Alternatives for the Optimization and Reduction in the Carbon Footprint in Island Electricity Systems (IESs)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, the authors introduced hypotheses aimed at enhancing the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the integration of renewable energies into the electricity production system of the Canary Islands. The goal was to optimize the overall energy production by combining non-renewable combustion technology with renewable energy sources. This approach seeks to meet expectations in terms of dynamic response, safety, scalability, and seamless integration with renewable energy systems, ensuring efficiency and power.

- In this reviewer's opinion, the novelty of this work is not significant. This paper is more of a comparison of data. The authors can provide more outcomes to support the whole study.

 

- For instance, the authors claimed that "There are several measures that can be taken as a result of the outcome of this study using the tool provided to achieve our environmental objective."

Have you studied other measures (in addition to Economic and Time factors)?

 

- Regarding hypotheses, please elaborate further on how you came up with these hypotheses? What was the reason(s)/logic(s) behind these rearrangements?

 

- In such a study paper, it is imperative to present challenges, opportunities, and more importantly, the scope of future work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A few grammatical and/or typographical errors are seen.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

After making a careful review of our article proposal entitled “Alternatives for the optimization and reduction of carbon footprint in Island Electricity Systems (IES)”, based on your suggestions, we have proceeded to submit it for a new evaluation. In the new highlighted in yellow the modifications made to the original text.  

We want to express our sincere appreciation for your dedication, your comprehensive reading, and your great work. Your annotations have allowed us not only to significantly improve the manuscript and see it from another point of view, but also to reflect on future research. We especially want to thank you for your good comments on certain aspects of our work. Your words are a source of satisfaction and pride for us after so many hours of dedication and effort. Thanks.

Below we detail how we have responded to your suggestions in the new version of our proposed article. We hope that the work carried out will achieve the final approval of the Sustainability Editorial Team. If not, all authors are at your disposal to resolve any issue or proceed with new revisions to the extent necessary.

In this study, the authors introduced hypotheses aimed at enhancing the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the integration of renewable energies into the electricity production system of the Canary Islands. The goal was to optimize the overall energy production by combining non-renewable combustion technology with renewable energy sources. This approach seeks to meet expectations in terms of dynamic response, safety, scalability, and seamless integration with renewable energy systems, ensuring efficiency and power.

In this reviewer's opinion, the novelty of this work is not significant. This paper is more of a comparison of data. The authors can provide more outcomes to support the whole study.

• For instance, the authors claimed that "There are several measures that can be taken as a result of the outcome of this study using the tool provided to achieve our environmental objective."

Thank you very much for the considerations indicated. The measures to be taken have been clarified in the work: These measures are based on a) changing the type of fuel, switching to gas in the equipment that allows it, b) using a combination of less polluting production equipment and c) integrating the Chira-Soria power station as far as possible.

• Have you studied other measures (in addition to Economic and Time factors)?

Thank you very much for your comment. Yes, other measures have been considered, such as technical feasibility of the changes and possible administrative authorisations among others, but they have not been reflected in this work.

• Regarding hypotheses, please elaborate further on how you came up with these hypotheses? What was the reason(s)/logic(s) behind these rearrangements?

Thank you very much for your comment. In this section we propose a series of combinations of measures to be taken that lead to a reduction of emissions, and we call them scenarios. These measures are based on:

1. a) on changing the type of fuel, switching to Gas in the equipment that allows it. The convenience of using Natural Gas is twofold, as we need to burn less fuel to produce the same electricity because its PCI is higher than the rest of the fuels, and on the other hand, less CO₂ is generated per electricity produced.
2. b) in using the least polluting combination of equipment producers.
3. c) to integrate as far as possible the pumped-storage hydroelectric power plant (PHES) Chira-Soria.

In addition to these measures, there are others, but they have not been considered in this study, such as the renewal of production equipment, questioning the validity of the current performance and its optimisation, etc.

• In such a study paper, it is imperative to present challenges, opportunities, and more importantly, the scope of future work.

