Feasibility Study for the Extraction of Wave Energy along the Coast of Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is based on the application of the coupled SWAN+ADCIRC model for generation, propagation and dissipation of waves to assess the expected efficiency of wave-power plant along the coast of Ensenada. . However, there are some points need to revise.

1. The SWAN+ADCIRC model lack description in the paper, and there is no recent reference.
2. The resolution of Figure 3 and Figure 4 need to improve. 
3.  A series of specifications and recommendations has were established for appropriate and accurate wave energy resource assessments need to be refered.  I recommend that the authors refers to the following paper:
   a. EMEC. Assessment of Wave Energy Resource—Marine Renewable Energy Guides; Technical Report; The European Marine Energy Centre Ltd.: Stromness, UK, 2009.
   b. Mackay, E.B.L. Resource Assessment for Wave Energy. In Comprehensive Renewable Energy; Sayigh, A., Ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2012; Volume 8, pp. 11–77. 
   c. Folley, M.; Cornett, A.; Holmes, B.; Lenee-Bluhm, P.; Liria, P. Standardising resource assessment for wave energy converters. In Proceedings of the ICOE 2012, Dublin, Ireland, 17–19 October 2012. 
   d. Ingram, D.; Smith, G.H.; Ferriera, C.; Smith, H. Protocols for the Equitable Assessment of Marine Energy Converters; Technical Report; Institute of Energy Systems, University of Edinburgh, School of Engineering: Edinburgh, UK, 2011. 
   e. IEC. Wave Energy Resource Assessment and Characterization; Technical Report 62600-101; International Electrotechnical Commission/Technical Section: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
   f. Guillou, N.; Lavidas, G.; Chapalain, G. Wave Energy Resource Assessment for Exploitation—A Review. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 705. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8090705.
4.  Need to mention how to calculate the wave energy potential.
5.  The result of modelling need to be verified.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors! This scientific direction in the energy of the world's oceans is in great demand. Research is underway by various groups of scientists to take this energy and use the most effective method of wave energy conversion. Your research can be continued in many ways. The most effective method of wave transformation (for example, the piston method is better used when the amplitude is large, the mint when the frequency is high, etc.) depending on the location in the sea. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comment:

 

Dear Authors! This scientific direction in the energy of the world's oceans is in great demand. Research is underway by various groups of scientists to take this energy and use the most effective method of wave energy conversion. Your research can be continued in many ways. The most effective method of wave transformation (for example, the piston method is better used when the amplitude is large, the mint when the frequency is high, etc.) depending on the location in the sea. 

 

We greatly appreciate the reviewer's positive comment. We are aware that there is still a lot of work to be done in the field of wave energy extraction and considering, as the reviewer rightly points out, that several efforts are being devoted to this type of study by many research groups, we hope that our work can be considered as a starting point for establishing constructive and fruitful collaborations.

Sincerely,

Rosanna Bonasia

Reviewer 3 Report

While I recognize the authors effort, which is laudable, I must suggest the paper to be rejected in the present form. The why is the paper have a number of unclear points I highlight in my attached report. However, I encourage the authors to resubmit the article after considering my suggestions.

Alternatively, if a revised version is required I will be available for further revision

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please, see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All conclusions of this study are based on the model  results, but the model has not been rigorously verified. The wind source of the model comes from the ERA5, but the model comparison is also ERA5, which is an invalid verification. On the other words, the conclusions of this study cannot be supported.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors addressed my queries properly. The paper is now suited for publication