as comparison targets, China, Argentina, Germany, Brazil, and the US are mentioned.

 

Line 146 - 148

In “Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines have the most bioenergy potential within ASEAN. In comparison to the total energy mix supply capacity, biomass energy 1only accounts for 8%, according to a 2012 IAE assessment.” If a figure related to this is included, it seems to be more impactful.

 

Line 168

2. Factors influencing the growth of renewable energy in ASEAN countries

à 3. Factors influencing the growth of renewable energy in ASEAN countries

 

Line 178 – 179

In “Due to COVID-19, some renewable energy expenditures must be redirected toward 178 combating the epidemic, including providing relief and vaccines.” Renewable energy expenditures are limited due to investments in vaccines and national stability due to the COVID-19 issue, or a national strategy needs to be re-established in preparation for this. The reviewer thinks it should be emphasized.

 

Line 249

In “Government can provide financial incentives to develop green investments.” It is not clear which government you are referring to here.

 

How does Figure 13 relate to the context of the text? Difficult to find content and relevance.

 

Line 329 -334

What does the percentage of people hit by a vaccine shot have to do with the Energy sector??

 

Table 2: ASEAN Installed power capacity in 2020 (MW)

The facility capacity of ASEAN countries is listed, so why do the authors only write information related to Solar in Section 2? The context is so strange. The reviewer thinks the authors should focus on ASEAN. If the authors are going to do a comparative analysis, the reviewer thinks this is right between ASEAN countries or between the European Union and ASEAN.

 

Line 447

Where is the detailed description of Figure 18?

 

Line 486

 

Figure 19 was missing. In addition, it is difficult to understand because the figure is presented first and then the explanation is described.

 

Line 549.

Regarding Kanchanna et al., no references are listed for.

 

There are too many abbreviations. The reviewer recommends a brief explanation or additional nomenclatures. Ex) RE, GHG, FDI, IAE, NDCS, AMS, UNFCCC….

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to follow up on the submission of my article . I would like to express my gratitude for taking the time to review my work and for providing insightful suggestions for improvement.

I have carefully considered your comments and have made the necessary corrections to the article. I have included a detailed point-to-point correction list in the attached word file for your review. I believe that these changes have greatly improved the quality and impact of the article.

I would like to thank you again for your time and dedication in helping me improve my work. I am confident that the revisions I have made fully address your comments and that my article is now ready for publication consideration.

I would appreciate it if you could let me know your thoughts on the revised article. If there are any additional comments or suggestions, I would be happy to make any further revisions as necessary.

Thank you again for your time and guidance.

Best regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It’s a scientific report. Analysis should follow a specific scientific metho

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to follow up on the submission of my article . I would like to express my gratitude for taking the time to review my work and for providing insightful suggestions for improvement.

I have carefully considered your comments and have made the necessary corrections to the article. I have included a detailed point-to-point correction list in the attached word file for your review. I believe that these changes have greatly improved the quality and impact of the article.

I would like to thank you again for your time and dedication in helping me improve my work. I am confident that the revisions I have made fully address your comments and that my article is now ready for publication consideration.

I would appreciate it if you could let me know your thoughts on the revised article. If there are any additional comments or suggestions, I would be happy to make any further revisions as necessary.

Thank you again for your time and guidance.

Best regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Review of the manuscript: sustainability-2181835,

AN EVALUATION OF ASEAN'S RENEWABLE ENERGY PATH TO CARBON-NEUTRALITY, by

Khairul Eahsun Fahim et al.

 

In the revised manuscript the paragraphs are missing: 2.2 and 2.3 see p. 6.

On p. 9 to line 168, it is probably not 2.Factors influencing the.... but 3.Factors influencing the....

Furthermore, the formatting between paragraphs and figures is sometimes done badly by not respecting the spacing; you need to do a thorough review of the format.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to follow up on the submission of my article. I would like to express my gratitude for taking the time to review my work and for providing insightful suggestions for improvement.

I have carefully considered your comments and have made the necessary corrections to the article. I have included a detailed point-to-point correction list in the attached word file for your review. I believe that these changes have greatly improved the quality and impact of the article.

I would like to thank you again for your time and dedication in helping me improve my work. I am confident that the revisions I have made fully address your comments and that my article is now ready for publication consideration.

I would appreciate it if you could let me know your thoughts on the revised article. If there are any additional comments or suggestions, I would be happy to make any further revisions as necessary.

Thank you again for your time and guidance.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Considerable effort has been made to improve the text. However, despite this, many things that seem to require careful reviews, such as figure numbering and presentation, are found. A very careful and meticulous review is requested.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your suggestions. Following changes are made as per your suggestion. 

 

Regards 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

It’s a comprehensive report but still can’t consider it as a technical paper

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your insightful suggestions. Please find attached changes made to the file to make it better. 

 

Regards, 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx