Influence of Different Forms on BIPV Gymnasium Carbon-Saving Potential Based on Energy Consumption and Solar Energy in Multi-Climate Zones

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present an interesting work on BIPV performance in the different forms of roof and in different climate zones. There are some comments:

 

In Fig.2, it is recommended to adopt the climate zone categorization method designed for solar PV, like PVCZ methods.

 

What is the dimension of the building to simulate?

 

Why choose CIGS as the PV technology in the simulation? What is the popular technology in the real-world BIPVs?

 

In Equation (2), how do you consider the tilted surface of the roof? This will also affect the produced energy of modules.

 

It seems to me that Form 1 and 3 are almost the same. The only difference is that Form 1 is squared and Form 3 is rectangular. Based on Equation (2), the surface size of the roof will have no impact on the results. It is suggested to combine these 2 forms. In Fig 6, Form 1 and 3 exhibit the same results. But why in Fig 7, the values are not identical.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Not to use abbreviations in the conclusion, like EUI

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- The rate of heat transfer in the building structures should be discussed in the study.

2- How the usage of advanced isolation materials can impact the  Carbon-saving Potential in the buildings. It should be discussed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language level should be enhanced.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-structured and provides valuable insights into the influence of gymnasium building forms and orientations on energy consumption, PV potential, and carbon emissions, under different climatic conditions. However, there are a few areas where further improvements can be made.

Suggest reconsidering the title to give a broad view of the article as the paper not only addresses the carbon-saving potential.

Abstract mentioned, “The results demonstrate that selecting a reasonable gymnasium form and orientation plays a vital role in energy conservation and improving the efficiency of BIPV system on its roof.” It is better to provide more details on the particular building form orientation that enhances the BIPV system.

The research gap is highlighted in the introduction, emphasising comprehensively what others have done in the area; current practice and previous research.

Any justification for using Rhinoceros/Grasshopper software and EnergyPlus engine would be useful.

The presentation of the results is well-structured, but the discussion can be improved.

 

Discussion is repetition of what has been performed and Less incorporation of study results into the discussion. The discussion section can be improved by incorporating discussion under the area of EUI, PVPG, and CE under five climatic conditions. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reference to the climate zoning method is not correct. The authors should find where this method was originally defined. Besides, common PV climate zoning methods should also be stated and the authors should clarify why did not choose these common climate zoning methods for PV as all these buildings are covered by a great number of PV modules.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper can be accepted.

Author Response

Thank you for your guidance and for recognizing our research.