Siting Renewable Energy Facilities Using a Matching Algorithm: A Case Study in Japan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

this study explores how a matching model can be utilised for empirically planning RE siting using an illustrative case study. It employs the so-called ’college admission problem of the matching model’. The idea of the paper is good but it needs further improvements as follows:

1. What about RE Site Matching Based On Capacity Factors?

2. 

The simulation assumed that 20 sites (Sites 1–20) were	252
available for PV installation and 16 different PV specifications (PV 1–PV 16). what about wind turbine. the title of manuscript talks about renewable energy. I see all discussions talks about PV. Why? 3. English language should be enhanced. 4. Citations should be increased to validate the idea.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The title of the manuscript does not seem to be appropriate, as it does not give clear information that locations are being selected for siting renewable energy facilities using a Matching algorithm. I suggest, for example, 'Siting renewable energy facilities using a Matching algorithm: A case study in Japan'.

The study proposes a matching model for empirically siting renewable energy facilities in Japan by employing the ’college admission problem of the matching model’.

The abstract section is well-written and has covered the necessary information. The introduction section satisfactorily describes the research background and clarifies the purpose of the study.

The literature review section appears to be comprehensive, and the gaps in the existing literature have been made clear. However, the manuscript must refer to and include more recent articles.

The methodology section gives adequate detail on the methods employed for the siting of RE facilities. However, it is unclear how the preferences of stakeholders were measured (e.g., on a Likert Scale?). Also, whether the availability of materials needed for operating a renewable energy facility was considered a factor affecting stakeholders’ preferences?

The manuscript presents tabular results for the algorithmic analyses, but it is unclear how those numbers in Tables 3a, b, and c have arrived. The results of the analyses need to be explained in a bit more detail with a comparison between the results of this study and other similar studies. Also, it must be made clear which shortcomings of the previous studies have been addressed by this study.

The conclusion section need not summarise the study but instead highlight the academic and practical contributions and applications of the study.

The manuscript is written satisfactorily, and the research done is interesting, with good interest likely to be drawn from the readers of this work.

 

The writing quality is good. Please see other comments made in the attached PDF document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All comments are addressed