Thank you very much for your comment. This paper has presented the challenge of bringing together in a single study the changes that need to take place in island electricity generation systems with the aim of reducing the carbon footprint, and we have focused on the case of the Canaries. This represents an opportunity to study and export these changes to other island generation systems with the same dynamics. Future lines of work include the generation of a tool to optimise the decision to obtain an optimal distribution and integration of the different electricity generation systems to reduce the carbon footprint. This description has been added to the paper in yellow.

• A few grammatical and/or typographical errors are seen.

The document has been checked for typographical and grammatical errors. Thanks so much for your kind support.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

General Comments

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.

1) The manuscript presents many language flaws such as unnecessary repetition of words and occasional mistakes. The text and grammar do not meet the criteria of a research paper. The entire manuscript must be re-written, preferably by a native speaker, taking into account the scientific nature of the text. Therefore, the text requires a thorough revision before any publication.

The article requires very significant changes in content.

The manuscript needs to be revised according the following comments.
1) The title of the paper needs to be revised to sound better. It is too long. One sentence is preferred.

2) More comparative interpretation could be expected in the paper.

3) The author is encouraged to provide a greater depth of discussion about each figure. The Discussion must be improved to be more significant, and not just an interpretation of what is shown in the Figures.

4) There are some repetitive expressions in some contents, especially in the method section, which needs to be further improved.

5) Most importantly, the authors should include more recent and significant references in the Introduction and Problem Statement sections, as well as clearly explain in the Introduction the importance and main contribution of this study.

6) Abstract: " improve the emission of  greenhouse gases" - improve is not a very good word because it may have a double meaning

7) The Abstract of this study doesn't seem to be well organized. In general, the Abstract should contain summarized information about the contents of the paper by research backgrounds, research objectives, methodology, results, and discussions. However, the contribution of the research is not well described in the abstract. Therefore, the authors should clearly state the competitiveness of the paper in the Abstract.

8) [1]–[9]; [10]–[15] - this type of citation is unacceptable. Authors should refer to each work and pay attention to what was used in the article. The way of quoting itself is wrong; it should be e.g. [1-9]. Please correct these errors throughout the work.

9) "Fuel Oil, Gasoil and Diesel Oil " - why capital letters?

10) Introduction - to short. In those sections, the authors are describing the problem and explain why this research area is important. They clearly define the research question and give some context. The sections do not show any critical views and do not show any comparison with the current literature.

Still, some questions remain unanswered:

*     What other experts in the field say about those methods and technologies, are they good or bad?

*     Comparison with other methods and technologies in the literature.

*     How does this method differ from others?

This analysis needs to elaborate more to provide critical views.

I will encourage the authors to focus on the paper's methodological contribution. How does this method differ from, for example, a critical literature review?

This section lacks critical analysis and thoughts about the proposed methods; the authors should elaborate on the introduction and the positioning of the study to add value to the study.

11) Please remove the periods at the end of sentences in chapter titles.

12) Appendixes - are not necessary. Please include the tables in the text of your work.

13) please remember the rules of writing value + unit: error in the text, e.g.: "3.320.03MW[28]"

14) "combined cycle units" - please explain in the text of your work what it is

15) The quality of the charts is terrible - they were not edited from Excel at all - they need to be improved

16) Figs. 4 and 5 are not described in the text of the work. What are these drawings for?

17) Line 114: error "in the canary islands"

18) HYPOTHESIS - for me these are not hypotheses but statements of assumptions. I don't understand at all why this was established. What is the Chira-Soria project? This part of the work is completely subject to methodological improvement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

After making a careful review of our article proposal entitled “Alternatives for the optimization and reduction of carbon footprint in Island Electricity Systems (IES)”, based on your suggestions, we have proceeded to submit it for a new evaluation. In the new highlighted in green the modifications made to the original text.  

We want to express our sincere appreciation for your dedication, your comprehensive reading, and your great work. Your annotations have allowed us not only to significantly improve the manuscript and see it from another point of view, but also to reflect on future research. We especially want to thank you for your good comments on certain aspects of our work. Your words are a source of satisfaction and pride for us after so many hours of dedication and effort. Thanks.

