Paper ID: ESCE007IOP_Krishna

Paper title: Techno-economic Aspects of Sustainable Energy Development from

Coal

Recommendation: □ Major Revision ☑ Minor Revision □Reject

Reviewer Blind Comments to Authors
Formatting according to IOP conference series template:

Suitability of title:
The title is too general and does not highlight the purpose of the study which is to inform
on the economic trade-offs between the cost to improve current thermal plants and the
production of clean energy.
Abstract:
1. The abstracts lacks the method on how the author has conducted the research.
2. The author assumes economic reasons as the primary justification for the slow
incorporation of clean technology in thermal power plants. However, the author does not
validate.
3. Lacks a concluding statement.

Problem statement and review on past research:

1. The introduction lacks direction for the overall study.
2. The introduction highlights problems such as storage of CO2 under the sea bed.
However, does not reference this statement.

Conclusion:
1. This paper lacks a clear conclusion.
2. The paper while presents data such as the consumption of clean energy per capita, it
does little to analyze the data.
3. The scope of the paper is to review, however it lacks a clear concluding statement.
Reviewers Confidential Comments to Editor (if any)

Guided Review
Please place an X in the box indicating your particular rating.

1. Relevance and suitability for publication:

[ ] Little
[ ] Some
[X ] Considerable
[ ] Major

2. Originality of concept:
[ ] Little
[ X] Some
[ ] Considerable
[ ] Major

3. Validity of approach:
[ X ] Poor
[ ] Fair
[ ] Good
[ ] Superior

4. Clarity of organization and presentation (readability):

[ ] Poor
[ X] Fair
[ ] Good
[ ] Superior

5. Soundness of conclusions:
[ ] Poor
[ X] Fair
[ ] Good
[ ] Superior

6. Title, summary & key words accurately reflect the content of the paper:
[ ] Poor
[ X] Unclear
[ ] Good
[ ] Very good

7. Length of text, tables and illustrations:

[ ] Excessive
[ ] Too long
[X ] Appropriate
[ ] Too short

8. Quality of illustrations, tables and figures:

[ ] Poor
[ ] Fair
[X ] Good
[ ] Excellent

9. Quality of language:
[X ] Poor
[ ] Fair
[ ] Good
[ ] Excellent