Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Wind Turbines: A Path to Sustainability with Challenges
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study 'Life cycle environmental impacts of wind turbines: A path to sustainability with challenges' raises the interesting topic of assessing the environmental impact of a wind power generation turbine from a life cycle perspective. This is an important issue, worthy of scientific recognition. For research purposes, the authors conducted a comprehensive literature review and analysed the life-cycle environmental impacts of wind turbines of two sizes. Modelling was supported by GaBi software and the Ecoinvent database. Findings in the area of impact were determined using the CML 2 Baseline 2001 method.
The abstract of the article presents the background of the study and its subject. The research methodology and overall main findings are indicated. The importance of the research strand undertaken is also highlighted. An unattributed summary.
The introductory section elaborates on the research background signalled in the abstract with a section by section breakdown. I believe that the introductory section should have been more broadly discussed in terms of threat potential. It would have been valuable to indicate the potential for social concerns related to the development of the wind energy sector, including environmental ones. In this respect, it would be worthwhile to study recent literature e.g. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17092068, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52943-6_10. This would enable an enrichment of the literature, especially when a stand-alone 'literature review' section is not included in the article.
Section "2. 2. Wind Energy and Life Cycle Sustainability" developed very well and is a strong part of the study.
Section 2.3 - under the figure (line 213) and under the table (line 267) the text needs to be completed.
Section 3 results presented clearly.
The paper lacks a discussion section in which the authors discuss the findings of their own research in relation to existing literature findings.
The conclusion section should be expanded and relate more strongly to the purpose of the study and the researchers' findings. Here, the study's contribution to theory and practice should be highlighted, demonstrating its novelty.
In conclusion, the study presented here is interesting and addresses an important contemporary topic. However, the structure should be improved (expand the introduction to include the social aspect of environmental concerns in relation to wind energy development, supplement the article with a discussion point, expand the conclusion). In addition, the references should be enriched with the latest literature.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study evaluates the environmental impacts of two wind turbines from the life cycle perspective. For this purpose, a literature review is conducted, and the life cycle environmental impacts of two 3.6 MW and 4.8 MW wind turbines in Turkey are analyzed.
I have suggestions for improving the article's presentation below and some questions.
General comments:
1. My main concern is the novelty of the work. I recommend that authors clearly show the contributions of their work.
2. The structure of the article is not well defined. For example, subsection 2.2 is presented, and there is no section 2 nor subsection 2.1. It is necessary to review the journal's guidelines on article structure.
Specific comments:
Introduction.
1. The authors' data on the increase in energy use is significant. To further enhance the article's impact, it would be beneficial to include a graph illustrating the historical evolution of installed wind capacity worldwide.
2. I suggest improving the wording between lines 103-107 so that the article's novelty and contributions are clearly evidenced.
Wind Energy and Life Cycle Sustainability.
1. Line 122 mentions, "Today, wind energy is the most significant renewable energy source." I do not understand. Is it the one with the largest installed capacity? Clarify this statement or elaborate on its argumentation. It may be necessary to contrast the information with a recent article.
2. In line 132, there is an error. Reference source not found.
3. In Figure 1, the information on the abscissa axis needs to be clarified. Please put the years in a vertical orientation. What does the red color in the bars in Figure 1 represent? Why is "energy" in labels in the legend of Figure 1?
4. In Table 1, the authors use undefined nomenclature, such as ADP and GHG.
Case Study: Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of a Wind Turbine.
1. I recommend providing the reader with more information on the benefits and limitations of the software used in the study.
2. What does the acronym CML stand for?
3. In line 220, there is an error. Reference source not found.
4. Table 2 is not referenced in the text preceding it.
Results.
1. Could you explain why Figure 5 does not show the results related to the transportation stage?
Conclusions.
1. I recommend expanding and deepening the section on future works.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article relates to the field of ecology. In their work, the authors provide a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts of wind energy production from a life cycle perspective. By comparing wind turbines of two different sizes (4.8 and 3.6 MW), the authors assess the environmental friendliness of disposal and the environmental friendliness of the electrical energy produced. In my opinion this is a very important study. Since modern literature rarely talks about the environmental damage caused by the recycling of wind power plants (in particular turbine blades). Using GaBi software and the Ecoinvent database, the study found that a 4.8 MW turbine had a lower environmental impact than a 3.6 MW turbine. The construction phase of wind turbines is considered the most environmentally damaging, highlighting the need to recycle materials at the end of the plant's life to reduce unwanted environmental impacts by up to 49%. However, I consider this study incomplete. It would be useful to list the factors that influence ecologies at each stage of the life cycle. This would show that, for example, harmful substances are used in the production of blades, and when the turbine operates, microvibration is created and kills nature within a radius of up to 120 meters around the power plant, etc. Table #1 is great! I express my gratitude to the authors for compiling it.
