Generation of Renewable Energy (Biogas) in the Western Region of Paraná/Brazil—A Multicase Study from the Viewpoint of Contracts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper investigates the relationships that permeate the governance structure for bioenergy generation through swine waste in the West Mesoregion of Paraná, from the study of three business models. The article has a certain academic level, but there are still some problems that need to be modified. I hope the opinions put forward can be used as a reference for the article.

 

1)         What is the biggest innovation of this article? I hope the author will elaborate and summarize it in the Abstract; in addition, there are too many background introductions in the Abstract, and I hope the author will simplify it appropriately and focus on the exposition of the research methods and research conclusions (such as the optimization performance of the proposed method) proposed by the authors in this paper.

2)         The research status in the Introduction needs to be further discussed, and attention is paid to quoting some relevant high-level research literature;

3)         The following documents have conducted a more in-depth study of renewable and sustainable energy techniques, such as renewable and sustainable energy development, energy interconnection, new energy market and energy control strategy, which are closely related to the content of this paper. Please quote it in the appropriate place in the article. The list of articles is as follows: [1] Demand response for sustainable energy systems: a review, application and implementation strategy, Farshid S, Paras M, Anurag K S, renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 2015, 45: 343-350; [2] L.F. Cheng, Y. Chen, and G.Y. Liu. 2PnS-EG: A general two-population n-strategy evolutionary game for strategic long-term bidding in a deregulated market under different market clearing mechanisms. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 142, Part A, Article ID 108182, Nov. 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2022.108182; [3] L.F. Cheng, L.F. Yin, J.H. Wang, T. Shen, Y. Chen, G.Y. Liu, and T. Yu. Behavioral decision-making in power demand-side response management: A multi-population evolutionary game dynamics perspective. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 129, Article ID 106743, Jul. 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2020.106743. [4] Fang DB, Zhao CY, Yu Q. government regulation of renewable energy generation and transmission in China's electricity market. renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 2018, 93: 775-793;

4)         The full text is a large number of words, the author should give some statistical tables or pictures appropriately, so that readers can understand the main research content of the article more clearly;

5)         The core conclusion of the article should be elaborated in different points, and give more sufficient evidence;

6)         Some contents can be appropriately simplified, especially those with common sense.

7)         There are some grammatical problems in the language of the article. It is recommended that the author make good polishing and revision of the language part, especially some relatively long sentences and the use of wrong words.

8)         The conclusion part needs to be elaborated by points;

9)         The author should make appropriate analysis and comments on the existing research, and make appropriate outlook and discussion on future related research, so as to inspire relevant researchers to get more inspiration and thinking.

10)     There are some English abbreviations and variables in this paper. It is suggested that the author provide a nomenclature;

Author Response

File with corrections attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This article reviews three approaches to funding of large-scale biogas projects, primarily based on pig slurry as a feedstock.

This type of work is very important, as understanding the mechanisms for supporting such projects, and the reasons for their eventual success or failure is of high value to policy makers and market participants.

The research approach is valid. The aims are clear.

However, a more in depth examination of the reasons for failure of the first project would have been valuable. For example, is the quoted rate of biogas output low or high? If low, then why? If the output is as expected then was this not anticipated by the planners?

Engagement with current literature is inadequate. The style of engagement is light-touch at best. How do these projects compare with other such projects reported in the literature?

The abstract and conclusions require significant work.

The phraseology is awkward in several places, please extensively review with a native English speaker.

Line 77 – Transaction Cost Economics (_TCE)

Line 95 – ECT - fix 

Line 98 – ex-post ex-ante

Line 119 – different referencing style used

Line 144-145 – agreements … are a fundamental aspect

Line 147 – being it an efficient

Line 160-161 – Richardson [15], and Cooper

Line 170 – the descriptive, aimed, description – rephrase

Line 177 – possibility of generating profits

Line 193-194 – not sure this line is necessary

Line 208 – in deactivation phase?

Line 211-212 – among them…among others – rephrase

Line 214-215 – It was up to the farmers only the labor – rephrase

Line 354 – O – remove

Line 469-472 – this is new information not discussed in the results/discussion and should not be introduced in the conclusions

Line 486-493 – belongs in discussion section

Line 523 – *final version

Author Response

File with corrections attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Much improved and significantly more coherent.

Perhaps some of the "Conclusion" section belongs in "Discussion".

Some minor typo corrections below.

 

Line 240 – “not” or “now”

Line 282 – “part” or “some”

Line 315 – “a… plant” or “plants”

Line 319 – my guess is that N refers to “normalised cubic meter”, as “nano” cubic meter is too small a number to quantify for payment, same for Line 354/355.

Line 364 – “reducing” or “increasing” payback time

Line 518 – “including is the fact”

Line 557 – “What’s more” too informal, change to “Furthermore”