Selection of Renewable Energy Projects from the Investor’s Point of View Based on the Fuzzy–Rough Approach and the Bonferroni Mean Operator

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with the assessment of investments in renewable energy projects. The assessment of the possible investments is done by using fuzzy-rough approach. The study was performed for the case of Brcko, Bosnia and Hercegovina. The method and the idea of the paper is very good, and the paper is well written. However, better focus and specification about the energy carriers and use would improve the paper. Comments to improve the paper are given bellow:

 

General comments:

1.      Instead of “energy production”, use the term “energy conversion”. Check the entire paper for this.

2.      When addressing solar energy, it should be explained if it is related to photo voltaic (PV) or solar thermal systems.

3.      The suggested alternative “Solar energy (A1) - Using solar panels to produce electricity” should be renamed to photo voltaic (PV). Check the entire text for this.

4.      When discussing research criteria, ownership model should be also considered. If this was not done in the current study, the reasons should be given. For most of the suggested technologies, it is beneficial that municipalities are owners, but for some technologies such as PV and geothermal energy, private ownership may be more beneficial. This aspect should be discussed.

5.      Current and future energy prices should be also discussed, because they will a lot influence the results and decisions.

6.      When discussing biomass, waste incineration, and geothermal energy, thermal energy should be mentioned. In many countries, specifically in Bosnia and Hercegovina, converting heating supply to biomass, waste incineration, and geothermal energy may be a good solution. In the presented study, the authors are only talking about electricity, and not about heating. Heating demand may be more significant than electricity demand in Bosnia and Hercegovina. Therefore, scope of the work should be better defined.

7.      Current and future electricity and heating demand should be mentioned, because this will form future decisions. Together with the demand, realistic possibility for the energy supply should be listed. Size of the area and population should be also introduced. Relaying only on the survey from the experts does not cover the entire energy supply issue.

8.      When explaining the results in Figure 2, it should be explained how we can see that A1 is the best ranked. There is no need to have Figure 2 in 3 D. 2D is enough.

Specific comments:

In Table 2, the last line should be Very good (VG).

Author Response

The paper deals with the assessment of investments in renewable energy projects. The assessment of the possible investments is done by using fuzzy-rough approach. The study was performed for the case of Brcko, Bosnia and Hercegovina. The method and the idea of the paper is very good, and the paper is well written. However, better focus and specification about the energy carriers and use would improve the paper. Comments to improve the paper are given bellow:

Thank you for your constructive comments to make this paper as good as possible. Through the reviews, you also gave us a couple of ideas for future research that we will look to implement. All changes in the text are marked in red font. We tried to apply everything you said in the comments in our paper.

 General comments:

Comments 1: Instead of “energy production”, use the term “energy conversion”. Check the entire paper for this.

Response 1: Wherever energy production term is used in the text, it has been changed to energy conversion

Comments 2: When addressing solar energy, it should be explained if it is related to photo voltaic (PV) or solar thermal systems.

Response 2: It was explained that the term photo voltaic was used under solar energy..

Comments 3: The suggested alternative “Solar energy (A1) - Using solar panels to produce electricity” should be renamed to photo voltaic (PV). Check the entire text for this.

Response 3: In the entire text, the term solar energy has been changed to photo voltaic

Comments 4: When discussing research criteria, ownership model should be also considered. If this was not done in the current study, the reasons should be given. For most of the suggested technologies, it is beneficial that municipalities are owners, but for some technologies such as PV and geothermal energy, private ownership may be more beneficial. This aspect should be discussed.

Response 4: This was explained in the discussion where the ownership of the application of the RES system was discussed. 

Comments 5: Current and future energy prices should be also discussed, because they will a lot influence the results and decisions.

Response 5: It was added that the price of energy will rise and that the production of electricity from the RES system must also increase.

Comments 6: When discussing biomass, waste incineration, and geothermal energy, thermal energy should be mentioned. In many countries, specifically in Bosnia and Hercegovina, converting heating supply to biomass, waste incineration, and geothermal energy may be a good solution. In the presented study, the authors are only talking about electricity, and not about heating. Heating demand may be more significant than electricity demand in Bosnia and Hercegovina. Therefore, scope of the work should be better defined.

Response 6: It was mentioned in the discussion that not only renewable sources must be used in the production of energy, but that thermal energy can also be produced, which can be used for heating purposes.

Comments 7: Current and future electricity and heating demand should be mentioned, because this will form future decisions. Together with the demand, realistic possibility for the energy supply should be listed. Size of the area and population should be also introduced. Relaying only on the survey from the experts does not cover the entire energy supply issue.

Response 7: It was explained that the application of expert decision-making should be only one of the analyzes for the final decision to be made by the investor.

Comments 8: When explaining the results in Figure 2, it should be explained how we can see that A1 is the best ranked. There is no need to have Figure 2 in 3 D. 2D is enough.

Response 8: The image is transferred from 3D to 2D and it is stated that alternative A1 is the best in this analysis.

Specific comments:

Comments 9: In Table 2, the last line should be Very good (VG).

Response 9: This table has been corrected. Thanks for noticing the mistake.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There following problems / remarks I'd like to adress:
1) table 2 contains two times the value very bad (Linguistic values), as I assume one of them should be very good,
2) as this paper refers to Topsis it should also mention paper by prof. Z. Hellwig that were the first ones that were dealing the problem of linear ordering, and MCDM in economy
3) line 235 shows the transformation of linguistic values into fuzzy numbers. But how these fuzzy values were selected - are the triangular, trapezoid fuzzy numbers?
4) who is an expert according to this paper?

Author Response

There following problems / remarks I'd like to adress:

Thank you for your comments. We took all comments into account and corrected the paper accordingly. We marked all those corrections with a red font.

Comments 1: table 2 contains two times the value very bad (Linguistic values), as I assume one of them should be very good,

Response 1: It has been corrected in the board thanks for the observed error.

Comments 2: as this paper refers to Topsis it should also mention paper by prof. Z. Hellwig that were the first ones that were dealing the problem of linear ordering, and MCDM in economy

Response 2: This reference has been added

Comments 3: line 235 shows the transformation of linguistic values into fuzzy numbers. But how these fuzzy values were selected - are the triangular, trapezoid fuzzy numbers?

Response 3: It is explained how to use the membership function and it is explained that these are triangular fuzzy numbers.

Comments 4: who is an expert according to this paper?

Response 4: It is explained who the experts are in this paper and what their task was in this research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The term photovoltaic should be written as one word.