Below we detail how we have responded to your suggestions in the new version of our proposed article. We hope that the work carried out will achieve the final approval of the Sustainability Editorial Team. If not, all authors are at your disposal to resolve any issue or proceed with new revisions to the extent necessary.

 

General Comments

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.

1) The manuscript presents many language flaws such as unnecessary repetition of words and occasional mistakes. The text and grammar do not meet the criteria of a research paper. The entire manuscript must be re-written, preferably by a native speaker, taking into account the scientific nature of the text. Therefore, the text requires a thorough revision before any publication.

The article requires very significant changes in content.

The manuscript needs to be revised according the following comments.
1) The title of the paper needs to be revised to sound better. It is too long. One sentence is preferred.

Thank you for your comment. the title has been changed to: Alternatives for the optimization and reduction of the carbon footprint in Island Electricity Systems (IES).

2) More comparative interpretation could be expected in the paper.

Thank you for your comment. This paper is the first study that has been carried out in depth of working hypotheses for the necessary change in the electric power generation systems of the Canary Islands and that, due to its type of generation structure, can be extrapolated to other similar island systems. For this reason, a broad approach of viable hypotheses resulting from a previous study (unpublished) is carried out, which according to the authors covers all the combinations and technology currently suitable for electricity generation and applicable to environments with existing demand curves.

3) The author is encouraged to provide a greater depth of discussion about each figure. The Discussion must be improved to be more significant, and not just an interpretation of what is shown in the Figures.

Thank you for your comment. According to your suggestion, we have added a discussion section on the alternatives and results obtained (lines 337 to 429).

4) There are some repetitive expressions in some contents, especially in the method section, which needs to be further improved.

Thank you for your comment, some expressions have been revised and eliminated, but others have been left, which have been considered necessary for a better understanding of the document, especially when describing the different alternatives.

5) Most importantly, the authors should include more recent and significant references in the Introduction and Problem Statement sections, as well as clearly explain in the Introduction the importance and main contribution of this study.

Thank you for your comment, we have deepened the problem statement, added new updated references and included the objective and scope of the work (lines 62 to 82).

6) Abstract: " improve the emission of  greenhouse gases" - improve is not a very good word because it may have a double meaning

Thank you for your comment, the word "improve" has been removed and replaced by other more appropriate words.

7) The Abstract of this study doesn't seem to be well organized. In general, the Abstract should contain summarized information about the contents of the paper by research backgrounds, research objectives, methodology, results, and discussions. However, the contribution of the research is not well described in the abstract. Therefore, the authors should clearly state the competitiveness of the paper in the Abstract.

Thank you for your comments. Summary completed (lines 17 to 24)

8) [1]–[9]; [10]–[15] - this type of citation is unacceptable. Authors should refer to each work and pay attention to what was used in the article. The way of quoting itself is wrong; it should be e.g. [1-9]. Please correct these errors throughout the work.

Thank you for your comment, the type of citations has been adapted to the requirements of the journal and the citations have been revised, updated and reordered in context.

9) "Fuel Oil, Gasoil and Diesel Oil " - why capital letters?

Thank you for your comment, the typos have been corrected.

10) Introduction - to short. In those sections, the authors are describing the problem and explain why this research area is important. They clearly define the research question and give some context. The sections do not show any critical views and do not show any comparison with the current literature.

Still, some questions remain unanswered:

*     What other experts in the field say about those methods and technologies, are they good or bad?

*     Comparison with other methods and technologies in the literature.

*     How does this method differ from others?

This analysis needs to elaborate more to provide critical views.

I will encourage the authors to focus on the paper's methodological contribution. How does this method differ from, for example, a critical literature review?

This section lacks critical analysis and thoughts about the proposed methods; the authors should elaborate on the introduction and the positioning of the study to add value to the study.

