Energetic Valorization of the Innovative Building Envelope: An Overview of Electric Production System Optimization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript attempts to examine and summarize the latest developments in the field to guide and enhance energy production systems, with a specific focus on electricity. In terms of the overall extensiveness, I think the authors have contributed significantly with coverage of a broad range of technologies and the development details. Despite the completeness, I do have one major concern about the overall novelty of such a review effort. It seems to me the SWOT analysis provided mostly qualitative descriptions of different systems which yields the current work’s contribution rather limited, I wonder if the author could add an additional quantitative layer to further strengthen such an endeavor; For example, the author could try to quantify the overall capacities of a specific DER based on opportunities or strengths of different technologies to propose the technology with the greatest potential or based on weaknesses and threats to identify the least probable and viable one. I believe adding quantitative definitions and statistics could really help this review paper stand out. The only other suggestion I have is the current reporting format (summarizing every paper in a table) does seem to be a bit repetitive and also there are a lot of white spaces in the table. I would ask the author to re-format the key findings a bit further to potentially make the results more appealing to readers. Please note the second suggestion I have is optional.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your valuable remarks and suggestions regarding our manuscript. Attached, you will find the responses to your questions. We hope you find them satisfactory.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors carried out a literature review with SWOT analysis of renewable energy systems that can be applied to roofs or facades and that primarily produce electricity. I would suggest the following additions:

1. Payback time of each system with and without battery storage where applicable.

2. Embodied carbon data of the systems where the information is available.

3. I have also added some comments in the accompanying file where minor edits are required.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your valuable remarks and suggestions regarding our manuscript. Attached, you will find the responses to your questions. We hope you find them satisfactory.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The introduction of the article could be enhanced by adding the following:

Broader Context: A more detailed discussion of the broader context and background of the research topic, including global trends in sustainable building practices.

Literature Review: An expanded literature review could be included to highlight previous research in the field, identifying gaps that the current study aims to fill.

Clear Problem Statement: While the introduction outlines the general area of study, it could more explicitly state the specific problem or research question being addressed.

Study Significance: Elaborating on the significance of the research, including its potential impact on the field and its practical applications, would strengthen the introduction.

2.The article conducts a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis for each system under investigation, as part of its discussion on systems coupling in the building envelope​. The research appears to be thorough, with an innovative methodology. However, further details on the SWOT analysis and comparative studies would enhance its depth. While this approach provides a comprehensive view of the current research landscape, highlighting progress and obstacles, there are areas for potential improvement:

More detailed explanations of each aspect of the SWOT analysis for every system would enhance understanding.

Including recommendations for future research or development based on the SWOT analysis findings would be beneficial.

3.The discussion section of the article addresses various aspects of the study but could be improved in several ways:

Broader Implications: While the discussion provides a detailed analysis of the findings, it could benefit from a broader perspective on the implications of these findings in real-world scenarios. Comparison with Other Studies: Comparing and contrasting the results with similar studies would provide a deeper understanding of how this research fits into the larger body of work on the subject.

Future Research Directions: Suggestions for future research based on the findings of the study would be useful for guiding subsequent studies in this field.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English level of the text is suitable for an academic paper. There are instances of awkward syntax and grammatical er rors. For example, phrases like "with only focus on"  could be more fluently phrased as "focusing only on". The transitions between sections and ideas could be smoother.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for your valuable remarks and suggestions regarding our manuscript. Attached, you will find the responses to your questions. We hope you find them satisfactory.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the authors did not manage to provide detailed data on payback time, I think the paper can be accepted after other revisions.