A Sustainable Polygeneration System for a Residential Building
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1 the authors are suggested to highlighted the innovation in the introduction section
2 the literature review in the related field is suggested to be enriched.
3 how did the authors select the typical residential buildings?
4 how did the authors ensure the reliability of the results?
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review and comments. Regarding them,
1 the authors are suggested to highlighted the innovation in the introduction section
The novelty of the paper is highlighted in the two last paragraphs of this section (lines 69 to 93)
2 the literature review in the related field is suggested to be enriched.
A new search was performed and centered on polygeneration systems based on RES and specifically devoted to the domestic sector. That section was rephrased (lines 55-68), and five additional references were then included.
3 how did the authors select the typical residential buildings?
Some clarifying sentences were included in the revised version (lines 106-108, 112-114). Regarding the energy efficiency standards, the last approved Spanish norm was selected for new construction, which is considered a good one in terms of isolation.
4 how did the authors ensure the reliability of the results?
The discussion section devoted a new paragraph to this issue (lines 531-538).
Thank you very much for your review and comments. Regarding them,
1 the authors are suggested to highlighted the innovation in the introduction section
The novelty of the paper is highlighted in the two last paragraphs of this section (lines 69 to 93)
2 the literature review in the related field is suggested to be enriched.
A new search was performed and centered on polygeneration systems based on RES and specifically devoted to the domestic sector. That section was rephrased (lines 55-68), and five additional references were then included.
3 how did the authors select the typical residential buildings?
Some clarifying sentences were included in the revised version (lines 106-108, 112-114). Regarding the energy efficiency standards, the last approved Spanish norm was selected for new construction, which is considered a good one in terms of isolation.
4 how did the authors ensure the reliability of the results?
The discussion section devoted a new paragraph to this issue (lines 531-538).
Reviewer 2 Report
In general, this paper was very interesting to read. There has been a lot of work and there is a lot of information presented. However, this information is somewhat briefly presented and in some cases this might be difficult to the reader to follow. It appears that there can be an improvement in some sections if more descriptive text is provided with more discussion and analysis of the findings.
This is particularly relevant to sections 3 and 4 where the results are presented. For example in lines 329 to 342 a lot of information is provided about different configurations and as a result these are barely discussed/explained. There should be more throrough discussion. Furthermore, a reference to the specific tables (tables 8 and 9) that support the discussion in this paragraph should be made when discussing these results to facilitate the reader.
Similarly, there should be more discussion regarding the information provided in lines 349 - 362 where the data shown in table 10 are discussed. It is stated that option B is the best solution, followed by option C, A and D. However, as shown in table 10 options A and D have a lower levelised cost of heating and DHW (and cooling) than B and C (as well as lower total investment in some cases). So which were the criteria for choosing the Option B as the best one? This needs to be elaborated.
Furthermore, section 4 is also very brief and needs to be elaborated. This is the discussion section of a very thorough study and it is limited to only 4 paragraphs - the last paragraph of this section (lines 437 - 442) should be moved to section 2 - materials and methods.
Other minor corrections include:
- in Line 70: 'it is not fair is such heat...freshwater'. Please rephrase, it is not clear what is meant by 'it is not fair'
- In line 111-112 it is mentioned that two locations have similar heating and cooling demands and water scarcity - this is not supported by the figures in table 3 which suggest that the heating and cooling demand in the three cities is very different
- In the text of section 2.2 all acronyms of Figure 3 should also be included in the text to facilitate the reader. For example which is the secondary tank mentioned in line 130 (HWDT in figure 3?) and which is the 50m3 tank mentioned in line 143 (ST?). And the third water tank is CWT? please clarify all components in the text with the relevant acronyms of Figure 3. In addition, the caption in Figure 3 needs to change.
- for reason of completeness all components (including the common ones) of options A, B, C and D should be presented in Table 4
- Text in lines 225 - 227 is not clear. Please rephrase.
- Section 2.6 is Environmental analysis and 2.7 is Environmental performance create confuction. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to mention that 2.6 is environmental analysis during operational phase and 2.7 is lifecycle environmental performance.
- Text in lines 305 - 306 (in all the devices...literature) is not clear. Please rephrase
- The text in lines 367 - 368 is an assumption (since little information on the selection criteria is provided) and it is better to be removed
- In table 8 what are the units for PVs and PVTs? Is it Watts, m2 or number of panels? and what is the nominal capacity of these panels?
Author Response
Your specific comments are highly appreciated since they contribute to clarifying the amount of information presented in the paper.
In general, this paper was very interesting to read. There has been a lot of work and there is a lot of information presented. However, this information is somewhat briefly presented and in some cases this might be difficult to the reader to follow. It appears that there can be an improvement in some sections if more descriptive text is provided with more discussion and analysis of the findings.
