Non-Energy Use of Fuels in the Greenhouse Gas Emission Reporting
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic is very interesting and useful. However, I have some suggestions how to improve the article to provide quality scientific backround for the readers.
In the introduction, I do not see literature sources which study the similar topic. There aren't any? I recommed to sum up experience in this field of other authors. It is needed for further comparison.
paragraph 3 - there is described methodology for the reporting. I lack the details: body which is responsible for the reporting, how offen the summarization is reported? Moreover, analysis of GHGs emissions in the countries is not mentioned. There are many sources reffering to GHGs emmisions with clear values and its environmental impact presenting nowadays analysis as well as in future perspectives . I recommend to compare the information about GHGs emmisions in the countries from availabe literature.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is deal with methodological guidance of non-energy use of fuels given by IPCC 2006 Guidelines
There are no data sources of Table 3, Table 4 and Figures shown in paper.
Authors write in abstract that compare of the Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, and Hungary for reporting CO2 emissions from non-energy use of fuels will be shown but in my opinion this is missing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is a review of the data non-energy use of fuels. Includes data on non-energy fuels from the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. Taking into account the issues of greenhouse gas emissions, the work has utilitarian values. Despite the different approach to the inclusion of non-energy fuels, the calculation method is correct. The calculation error made is small.
The layout of the work needs to be refined:
p. 7 v. 17 is 5., but p. 9 v. 20 is 4 (should not it be 6);
p. 10 v.5 is 5., but on page 7 it was 5.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper addresses successfully the issue of how to report the associated GHG emissions from the non-energy use of fuels, which is a tricky and complex issue when compiling an inventory.
It offers very useful guidance and novel / good practice examples from 3 countries, which can be followed by other countries in order to improve the quality of their emission inventory.
Some small comments / suggestions:
Table 1: there is a typo in the table. The second horizontal line σεγμεντ should be deleted and there is no need "Naptha" to be in bold.
Table 2: it may be useful to add an additional column to Table 2, where to indicate whether a non-energy use of fuels can occur under each of the categories.
Section 3: to keep consistency with section 4 and 5, a suggestion could be to present the allocation of fuels in IPPU in Czech R in a tabular format.
Page 6 / lines 1-2: it would be useful to indicate in numbers or percentages the part of the stored carbon that becomes CO2.
Page 6 / line11: tar is not included in Table 3. Where the emissions are allocated?
Table 4: please define what is COG and BFG.
In page 6 and page 7 / Figures 1 and 2, a very good analysis and description are reported about the methodology for estimating CO2 emissions from iron and steel and ethylene production. Indeed, this is a very good guidance for other countries that have similar processes. However, information about the methodologies applied for other smaller categories was not provided in sections 2,3 and 4. For example, in page 5 / lines 1-2 it is written that naptha, LPG are used as non energy fuels and their emissions are allocated under IPPU, but no information is provided of how the associated CO2 emissions are calculated. My suggestion is to add a summary paragraph in sections 2, 3 and 4, which in 3-4 lines to summarize the information about the methodologies that are followed to estimate CO2 emissions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have read my comments and the revised manuscript is changed and improved, so I accept.
