Assessing Retail Biomass Electricity Efficiency in Japan: Focus on Average Cost and Benefit
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review for the “Assessing retail biomass electricity efficiency in Japan: Focus 2
on average cost and benefit.”
This article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of Bio-REL and PV- REL. It is very well written. I just have a few minor comments.
- The abbreviation of willingness to pay (WTP) is first given under “keywords”. It should be given when it was first used in the content of the article, line 17 in the abstract in this case. Another example is the LCOEs in line 14 in the abstract.
- Be consistent. Some of the numbers have the space before the unit, and some of them don’t have space. For example, 444GWh (without a space) is used in line 308, and 35 MW (with the space) is used in line 320.
- Bio-REL is discussed more thoroughly; a few examples of PV-REL are needed.
Author Response
We are grateful for your constructive comments on our manuscript. Our responses to your comments are noted in an attached PDF file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author,
Below are tips to increase the reputation of the work:
- List of abbreviation
- More clarification needed in section 1
- Please adhere to journal format
Regards
Author Response
We are grateful for your constructive comments on our manuscript. Our responses to your comments are noted in an attached PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript "Assessing retail biomass electricity efficiency in Japan: Focus 2
on average cost and benefit" is an interesting work done by the authors. However, authors must improve the paper before it gets published
1) Authors must include few graphs, pie-charts to interpret their work in good manner
2) Please check English and grammatical mistakes in the manuscript
3) Authors should include few figures or block diagrams to support the work
Author Response
We are grateful for your constructive comments on our manuscript. Our responses to your comments are noted in an attached PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In this paper, the authors reported the assessment of retail biomass electricity efficiency from the viewpoint of average cost and benefit comparing with that of photovoltaic one.
The authors analyzed the cost structure of renewable electricity (REL) by estimating the weight average levelized cost of energy and the benefits of REL by estimating willingness to pay.
I think that the analysis has been conducted carefully and obtained useful results at present stage in Japan and also in other countries. However, I am afraid the subject of the paper is not suitable for this journal.
There are some comments as follows.
Comments
- Line 522-525
If it is possible, the problem of bioresources renewable electricity (Bio-REL) should be explained specifically and the technological problems of Bio-REL also should be mentioned.
- Line 161
good ?
- Line 260
woodetc’ ?
- Line 297
Table 4 ?
- Line 446,448
NOT ?
- Line 456
24.9/kWh ?
Author Response
We are grateful for your constructive comments on our manuscript. Our responses to your comments are noted in an attached PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have made some changes in the manuscript which seems reasonable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I think that the revised manuscript is better than original one. In revised manuscript, many attempts were made to improve original one.
Comments
Line 654
Figure 5 ?
Line 562
?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
