Sustainable CO2 Refrigeration System for Fish Cold Storage Facility Using a Renewable Integrated System with Solar, Wind and Tidal Energy for Cape Verde—Analyzing Scenarios
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have submitted a revised article that deals with four feasible alternative solutions for an integrated cold storage system in the city of Tarrafal, Santiago, Cape Verde. A few comments to improve the manuscript.
The literature review should be deepened and given more attention.
There is no need to describe some technologies in depth in Chapter 4.
The efficiency values used in Equation 5 should be presented.
A uniform font should be used throughout the figures.
There is no need to repeat the title above a figure if it is already given by the numbering.
The question is how can the authors compare their results with other studies? Can your results be trusted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe reviewer expresses keen interest in the author's research topic and intends to follow the author's work closely.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript describes the results of modeling and comparison of four feasible alternative solutions for an integrated cold storage system in the city of Tarrafal, Santiago, Cape Verde. Integrated systems using grid electricity were compared with autonomous systems generating electrical energy from renewable sources, alongside various types of refrigeration facility systems. The energy efficiency, financial feasibility, and environmental impact across four scenarios were evaluated. The most efficient scenario was selected based on the optimization criteria considered.
Such work has the right to exist and may be of interest to scientists specializing in the related field. However, there is one serious question. Any scientific work should provide some generalizations, as well as forecasts and recommendations that could be applied to a broader range of issues than those directly described in the paper. So far, there are no such scientific generalizations and broad recommendations and conclusions that could be applied to a wider range of issues in the manuscript. Therefore, it resembles more of a technical report than a scientific article. The authors still have work to do to improve their work in this context.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work is novel, however, it should be better structured and described so that it can be accepted.
Some suggestions are:
It should show and describe the figures more clearly. For example, the numbering in figure 3 should be shown in figure 2.
Figure 4 does not contribute anything to the work, because it does not show how the velocity profile is evaluated.
The relevance of figure 7 is not appreciated, because it can be found in the literature.
A detailed scientific study cannot be clearly seen in the work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have investigated the integration of renewable energy system
in a fish cold storage facilities.
The article is well-written and well-structured. English language is appropriate.
All Figure and Table are representative
I was surprised that the introduction lacks of information about wind turbines location for this application so I suggest to include in the references section :
BRUSCA, Sebastian, et al. A new design methodology to predict wind farm energy production by means of a spiking neural network–based system. International Journal of Numerical Modelling: Electronic Networks, Devices and Fields, 2019, 32.4: e2267.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made the necessary corrections. The article may be accepted. Some minor comments:
Do not repeat title of figure on it: Fig. 7, Fig. 8.
Line 787: should be Table 7 instead of Table 4.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript can be accepted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt appears that the authors have made quite a few changes to the article. However, it is not clear which suggestions were addressed. It would have been good if they had entered a document specifying in detail the changes made based on the reviewer's suggestions.
Author Response
We appreciate your feedback. To facilitate the identification of the changes made, we have highlighted them in yellow in the submitted article. We hope this approach helps clarify which suggestions have been addressed. If you require any further information, we are available to assist.
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
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
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle :
Sustainable CO2 refrigeration system for fish cold storage fa-cility using a renewable integrated system with solar, wind and tidal energy for Cape Verde – Analyzing scenarios
· Need to add reference system to compare the new results with it
· The introduction is too short and need to add previous studies especially to as a background to the propose system.
· Need to add a methodology section to explain clearly the method that applied to the study.
· More clarification about the aim of the article is required to be added to the introduction.
· Furthermore, provide comparison of the model you have used with those that other researchers have used in the past.
· Further scientific analysis and discussion need to be added (prior each figure).
· Explaine, in the methodology section, how to calculate Co2 emissions in this work.
· The outcome of the article need to be linked to aim in the introduction.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors presented an analysis of different scenarios related to the integration of renewable energy systems in Tarrafal de Santiago. Different technologies were used: wind, solar and tidal energy. The manuscript has a number of places that need to be corrected, so it cannot be published in its current state. Comments to improve the manuscript:
In addition, the abstract should provide a more general context for the topical study. What could be provided at the very beginning.
When the value is 360 696.99, isn't it easier to write 360 697?
The introduction should not only give a general description of the need for the research but also provide a specific description of previous research, highlighting the scientific debate and need, what has been done in the field, what is still missing, and how your research is new and relevant.
The paper to be reviewed would have a line numbering.
The paper briefly describes the selected renewable energy transformation technologies, but misses the analysis of previous studies as the need for your research needs to be highlighted in relation to the existing state of the art. Therefore, the introduction needs to be rewritten.
Table 1 shows the thickness of the thermal insulation, but it would be useful to know the thermal conductivity of the insulation and, even better, the overall heat transfer coefficient.
Table 1: Lighting should start with the capital letter.
The equipment should be detailed more in the text (Table 1).
Revision of dots or commas should be used in Table 1.
How is Table 2 made? Are the values accepted, calculated, or modeled? A more detailed explanation and description is lacking.
The quality of Fig. 2 must be increased. Some text is too small. Explanations of the signs must be provided therein. Fig. 3: All processes depicted should be briefly discussed in the text. Explain the difference between the blue and red lines. Does Table 3 contain measurement data? how do you get the values of parameters? ηss in eq. 2 must be explained. Is it the same quantity as in eq. 1? Different notation. Add reference for Table 4. How do you determine the efficiency of the system in Table 5? Figure 7 has a low presentation quality.
Figure 8 has a poor presentation quality; also, it must be commented.
Comments on the Quality of English Language-
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlthough the subject is an interesting case which is amenable to massive and differentiated use of renewable energy sources, the methods and tools employed are obscure at best: the Authors remark in many places that the design and evaluation of the possible solutions have been carefully and meticulously pondered, yet no evidence of this is actually given, only the final results are presented. It is also unclear how the latter were obtained (time-dependent analysis, static scenario, or else). Also, data interpretation is questionable (e.g., the best performance in terms of COP of scenario 4 is most likely to be due to the low condensation temperature allowed by the use of seawater, which in turn would require appropriate design of the condenser). Therefore, this Reviewer feels the paper should be rejected in its current form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have made corrections, but the manuscript still needs improvement:
It would be best if all the figures used the same text font, especially if you are the author.
There is no need to repeat the title of the figure above it: Fig. 9, Fig. 10.
Fig. 3 - English should be used in the axes.
Review the quality of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 so that all the lettering is neatly visible.
Review the usual rules for in-text citations, usually not all authors are mentioned, e.g. Vaughan et al. should be, but not all authors are written.
Articulate, from the studies you have reviewed, what the scientific gaps are, some small discussion is needed in this case. It is not enough to say what others have done. Therefore, the introduction still needs to be corrected.
Comments on the Quality of English Language-
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
