Strategies to Ensure Fuel Security in Brazil Considering a Forecast of Ethanol Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review

The work “Strategies to ensure fuel security in Brazil considering a forecast of ethanol production” provides important information for bioethanol production in Brazil. It shows a revision of sugarcane as traditional feedstook for bioethanol production  and presents corn as alternative feedstook. However, corn is considered a first generation feedstook for bioethanol. Why not other kind of materials were considered such as agricultural waste or agroindustrial waste? I think the reason to only considered corn as alternative must be explened more clearly in the manuscript.

 Aditionally, the following observation are point out:

 

 

1.      Line 121, write “and” instead “e”.

2.      Line 480, Figure 2 looks incomplete

3.      The words “table” and “figure”  should be written with a capital letter.

 

Author Response

All the comments were addressed. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1.       The author has mentioned that the current and only feedstock used has great chances to not achieve necessary. However, corn ethanol is highly encouraged in USA. But, cost economics, food debate and critical factors. Please comment.

2.       The author highlighted that sugarcane ethanol in Brazil has more advantages when compared to corn ethanol, so what’s the perspective of corn ethanol production and technical and policy hurdles in acceptance

3.       Highlights should be revised with the inclusion of novel statements from current research.

CO2 should be written as CO₂

4.       The author should avoid random paragraph formation in all sections. Instead, the author should provide some subheadings in section 4 as well.

5.       Table 1, the author has mentioned that 1 ton of sugar cane produces only 70-80 liters of ethanol compared to corn. However, the fermentation time for corn ethanol production is comparatively high 40-60 h. Please state the benefits for each other in terms of technoeconomic and their relevance at commercial scale production. Out of all factors which is a limiting factor in overall.

6.       The author should clarify the significance/ merits and demerits of both the processes and selection grade best scenario for ethanol production.

7.       Forecast: The author has mentioned that “To predict ethanol production for the next years it was necessary to use historical 475 data of ethanol production. The data collected ranged from 1981 to 2019 and it is shown 476 in figure 2. In order to predict the ethanol production for 2028, it was used the Oracle© 477 Crystal Ball software. The author should elaborate with a critical depth of understanding and prediction parameters. The forecast is based upon historical data. However, the current fuel ethanol market is varying huge. Thus, the author should evaluate the critical parameters such as production cost, LCA study, chemicals consumption, ethanol demand and consumption, ethanol titer, production time, quality etc.

8.       The author should consider some of the specific parameters for forecast study.

9.       Conclusion needs to be revise strictly as its very hard to conclude any thing.

10.   References need to be checked once again.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Very interesting and important article from the point of view of CO2 emissions management and from the economic side. The use of three forecasting methods gives a large measure of confidence in the results obtained. Some of my concerns, however, are global events that have a significant impact on both oil prices and world sugar prices. Padnemia Covid 19 has a very large impact on the entire world economy. The war in Ukraine is also significantly affecting fuel prices. Please outline how the authors took these factors into account in their forecasting and how they affected the final results.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, I  thank you for taking into account the comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Highlights first and third seem contradictory to each other. As the authors said that sugarcane would not be enough to meet the ethanol target, however, sugarcane ethanol has more advantages compared to corn ethanol. So, what’s the author’s outcome of the study? As first-generation feedstock (corn) has high food vs fuel debate. Please comment

 

 The author should avoid the use of more than three citations for a particular sentence. It was observed that in many places in the manuscript, the authors have used more than six citations. Kindly follow the author’s guidelines.

The authors have mentioned that “In Brazil, there is a link between the economic situation and the decrease in sugarcane production”. The authors should provide some of the latest examples in support of the text.

Author Response

The authors revised the English language and style. In addition, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The answer to my concerns is sufficient in my opinion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx