Renewable Wind Energy Implementation in South America: A Comprehensive Review and Sustainable Prospects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has merit, but some issues have to be corrected before acceptance. Generally, the structure of the text and clarity of figure need improvement.

·      Abstract is too long, it should be written in a more concise way. 

·      A cost comparison among the RES discussed should be included, in order to support the analysis in section 1.1.

·      Also in section 1.1, it would be suggestive for the reader if the Authors could include a map with the location and size (proportional representation is advisable, if possible) of the plants listed.

·      Numbers in Figure 7 do not add up after EC2 (346 documents – 244 documents discarded = 184??)

·      Figures 8-10 are not clear, not visually (labels are illegible) and not enough explained.

·      In Figure 11, there are more segments on the pie chart than the legend reveals.

·      The comparison resulting from the table data should keep the same references across tables for traceability (USA, China, etc.).

·      Conclusions refer to a prediction (“by 2023…”). Now being 2024, is that up to date?

·      Considering the Authors have included an Abbreviations list, the explanations in text should be limited (for instance in the title of Table 8).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English should be revised in order to improve clarity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please, put line numbers in your manuscript. In this way it is easier to make specific comments.

The comments of Figure 9 are not fully correct: it is true that Brazil, Chile, Argentina and Colombia are the main contributors, but highlighting the number contributions of “Belgium,…” is not correct because they are lower than the contributions of other countries such as Peru, UK, or USA.

There is a typo at the end of the paragraph where Figure 6 is commented (page 21): in the last line it is written ONSWEP when, probably, OFFSWEP is meant.

There are discrepancies among data in tables 5 and 9. For example used potential of Chile is 15% according to Table 5 but only 9.6% according to table 9. This should be corrected.

In the third paragraph of subsection 4.1there is a typo “…generated in based…” It should be “… generated is based…”

In subsubsection 4.2.2, there is typo “…has evolution rapidly…” it should be “…has evolved rapidly…”

What is the meaning of: “The Brazilian oil and gas industry, and the need of offshore wind energy [57].”?

In the Conclusions section, What is the meaning of “…the insertion of wind energy in their territories linked to wind energy,…”? “For other hand…”?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language should be reviewed by a professional proofreader:

Please, avoid using extra-large sentences such as the one in the first five lines of subsection 1.1 (or others spanning even more lines).

Also, please, change “the use mass of…” by “the use of mass…” or “using mass…”

Suppress “…in use…” in the sentence “the burning of fossil fuels in use in industrial/commercial processes…”

Please, change “with use” by “using” in the sentence: “the generation of electrical energy with use coal, oil and natural gas, among others…”

Please, use the term hydropower instead of “…renewable resources linked to the movement of water in hydrographic basins…”

Due to the existing experience using wind and solar generation, calling them “non-conventional renewable energies” seems not appropriate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, this study can be considered for publication, but the manuscript needs to be revised and Authors should check the following comments for addressing mentioned issues.

The research area is current, relevant, and interesting. The topic of the paper is interesting, within the scope of the journal, and worthy of investigation. The originality of the work is acceptable and the study performed is adequate.

Based on the assessment, following points needs attention:

1) Figure 1. - this drawing was not described/commented in the text of the article

2) 1.3. Aim of The Systematic Review This systematic review studies the advances of wind energy implementation in South America (Figure 3), what is the connection between the presented graphic and the text under discussion, you should look for a more eloquent connection

3)  Figure 9 and 10. - tezt at the top of the columns are illegible and their values ​​are greater than 100%

4) Table 6: Country of South America - Why is data for these countries included in the table? Mexico USA

5) The editing of the article could have been done better; there are large empty spaces between tables and figures, which should not exist

6) Figure 16. Main Advances - should be "advances"; the same error is in the caption of the fig. 17, 18 and others Please check all work for this error

7) Fig 28, please post a drawing of much better quality

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments on the Figure 10 are not correct. In lines 364-365, they ignore the fact that Spain and the UK cite more these scientific publications than Portugal, Germany, Italy, Switzerland and Belgium.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Line 483, Please remove the sentence “Of each country”. It is redundant and it has no verb.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf