SNG Generation via Power to Gas Technology: Plant Design and Annual Performance Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript, Perna et al analyzed the energy storage potential and the technical feasibility of the power to gas concept in storing discontinuous renewable sources by developing a thermochemical and electrochemical model and a dynamic model. This work presented a good guideline for the technical-economic evaluation of the synthetic natural gas production. The paper is well organized, I recommend it to be published in Appl. Sci. after minor revision. The comments are below:

1. The sequence of figures should be in order. Two Figure 4 are used.
2. The full name should be given for the abbreviations (such as LHV, RES) that appear in the main text in first time. In addition, the authors used too many abbreviations. The readers always need to check their means by searching.

The authors presented a model study in potential steady synthetic natural gas production through evaluating different electrolysis plant size by newly developed thermochemical/electrochemical model and a dynamic model. This point is novel and important in potential steady gas production. I carefully read the manuscript, and I do not find any other scientific problems. So I recommend it can be accepted after minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The authors showed numerical results on the design specifications of a PtSNG plant coupled with a 12 MW wind farm. Furthermore, the dynamic operation of the PtSNG plant was investigated to reduce the storage capacity and cycles. The paper is well written but does not differ significantly from several publications found in the literature. It is suggested that the authors extend the introduction to show how the current paper's results differ from other works found in the literature. The questions are as follows:

• I can say that the contribution of the proposed work is fair. However, the authors are asked to show paper novelty more convincingly.
• The introduction needs improvement. The main finding of this work should be highlighted.
• The manuscript needs improvement regarding the wording used. For example, “non-programmable renewable energy sources” can be replaced with intermittent renewable energy sources. Furthermore, the authors stated, “In the context of the fight against climate change”, the world “fight” is too strong. Please improve it while revising.
• The illustrations used in this manuscript are suitable for a scientific paper. I don’t have any comment.
• To make the conclusion section more clear, authors are highly encouraged to include the point-by-point findings of this article. The current conclusion is written very wide and it is not easy to maintain the key findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf