Analysis of Global Warming’s Influence on the Dimensioning of Borehole Heat Exchangers at a Climate-Exposed Site
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript evaluated the dimensioning of drilled heat exchangers by considering different factors. The authors analyzed these factors in a case study as well. My comments are listed as follow:
The abstract should answer the questions: What problem did you study and why is it important? What methods did you use? What were your main results? And what did you conclude from your results? Please make your abstract with specific and quantitative results to further enrich the content of the article. Please indicate each of these questions in the abstract when you are replying to this comment.
The last paragraph of the introduction should focus on the gap of the research area and the aim of the study to fill the gap. Please add/revise the manuscript accordingly.
Page 3, line 11: Can the authors explain why the threshold of 50 KW is chosen?
Section 5: please add a paragraph to describe what these scenarios are about.
Page 8, line 325: Can the authors explain why the thermal conductivity is considered different in scenario 4?
Page 8, line 327: “If the primary circuit has not been properly designed, we must take into account the 327 objective change in external average…”. Can the authors explain the reason that they have to consider the objective change in temperature and keep the thermal conductivity unchanged?
Figure 10-12: Can the authors explain why two graphs are seen in these figures but the legend introduces four types of graphs?
Similar to the abstract, the conclusion of this study is not in the right format. Please revise accordingly.
The writing of this manuscript is poor and needs heavily polished. The manuscript with current writing is not suggested for publication. There are many unclear sentences. These sentences do not let the reader understand the paper properly.
Author Response
Dear reviewer.
Thank you for your comments. We appreciate it very much and it's been very helpful. So we're sending a new version of our article, where we tried to incorporate all your comments, We trust that everything will be OK. Thank you again.
Authors
Review Report 1
This manuscript evaluated the dimensioning of drilled heat exchangers by considering different factors. The authors analyzed these factors in a case study as well. My comments are listed as follow: The abstract should answer the questions: What problem did you study and why is it important? What methods did you use? What were your main results? And what did you conclude from your results? Please make your abstract with specific and quantitative results to further enrich the content of the article. Please indicate each of these questions in the abstract when you are replying to this comment.
Yes, we accept that the abstract was too general. We created a new one where we summarized the content of our article. After reviewing the abstract, we also modified the title. A second reviewer's comment brought this to our attention. We believe it now fits more closely with the content of the whole article.
The last paragraph of the introduction should focus on the gap of the research area and the aim of the study to fill the gap. Please add/revise the manuscript accordingly.
We edited the whole article a little bit, added an extra chapter, and refined some passages in each chapter.
Page 3, line 11: Can the authors explain why the threshold of 50 KW is chosen?
In the text of Chapter 2 and in other chapters, we explained why 50 kW.
Section 5: please add a paragraph to describe what these scenarios are about.
We edited the whole article a little bit, added an extra chapter, and refined some passages in each chapter. We believe it is now more clearly.
Page 8, line 325: Can the authors explain why the thermal conductivity is considered different in scenario 4?
Page 8, line 327: “If the primary circuit has not been properly designed, we must take into account the 327 objective change in external average…”. Can the authors explain the reason that they have to consider the objective change in temperature and keep the thermal conductivity unchanged?
We have taken your comments into account in the text.
Figure 10-12: Can the authors explain why two graphs are seen in these figures but the legend introduces four types of graphs?
The endnotes of the image are edited and there is an explanation in the text.
Similar to the abstract, the conclusion of this study is not in the right format. Please revise accordingly. The writing of this manuscript is poor and needs heavily polished. The manuscript with current writing is not suggested for publication. There are many unclear sentences. These sentences do not let the reader understand the paper properly.
According to your comments, we have revised the text. We have clarified a number of things, we think everything is now more clear (thanks for the comments). We added a chapter on BHE simulations.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of the manuscript ID: processes-1110527Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Objective Risks of Dimensioning the Borehole Heat Exchangers at Climate-Exposed Sites
Overview and general recommendation:
The paper deals with heat transfer via borehole heat exchangers (localized in the Czech Republic) and objective risks during dimensioning. The paper is interesting but it cannot be recommended for publication in Processes in the present form. Nevertheless, it may be recommended for publication if all the following critical comments will be complied:
- The title do not exactly correspond with the researches.
- The abstract needs to be rewritten for better wording and flow. Its narrative flow should give a better feel for overview of the covered topic to be a single and connected work. Should be given information about the software used, methods, the aspects dealt with in the investigation and so on.
- The authors should also include keyword ‘heat pump’.
- What is exactelly ‘medium enthalpy’ in line 44: ‘Although power can also be generated from medium enthalpy geothermal sources…’? Please, explain.
- Between lines 49 and 52 the authors mentioned about pipe systems in rocks. Please, support the text with appropriate technical drawing.
- Table 1 is not appropriately located in the text and is not explained well. What is temperature range given there? It also looks like print screen with pure quality.
- The authors should better explain the significance of their research in the international context as Processes is an international journal. No other study similar to the proposed topic is presented, nor about the methods used. The reader should be informed about the comparison between dimensioning of borehole heat exchanger.
- The Introduction section is to be expanded.
- In line 74 and next the authors mentioned about dimensioning errors. What is the method of calculating them? What they resulted?
- It should be more information about EED 4 software and about algorithm used. Only large design projects are addressed to be modelling with that?
- Lines 113 and next presents too academic. If the authors have ‘years of experience’, appropriate technical drawings of the system should be delivered in here.
- If the title is ‘Objective Risks of Dimensioning…’, third section should deal with that vividly. No objective data, no comparisons.
- Four cases have been considered for dimensioning of borehole heat exchangers. The authors should specify which case is considered for the feasibility assessment.
- The quality of Figures 4-12 is not good. Authors should do more efforts in finding a way of presenting the results from Figures 4-12.
- Line 34: What the error 9.9% of heat load derives from?
- Presenting values principles of international metrology should be used.
- Figures 5 and 6 are not enough explained. It is not clear what the authors exactly did. This impression accompanies the entire work while reading. What is the novelty of this paper? Delineate it, please.
- The conclusions should state in a clear and complex manner the findings of the performed study. The presentation of the conclusions should be improved. In fact, little is known what was the subject of the work and what the results are.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer.
Thank you for your comments. We appreciate it very much and it's been very helpful. So we're sending a new version of our article, where we tried to incorporate all your comments, We trust that everything will be OK. Thank you again.
Authors
Review Report 2
The paper deals with heat transfer via borehole heat exchangers (localized in the Czech Republic) and objective risks during dimensioning. The paper is interesting but it cannot be recommended for publication in Processes in the present form. Nevertheless, it may be recommended for publication if all the following critical comments will be complied:
The title do not exactly correspond with the researches.
On the basis of the comments, we have decided that the title of the article really needs to be changed. We think the new title better captures the essence of the message.
The abstract needs to be rewritten for better wording and flow. Its narrative flow should give a better feel for overview of the covered topic to be a single and connected work. Should be given information about the software used, methods, the aspects dealt with in the investigation and so on.
Abstract was rewritten. We believe it better captures the message.
The authors should also include keyword ‘heat pump’.
Done. Thanks a lot, we forgot for this.
What is exactelly ‘medium enthalpy’ in line 44: ‘Although power can also be generated from medium enthalpy geothermal sources…’? Please, explain.
Medium enthalpy resources could, however, is used to generate electricity by using a Rankine cycle with working fluids that boil at lower temperatures than water as in the Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) and Kalina Cycle (KC) (Schuster et al., 2009). A recent research indicates that for moderate temperatures of geothermal resources, ORCs integrated in hybrid renewable energy power systems are the most effective approach to reduce electricity generation cost, improve plant efficiency and extend the lifespan of reservoir (Zheng et al., 2015).
Between lines 49 and 52 the authors mentioned about pipe systems in rocks. Please, support the text with appropriate technical drawing.
We would not like to fill the text with things that go beyond the content of the message. We think the equipment of the collector for the heat pump is common knowledge.
Table 1 is not appropriately located in the text and is not explained well. What is temperature range given there? It also looks like print screen with pure quality.
Done.
The authors should better explain the significance of their research in the international context as Processes is an international journal. No other study similar to the proposed topic is presented, nor about the methods used. The reader should be informed about the comparison between dimensioning of borehole heat exchanger.
The location for modelling the scenarios is quite unique and very specific. We believe it's OK in the context of the article.
The Introduction section is to be expanded. In line 74 and next the authors mentioned about dimensioning errors. What is the method of calculating them? What they resulted? It should be more information about EED 4 software and about algorithm used. Only large design projects are addressed to be modelling with that? Lines 113 and next presents too academic. If the authors have ‘years of experience’, appropriate technical drawings of the system should be delivered in here. If the title is ‘Objective Risks of Dimensioning…’, third section should deal with that vividly. No objective data, no comparisons. Four cases have been considered for dimensioning of borehole heat exchangers. The authors should specify which case is considered for the feasibility assessment. Line 34: What the error 9.9% of heat load derives from? Presenting values principles of international metrology should be used.
In the context of your comments and those of the second reviewer, we have changed a number of things, added and refined the text. We believe that everything is now clearer and accurately describes the subject, including the results.
The quality of Figures 4-12 is not good. Authors should do more efforts in finding a way of presenting the results from Figures 4-12. Figures 5 and 6 are not enough explained. It is not clear what the authors exactly did. This impression accompanies the entire work while reading. What is the novelty of this paper? Delineate it, please.
We have refined and cleared many of the images. They should be clearly legible at the moment.
The conclusions should state in a clear and complex manner the findings of the performed study. The presentation of the conclusions should be improved. In fact, little is known what was the subject of the work and what the results are.
The conclusion is a summary of our findings on the topic. We think a concise concept is more beneficial. We are not fans of unnecessary text-filling. We believe there is strength in brevity. We appreciate your comments and believe that we have brought everything to your satisfaction.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I do not see any significant improvement in the writing of the manuscript. There are many sentences that are grammatically incorrect. The writing of this manuscript needs significantly be improved. Please ask a proofreader to revise the manuscript.
Author Response
Hello.
Thank you for your time in review activity with our article. There are our new version with notes from you. We belive you will be sitisfied. Changes:
- line 2-3: Modified name as instructed in review 2;
- line 30-40: extended introduction to compare topic with other authors;
- line 522-559: extended References list;
- renumbered References in the text;
- language correction within MDPIs.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of the manuscript ID: processes-1110527
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Analysis of Influence of Global Warming on Dimensioning of 2 the Borehole Heat
Exchangers at Climate Exposed Site
Overview and general recommendation:
Many thinks have been improved in comparison to previous version of the paper.
However, some of the comments are not covered very well. The literature review must
be improved and expanded to show the other researches opinion on the topic. This is
only way to claim the paper presents really novel approach.
English should be improved as well.
Title needs correction. Applying the proper word order in a sentence would already
improve the style, e.g. Analysis of the Global Warming Influence on Dimensioning of 2 the Borehole Heat Exchangers at Climate Exposed Site.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Hello.
Thank you for your time with review activity at our article. We belive, you will be satisfied with changes. Thank you again. Changes:
- line 2-3: Modified name as instructed;
- line 30-40: extended introduction to compare topic with other authors;
- line 522-559: extended References list;
- renumbered References in the text;
- language correction within MDPIs.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