Notes:
1. The work must be supplemented with a table listing harmful factors at each stage of the life cycle.
2. Figure 3. You must indicate the author of this figure.
3. Table 3. It is necessary to indicate on the basis of what data this table was obtained. Does this data violate the interests of third parties?
4. Line 290. There is some ambiguity in the work: the turbines are different in power, and therefore different in size. Consequently, less resources are spent on them. This means they are environmentally friendly. I think it's worth articulating this more clearly.
5. The conclusions in the article are of a general nature. The results need to be reformulated and clearly presented in a bulleted list.
General remarks.
1. The article is in the nature of news. It is necessary to add discussions, conclusions, and analysis.
2. Some wording in the text is ambiguous. I recommend reading the text of the article by a native speaker.
3. The work must be reviewed for availability as described. For example, in table 3
"Freight train 2500 km
Lorry 150km"
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript deals with the assessment of the environmental impact of wind turbines (3.6 and 4.8 MW) on electricity production in Turkey from the perspective of life cycle. The impacts were estimated using CML 2 Baseline 2001.
The implementation of analogical studies is crucial in reducing the environmental impacts of wind energy, which will play an important role in the future of the energy sector.
Comment:
1) Line 108: incorrect chapter numbering (2.2)
2) Line 132: Error! Reference source not found.
3) In Figure 1, the red part of the columns should be explained in the legend
4) Line 220: Error! Reference source not found.
5) The conclusion is written very generally. It should also include a summary of the results achieved in the study
6) Underlining the scientific contribution of the article is also missing (new findings etc).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents the case study of two turbines from Turkey for which the authors perform a life cycle assessment and compare their environmental impact.
The topic is much addressed in the literature, results being published in the last years all over the world.
The reference list should be extended with results in the field from the last two years, as the technology has evolved, and the environmental impact has decreased.
The state-of-the-art presentation should include the method used for the life-cycle assessment and environmental impact estimation and the results obtained in terms of optimization.
The drawbacks of the published research should be stressed out in detail. The highlights of the paper should be presented versus previous results (including the authors’ own results, i.e. references 4, 8, 10, 11, 58).
The authors should use the international unit MW instead of MWs (the plural form is included).
The rotational energy is, in fact, mechanical energy.
Lines 133-138 are repeated on the following page.
The discussion section should propose actions that can reduce the impact of wind turbines in each phase of the life cycle by considering the research results.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are some English grammar problems that should be corrected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthe paper presents a comprehensive review on the studies conducted on the environmental impact of wind turbines. Also, authors analyzed the environmental impact of two sizes of wind turbine in Turkey. The topic is good! the structure of the paper should be improved. my comments are
-Reference is missed in lines 40-41
-lines 40-43 not clear!
- where is the start of part 2? author start with 2.2
- in the introduction paragraph: authors repeat information! it is long with repetitive info! the introduction should be re-written! Also, some sentence should be written in a correct form
- line 32 and 220: Error! Reference source not found! please check it
- the LCA used should be presented in the paper! authors just presented the methodology and the results! they just mentioned that it is SO 14040/44 methodology.
- in Line 269: what is on CML methodology?
- the distribution of environmental impacts for various life stages presented in Figure 5 is for both sizes of wind turbines? authors presented the distribution of environmental impacts for various life stages for both turbines in Table 4! so what about Figure 5? if it is not created by authors, could please add reference
- the analysis in lines 301-312 i based on which figure or results? authors presented results in 2021 and compare them to previous results! and in Table 5, results are for the year 2022!
- conclusion part should does not completely present the aim and the results of the paper.
- As per obtained results, the big size of wind turbine has lowest environmental impact? please clarify this point@
Comments on the Quality of English Languageextensive editing is required!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have improved the article in line with the comments made in the review.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have followed the suggestions and recommendations to improve the article's quality.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors answered properly to my previous comments. I recommend accepting the manuscript.
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsauthors updated the manuscript according to my comments!