This is particularly relevant to sections 3 and 4 where the results are presented. For example in lines 329 to 342 a lot of information is provided about different configurations and as a result these are barely discussed/explained. There should be more throrough discussion. Furthermore, a reference to the specific tables (tables 8 and 9) that support the discussion in this paragraph should be made when discussing these results to facilitate the reader.
This section was enlarged (lines 350-392), and the analysis was disaggregated in bullets to better identify the reasons that explain the results.
Similarly, there should be more discussion regarding the information provided in lines 349 - 362 where the data shown in table 10 are discussed. It is stated that option B is the best solution, followed by option C, A and D. However, as shown in table 10 options A and D have a lower levelised cost of heating and DHW (and cooling) than B and C (as well as lower total investment in some cases). So which were the criteria for choosing the Option B as the best one? This needs to be elaborated.
Again, this part has been enlarged (lines 401-440) and better explained since options B (and C) were only better from the economic point of view, not energy or CO2 saved.
Furthermore, section 4 is also very brief and needs to be elaborated. This is the discussion section of a very thorough study and it is limited to only 4 paragraphs - the last paragraph of this section (lines 437 - 442) should be moved to section 2 - materials and methods.
The last paragraph was moved to the beginning of section 2, and this section has been conveniently enlarged (lines 482-543) according to your accurate suggestion.
Other minor corrections include:
- in Line 70: 'it is not fair is such heat...freshwater'. Please rephrase, it is not clear what is meant by 'it is not fair'
Thank you, it was rephrased in a paragraph that was moderately changed.
- In line 111-112 it is mentioned that two locations have similar heating and cooling demands and water scarcity - this is not supported by the figures in table 3 which suggest that the heating and cooling demand in the three cities is very different
You are right; heating and cooling demands are not similar. The sentence was changed (lines 129-130).
- In the text of section 2.2 all acronyms of Figure 3 should also be included in the text to facilitate the reader. For example which is the secondary tank mentioned in line 130 (HWDT in figure 3?) and which is the 50m3 tank mentioned in line 143 (ST?). And the third water tank is CWT? please clarify all components in the text with the relevant acronyms of Figure 3. In addition, the caption in Figure 3 needs to change.
In section 2.2, the acronyms described in figure 3 are immersed in the text, and the real caption for figure 3 is now well written. In table 3, the acronyms of the demands were also included.
- for reason of completeness all components (including the common ones) of options A, B, C and D should be presented in Table 4
Table 4 was enlarged now to include the common infrastructure to both configurations.
- Text in lines 225 - 227 is not clear. Please rephrase.
Those lines were rephrased (lines 244-246)
- Section 2.6 is Environmental analysis and 2.7 is Environmental performance create confuction. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to mention that 2.6 is environmental analysis during operational phase and 2.7 is lifecycle environmental performance.
Done, thanks.
- Text in lines 305 - 306 (in all the devices...literature) is not clear. Please rephrase
They were rephrased (lines 325-328).
- The text in lines 367 - 368 is an assumption (since little information on the selection criteria is provided) and it is better to be removed
You are right again. This sentence was not appropriate.
- In table 8 what are the units for PVs and PVTs? Is it Watts, m2 or number of panels? and what is the nominal capacity of these panels?
Units were included in table 8 (number of panels), and the nominal capacity was referenced in table 5.
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript presents a study of "A sustainable polygeneration system for a residential building ". I congratulate the authors for their good simulation work. Below I give my comments.
The limitations of this work and its novelty should be highlighted more. Three different location case studies maybe are not enough as a novelty. There are tons of studies to present energy system optimization/selection for buildings with IDA-ICE or TRNSYS. Please add the values that this study adds to them. Please highlight it in the abstract, and intro.
Key points of the paper should be marked in the Abstract.
The author is encouraged to provide a greater depth of discussion. The addition of data is not enough. Analyzes it, compares it with existing information, and then provide a critical view of the observed.
Author Response
This manuscript presents a study of "A sustainable polygeneration system for a residential building ". I congratulate the authors for their good simulation work. Below I give my comments.
Thank you very much for your review and comments.
The limitations of this work and its novelty should be highlighted more. Three different location case studies maybe are not enough as a novelty. There are tons of studies to present energy system optimization/selection for buildings with IDA-ICE or TRNSYS. Please add the values that this study adds to them. Please highlight it in the abstract, and intro.
Key points of the paper should be marked in the Abstract.
The paper's novelty is remarked now in the introduction section, and the abstract was also rephrased to highlight it. Regarding limitations, they are included in section 4 (discussion).
The author is encouraged to provide a greater depth of discussion. The addition of data is not enough. Analyzes it, compares it with existing information, and then provide a critical view of the observed.
Sections 3 and 4 have been considerably enlarged in the revised version to provide a more critical analysis of the results.
