Multi-Criteria Methodology for the Location of Photovoltaic Solar Energy Production Facilities in Tenerife (Spain)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript addresses an interesting topic with reference to the contemporary scientific debate on the context of energy infrastructure installation and planning policy.
The authors elaborate a methodological framework with which it is possible to detect on the territory of optimal locations for the location of solar photovoltaic installations .
The manuscript presents some criticalities that should be corrected before being accepted for publication. Authors are advised the following.
1. I think that a better justification is needed for not considering the atmospheric dust variable when constructing aptitude model. It would be good to include some citation in this regard.
2. I think that in the DISCUSSION section, it is possible to add some reference to the economic viability of this type of solar farms in addition to ensuring sustainable land use.
3. Although it is a separate topic, but based on its connection with the one that concerns us, perhaps in CONCLUSIONS, it should be proposed to go further in future research on the useful life of these photovoltaic plants. When implementing this type of installation, variables such as available resources and useful life should be considered.

Author Response

The manuscript addresses an interesting topic with reference to the contemporary scientific debate on the context of energy infrastructure installation and planning policy. The authors elaborate a methodological framework with which it is possible to detect on the territory of optimal locations for the location of solar photovoltaic installations connected to the grid.

I must congratulate you for the exhaustive collection of fully updated Spanish legislation, when describing the legislative framework in which this type of installations are located.

The topic falls within the objectives of the journal. In general, the English grammar and style are correct, although the text should be revised in some points. In addition, the manuscript presents some criticalities that should be corrected before being accepted for publication. Authors are advised the following.

1. I think that a better justification is needed for not considering the atmospheric dust variable when constructing aptitude model. It would be good to include some citation in this regard.

We completely agree. It would be very interesting in future studies to consider the Saharan dust variable. Currently, according to the following studies (Rezazadeh et al., 2013; Saidan et al., 2016; Gholami et al., 2020) it is not necessary to consider the Saharan dust variable for the latitudes of our study area. (lines 148-151)

2. I think that in the DISCUSSION section, it is possible to add some reference to the economic viability of this type of solar farms in addition to ensuring sustainable land use (i.e. works of Marques Perez et al (2020)).

Thank you very much. A quote referring to this topic has been added (lines 428-431). Marques Perez et al (2020) uses a GIS-based approach combined with a Multi-Criteria Evaluation methodology to create a map showing a ranking of areas with high potential for solar farm development.

3. Although it is a separate topic, but because of its connection with the one that concerns us, perhaps in CONCLUSIONS, it should be proposed to deepen in future research on the useful life of these photovoltaic plants. When implementing this type of installation, variables such as available resources and useful life should be considered.

Thank you very much. Although we cannot add this topic in our study, we believe that it would be a particularly interesting topic to be considered in future studies (lines 448-450).

4. Finally, I would suggest the author(s) revise the English and correct typos. Below some parts that need to be improved before publication. Please consider revising the manuscript with the help of proofreading services (minor revisions).

Thank you very much. The article has been completely revised by a native speaker, so that its quality has improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Congratulation for your study! This article was very good to read, it has a quite interesting scientific and technical content, and has very good English. I have attached a PDF with my minor comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Authors,

Congratulation for your study! This article was very good to read, it has a quite interesting scientific and technical content, and has very good English. I have attached a PDF with my minor comments.

Thank you very much for your comments. Below is a list of the corrections we have made:

• All references have been marked by numbers (according to the correct reference style).
• We have been consistent in writing the following terms: Aptitude, Impact, Model. All of them start with a capital letter. Thank you for the advise. The word model is written with a lowercase "m" when we talk about general models.
• LINE 15: We have removed “the location of”. Thank you.
• LINE 15: We have added “electrical” grid. Thank you.
• LINE 18: We have changed “electricity” to “electrical” grid. Thank you.
• LINE 38: The second “however” has been removed. Thank you.
• LINE 48: We have changed “energies” to “energy”. Thank you.
• LINE 49: We have changed “emissions” to “emission”. Thank you.
• LINE 49: We have changed Europe “are” to “is”. Thank you.
• LINE 51: We have changed “energies” to “energy”. Thank you.
• LINE 69: We have changed “kWh/m2day” to “kWh/m² per day”. Thank you.
• LINE 77: We have changed “conditions” to “condition”. Thank you.
• LINE 79: We have added two references (AEMET). Thank you.
• LINE 93: We have changed “energies” to “energy”. Thank you.
• LINE 106: We have changed “km2” to “km²”. Thank you.
• LINES 118-120: There are no references for these models, since this is an original methodology. Thank you.
• LINES 123-125: we have reworded the sentence. Thank you.
• LINES 133-137: we have reworded the sentence. Thank you.
• LINES 140-157: we put the variables under each other to provide a clearer visual structure. Thanks.
• LINES 162-165: we have reworded the sentence. Thank you.
• LINES 197-204: we changed the format to provide a clearer visual structure. Thanks.
• LINE 207: We have changed “method” to “Method”. Thank you.
• LINE 208: We have changed “method” to “Method”. Thank you.
• LINE 251: We have changed “m2” to “m²”. Thank you.
• LINE 286: We have changed “m2” to “m²”. Thank you.
• Some figures were wrong because the English text had been displaced. All theses figures have been replaced by the correct ones. Thank you.