Thank you for your comment. The introductory section has been expanded according to your suggestions and we understand that the following questions have been answered with the restructured section; what other authors suggest, other methods used and how the one proposed in this paper differs from the ones referenced (lines 62 to 75) and (lines 163 to 195)

11) Please remove the periods at the end of sentences in chapter titles.

Thank you for your comment. The periods at the end of sentences have been removed.

12) Appendixes - are not necessary. Please include the tables in the text of your work.

Thank you for your comment. The correction has been made as suggested.

13) please remember the rules of writing value + unit: error in the text, e.g.: "3.320.03MW[28]"

Thank you for your comment. The correction has been made as suggested.

14) "combined cycle units" - please explain in the text of your work what it is

Thank you for your comment. It has been clarified in the text that it refers to combined cycle plants with double gas and steam turbine.

15) The quality of the charts is terrible - they were not edited from Excel at all - they need to be improved

Thank you for your comment. The quality of the graphs has been improved following your suggestion with the use of excel.

16) Figs. 4 and 5 are not described in the text of the work. What are these drawings for?

Thank you for your comment. Figures 4 and 5, shows the mix of generation equipment on the peak day of 2019 according to technology type.

17) Line 114: error "in the canary islands"

Thank you for your comment. It is corrected.

18) HYPOTHESIS - for me these are not hypotheses but statements of assumptions. I don't understand at all why this was established. What is the Chira-Soria project? This part of the work is completely subject to methodological improvement.

Thank you for your comment. The assumptions have been rephrased as "alternative" scenario assumptions. The "Chira-Soria" plant is a newly constructed pumped storage hydroelectric power plant (PHES). A section on methodology used has been added (163 to 195).

Extensive editing of English language required.

The language has been revised but due to time constraints, it is subject to an extensive revision of the latest approved version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper considers the carbon footprint reduction in the  Canary Islands. Overall, the topic is interesting. Some minor comments are below: 

1)   The title should be simplified. It is suggested to not include punctuation in the title. 

2)   Avoid citing references in the format of [1-9]. 

3)   Some latest litratures in the field of multi-enery management are suggested to include in the Introduction. See "Machine learning and data-driven techniques for the control of smart power generation systems: An uncertainty handling perspective".

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

After making a careful review of our article proposal entitled “Alternatives for the optimization and reduction of carbon footprint in Island Electricity Systems (IES)”, based on your suggestions, we have proceeded to submit it for a new evaluation. In the new highlighted in magenta the modifications made to the original text.  

We want to express our sincere appreciation for your dedication, your comprehensive reading, and your great work. Your annotations have allowed us not only to significantly improve the manuscript and see it from another point of view, but also to reflect on future research. We especially want to thank you for your good comments on certain aspects of our work. Your words are a source of satisfaction and pride for us after so many hours of dedication and effort. Thanks.

Below we detail how we have responded to your suggestions in the new version of our proposed article. We hope that the work carried out will achieve the final approval of the Sustainability Editorial Team. If not, all authors are at your disposal to resolve any issue or proceed with new revisions to the extent necessary.

• The title should be simplified. It is suggested to not include punctuation in the title. 

Thank you for your comment. The title has been changed to: Alternatives for the optimization and reduction of the carbon footprint in Island Electricity Systems (IES).

• Avoid citing references in the format of [1-9]. 

Thank you for your comment, the type of citations has been adapted to the requirements of the journal and the citations have been revised, updated and reordered in context.

• Some latest literatures in the field of multi-energy management are suggested to include in the Introduction. See "Machine learning and data-driven techniques for the control of smart power generation systems: An uncertainty handling perspective".

Thank you for your comment. The suggested citation has been added ( ref 8) as well as other updated citations (most being from the last 5 years).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have successfully addressed the concerns raised by this reviewer.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks so much for your approval and kind support. Thanks for your comments, due to them we have improved a lot our manuscript to publish it in Sustainability journal. We appreciate very much your strong work and good advice.

Best regards.

The authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

One more time: The manuscript presents many language flaws such as unnecessary repetition of words and occasional mistakes. The text and grammar do not meet the criteria of a research paper. The entire manuscript must be re-written, preferably by a native speaker, taking into account the scientific nature of the text. Therefore, the text requires a thorough revision before any publication!!!

1) Correct: interconnected[6]

2)  [1–5] ;  [9–15] ;  [16–19];  [23–27]; [4,7,9,31,35–37] - this type of citation is unacceptable. Authors should refer to each work and pay attention to what was used in the article. - this was my earlier comment, which the authors did not take into account

3) Line 62-75 - the added text is written in terrible English; first sentence - what is it about?

4) Abstract: Contribute convincingly with the different measures  of our research to GHG mitigation. - English please!

5) Table 1-3: Source: Canary Islands Energy Yearbook 2019. - please cite the publication

6) Fig. 2 and 3- additional unnecessary text is on graph

7) Fig. 4 and 5 - axis Y - coose comma or dot in numbers

8) Line 280 - correct text editing

9) 6. Conclusions - are too short; please expand this chapter with conclusions drawn from the presented results

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Reviewer 2.

One more time: The manuscript presents many language flaws such as unnecessary repetition of words and occasional mistakes. The text and grammar do not meet the criteria of a research paper. The entire manuscript must be re-written, preferably by a native speaker, taking into account the scientific nature of the text. Therefore, the text requires a thorough revision before any publication!!!

Thanks so much for your support in this issue. We followed up your instructions strongly, to eliminate the language flaws, repetition of words and mistakes. Therefore, the entire manuscript has been re-written by a native speaker, specialist in scientific articles. Due to this, we have done a thorough revision for the publication in Sustainability journal, and we have improved a lot the English language, the text and the grammar to meet the criteria of a research paper.

 

1) Correct: interconnected[6]

Thanks for your comment. It has been corrected.

 

2)  [1–5] ;  [9–15] ;  [16–19];  [23–27]; [4,7,9,31,35–37] - this type of citation is unacceptable. Authors should refer to each work and pay attention to what was used in the article. - this was my earlier comment, which the authors did not take into account

Thank you for your comment. We understood in previous revisions that it referred to the way to cite (..) and not as indicated by the journal [..], we have also revised the way to cite other authors by referring to the most relevant aspects that are important for the work under review.

 

3) Line 62-75 - the added text is written in terrible English;

Thanks for your support in this issue. The text has been re-written and modified by a native speaker to improve the grammar and to eliminate the mistakes. Finally, we have improved a lot the English language to meet the criteria of a research manuscript making a strong revision of the text.

first sentence - what is it about?

It has been corrected too.

 

4) Abstract: Contribute convincingly with the different measures of our research to GHG mitigation. - English please!

Thanks for your comments. The entire manuscript has been re-written by a native speaker, specialist in scientific articles. Due to this we have improved a lot the English language, eliminating all the mistakes, and the text is much more scientific and understandable. Therefore, it has been corrected too.

 

5) Table 1-3: Source: Canary Islands Energy Yearbook 2019. - please cite the publication

Thanks so much, we have corrected it too.

 

6) Fig. 2 and 3- additional unnecessary text is on graph

Thanks so much, we have corrected it too.

 

7) Fig. 4 and 5 - axis Y - coose comma or dot in numbers

Thanks again, we have corrected it.

 

8) Line 280 - correct text editing

Thanks so much for your comments. It has been corrected too.

 

9) 6. Conclusions - are too short; please expand this chapter with conclusions drawn from the presented results

Ok, thanks. We agree with you. Conclusions have been extended and the text has been corrected. We appreciate very much your kind support in all your comments. We have learnt a lot with them and we have improved much more our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised paper is acceptable 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks so much for your approval and kind support. Thanks for your comments, due to them we have improved a lot our manuscript to publish it in Sustainability journal. We appreciate very much your strong work and good advice.

Best regards.

The authors.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the article finally corrected it thoroughly. It is acceptable for publication in this form.