Economic Feasibility Analysis of Greenhouse–Fuel Cell Convergence Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research is in overall good.
Greenhouse systems nowadays are built by novel materials like thin film PV cells on facades and roofs. The electricity generated by these cells is utilised to power energy consuming devices in the greenhouse like heat pumps, HVAC units, lighting systems, etc. Overall performance assessment and environmental conditions dependency of such materials are given by solar cell parameters. In this respect, following sources can be useful for introduction: Variation of cell parameters of a p-Si PV cell with different solar irradiances and cell temperatures in humid climates. Fourth International Exergy, Energy and Environment Symposium. 19-23 April 2009, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. * Development of innovative window and fabric technologies for low-carbon buildings. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Nottingham, 2014.
The rest of the comments are as follows:
1- Please polish the language thoroughly.
2- The article lacks information about TPV. Kindly incorporate it.
3- It would be preferable to include the nomenclature.
4- The introductory section is lacking strength, and it omits more comprehensive
preliminary details and studies related to the relevant topics.
5- Some explanations include numerical data, but it is necessary to provide a reference
for the data.
6- Detailed explanations for Figures 2 and 3 are not provided. Kindly include
comprehensive explanations for these figures.
7- Can you please provide the specific context or details for "TMY," "Figure x," and
"Table x"? This information will help us provide a more accurate explanation or
paraphrase.
8- In Figure 5, there is a redundancy issue with the x-axis units where each number of
units is repeated alongside the axis despite being mentioned in parentheses. Please
address and rectify this problem.
9- Table 3 requires editing as the current format is unclear and does not convey any
comprehensible information. Please revise the table for clarity and understanding.
10- It appears that there may be a mistake, and the label "Figure 8" should possibly be
"Table 8." Please verify and correct the labelling to ensure accuracy.
11- There is an issue in Figure 8 where the text and colour overlap. This needs to be
addressed to ensure clarity and readability.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The research is in overall good.
Greenhouse systems nowadays are built by novel materials like thin film PV cells on facades and roofs. The electricity generated by these cells is utilised to power energy consuming devices in the greenhouse like heat pumps, HVAC units, lighting systems, etc. Overall performance assessment and environmental conditions dependency of such materials are given by solar cell parameters. In this respect, following sources can be useful for introduction: Variation of cell parameters of a p-Si PV cell with different solar irradiances and cell temperatures in humid climates. Fourth International Exergy, Energy and Environment Symposium. 19-23 April 2009, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. * Development of innovative window and fabric technologies for low-carbon buildings. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Nottingham, 2014.
The rest of the comments are as follows:
1- Please polish the language thoroughly.
2- The article lacks information about TPV. Kindly incorporate it.
3- It would be preferable to include the nomenclature.
4- The introductory section is lacking strength, and it omits more comprehensive
preliminary details and studies related to the relevant topics.
5- Some explanations include numerical data, but it is necessary to provide a reference
for the data.
6- Detailed explanations for Figures 2 and 3 are not provided. Kindly include
comprehensive explanations for these figures.
7- Can you please provide the specific context or details for "TMY," "Figure x," and
"Table x"? This information will help us provide a more accurate explanation or
paraphrase.
8- In Figure 5, there is a redundancy issue with the x-axis units where each number of
units is repeated alongside the axis despite being mentioned in parentheses. Please
address and rectify this problem.
9- Table 3 requires editing as the current format is unclear and does not convey any
comprehensible information. Please revise the table for clarity and understanding.
10- It appears that there may be a mistake, and the label "Figure 8" should possibly be
"Table 8." Please verify and correct the labelling to ensure accuracy.
11- There is an issue in Figure 8 where the text and colour overlap. This needs to be
addressed to ensure clarity and readability.
Author Response
Thank you for your dedication to reviewing the paper.
Please see an attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe title: Economic Feasibility Analysis of Greenhouse-Fuel Cell Convergence Systems
The main goal of the paper seems to be assessing the feasibility of integrating Greenhouse-Fuel Cell Convergence Systems (GFCS) into agricultural settings to reduce energy consumption, enhance competitiveness, and explore economic viability through farmer-led and utility-led business models.
Reviewer’s recommendation
Given the strengths in methodological rigor but noted weaknesses in contextualization (see the comments below), implications, and conclusion structure, I'd suggest revisions before publication. Strengthening the literature review (showing how this study differ from the literature, gaps in the literature, and how the current study fills such gaps), clearly defining the paper's contribution, discussing implications (to policy makers, managers, and researchers) , and refining the conclusion would significantly enhance the paper's impact and readiness for publication.
Strengths:
Thorough Analysis: The paper conducts a comprehensive analysis, employing mathematical models, sensitivity analysis, and economic evaluations to assess various aspects of integrating GFCS in agriculture.
Clear Objectives: The document clearly outlines the objectives related to energy consumption reduction, economic feasibility, and the introduction of new energy solutions.
Robust Data and Methodology: The study seems to rely on quantitative methods and simulation models, providing a structured approach to evaluating feasibility.
Weaknesses:
Literature Review: The paper lacks a comprehensive and in-depth literature review. There's limited engagement with existing research, which could undermine the context and significance of the study.
Discussion of Implications and Contribution: The document could improve by clearly articulating the significance of its findings and how they contribute to the field. The implications for practice and policy are not thoroughly discussed.
Conclusion and Future Research: While the conclusion summarizes findings, it lacks a clear delineation of the novelty, primary results, limitations, and avenues for future research.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate English proof reading is required
Author Response
Thank you for your dedication to reviewing the paper.
Please see an attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview Comments on manuscript sustainability-2758666:
In this paper, an economic evaluation is conducted for the Greenhouse-Fuel Cell Convergence Systems (GFCS), a new energy system, into a high-energy-consumption greenhouse. The topic is interesting. However, there are several concerns about this manuscript.
1) The statement “This study conducted an economic evaluation when introducing the Greenhouse-Fuel Cell Convergence Systems (GFCS), a new energy system, into a high-energy-consumption greenhouse.” Should be re-phrased [Page 1, Lines 13-15].
2) CO2 should be changed to CO2 throughout the manuscript.
3) The statement “Additionally, the emitted CO2 is enriched within the greenhouses, and the produced electricity is sold.” Should be re-phrased [Page 1, Lines 16 & 17].
4) The “Benefit-Cost Ratio (B/C)” should be changed to B/C because it already used previously on page 1 (lines 24 & 25).
5) Some of the statements in the introduction section are given without references. References should be provided for all the statements in the introduction section that are taken from the literature.
6) Instead putting a number of references at once (as given on page 1 ([4-6], [10-12], etc.)), it is recommended to discuss all the references independently.
7) The authors should provide critical review about previous studies, other than simply description of the previous studies.
8) The novelty(s)/contribution(s) of the study is not clear. I recommended that the authors should clearly explain that in the last paragraph of the introduction section using bullets.
9) All the figures should be provided in high quality.
10) It is highly recommended to improve the write up of the paper.
11) A separate discussion section should be included in the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Thank you for your dedication to reviewing the paper.
Please see an attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks to the authors for improving the manuscript, although it now seems acceptable for publication, i still have an issue with putting the discussion after the conclusion. Typically, the conclusion should be the last section or subsection. I leave this issue for the Editor to judge.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is revised based on the given comments.
