Advanced Power Generation Using a Nitrogen Turbine Engine Instead of a Conventional Injection Steam Turbine Engine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors presents the review of an Advanced Method of Power Generation using Nitrogen Turbine Engine Instead of a Conventional Condensing Steam Turbine Engine.
Authors described their work very well.
Paper is written with only some minor errors and inaccuracies. 
I would suggest the authors to suitably address the following comments before it can be acceptable for the journal:

1. Please check the symbols, I found some inaccuracies 
2. Please check and correct the text in terms of form and linguistic correctness, especially 2.3 chapter is incomprehensible and it looks like the references are written with different font. 

 

Article main strengths:
1. The authors performed good literature review
2. The subject of the article is very interesting 

Article main weakness:
1. The style and language of the article still needs to be imporoved a little

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents a comparative study between gas and nitrogen-based technologies for electricity generation. This analysis is date and relevant, however, the manuscript in present form is badly presented and written. In order to be considered for publication, this document should be notably enhanced thus improving the use of English, enriching the Literature Review, better identifying the literature gaps and rearranging some sections. In particular, my comments are listed below.

• There are many grammar mistakes throughout the paper, which must be addressed. In fact, the paper is very difficult to read and it should be deeply revised in order to be considered for publication.
• Motivation and contributions of the paper are not well explained. Moreover, research gaps have not been properly identified.
• Quality of English should be improved. There are some phrases that are difficult to understand while other are too long, like that for example in lines 41-44. Also, the authors abuse of some words like ‘system’, in whose cases I suggest using synonyms.
• I recommend providing some references at the beginning of the Introduction, when the authors stated the current challenges in power system generation because increasing electrical demand. For such issue have been proposed many initiatives like increasing renewable penetration, large scale energy storage or demand response programs. In this sense, the authors should comment some of these solutions at this paragraph to enrich the literature review. I suggest the following reference, which can be used for the authors.

 

102456. Arévalo, M. Tostado-Véliz, F. Jurado. A Novel Methodology for Comprehensive Planning of Battery Storage Systems. Journal of Energy Storage 2021; 37: 102456. 10.1016/j.est.2021.102456

 

• Introduction is maybe difficult to follow. I suggest splitting it into three subsections namely ‘Motivation’, ‘Related works’ or ‘Literature Review’ and ‘Contributions’. In the same line, the last paragraph of the Introduction must indicate the paper organization.
• I think there is a typo in lines 125-127. These phrases do not seem a subsection header. Please revise it and the whole paper to avoid such kind of mistakes.
• In general, presentation of the paper is quite poor. Format is not coherent throughout the paper which makes it difficult to read.
• Section 6 is too short, I suggest including the limitations in Section 5 and the Future lines in Section 7.

Thanks to the authors for your effort and time.

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 “Thus, this feasibility review”- please remove the feasibility as this work only for research papers not review one !

The abstract poses some ambiguity as difficult to understand if this is review paper which include some actually research from authors itself or just it conveys a presentation of the state of ar. This is because the authors claim “capacity is used to analyze gas composition”….and I feel this part was generated by authors as own research

Noted in introduction that not clear if this research is own research or review- then in conclusion you said “This study in reverse engineering from the hot gas theory”

The conclusion are verbally and no quantitative details ? please elaborate more for the later one

“can be installed everywhere where air exists” how do you define the “air”?

9.“Suggestion”- better to be defined as future perspectives ! However, there are required to be presented a proper future section now is difficult to have a clear perspective from authors point of view

“ This study aims to improve the conventional”- line 41 are you sure as this is review paper ?

Please put a references for the Figures adapted from literature Fig 1, 2…and so on

Figure 4 require a citation too

“First, our findings make a great contribution”- you don’t have own founds just you present from literature

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

many thanks for addressing all my concerns.

Reviewer 3 Report

-

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It seems that the paper tries to present a review on Nitrogen powered turbine engines. However, apart from the title, I didn't understand anything from the paper. The English language is very poor and the majority of the manuscript couldn't be understood. The paper itself, is not written in a professional feature at all. The structure of the paper is a mess and nothing is in its place. It is the firs time that I see the "conclusion" section in the middle of a manuscript! As an expert in gas turbine and propulsion, I don't understand anything from the paper! 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors presents the review of an Advanced Method of Power Generation using Nitrogen Turbine Engine Instead of a Conventional Condensing Steam Turbine Engine.
Authors described their work very well.
Paper is written with only some minor errors and inaccuracies. 
I would suggest the authors to suitably address the following comments before it can be acceptable for the journal:

1. Please check the symbols, I found some inaccuracies 
2. Please check and correct the text in terms of form and linguistic correctness, especially 2.3 chapter is incomprehensible and it looks like the references are written with different font. 

 

Article main strengths:
1. The authors performed good literature review
2. The subject of the article is very interesting 

Article main weakness:
1. The style and language of the article are poor in some chapters