Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods for Suitable Site Selection of Concentrating Solar Power Plants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     Provide more details on the criteria used for site selection. Transparency in criteria selection enhances the reproducibility and credibility of the study.

2.     Discuss potential limitations of the methodology or assumptions made during the site selection process. Acknowledging limitations strengthens the study's rigor.

3.     Clarify the sources of data used for evaluating the potential sites. Transparency regarding data sources enhances the credibility of the findings.

4.     Consider including more visual aids such as maps or diagrams to enhance the understanding of the site selection process for readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the value of LCOE determined with the technical-economic model is lower than those of installations realized in Morocco (see values reported dari solarpaces bank), considering the inflation period 2019-2022, prudence wants the technical-economic algorithm to be compared with other technical-economic algortims in order to obtain an index of reliability of the same. It is advisable to introduce an additional table where a comparison with LCOE values obtained with other available algorithms (even simpler ones) such as the SAM made available by SOLARpaces should be included 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have presented a deep discussion on multi criterion decision making methods for site selection of concentrated photovoltaic plants. Where authors have opted different decision making methods. But it requires some minor modifications for the paper to be accepted. The comments related to the paper are presented below

1)     Abstract is presented in a systematic way; it is appreciated to add the major scenarios in the abstract in the sentence “The assessment of alternatives and their ranking are discussed according to several scenarios.”

2)    In introduction, the numerical value of hours is having space at many places in the article. It is appreciated to remove the space in the numerical value. (exceeds 2 000 hours,  3 900 hours, ………).

3)    In introduction it is specified that “ A limited number of  pre-selected alternatives (≤ 8) are considered.” It is suggested to list the preselected alternatives and also specify why they have been opted.

4)    Figure 3 methodology flow chart is not presentable, it is advised to redraw or replace with a good quality flow chart.

5)    It is appreciated that the case study is presented well.

6)    Conclusion, is presented well but need minor improvements in describing the objectives achieved by multi criterion decision making methods.

7)    The references are very few, it is suggested to add more related references (atleast 30 plus).

Thank you and All the best

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the presentation is good. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf