Fuel Cell Systems for Maritime: A Review of Research Development, Commercial Products, Applications, and Perspectives
, Massimo Rivarolo 1,*, Eleonora Gadducci 1, Loredana Magistri 1 and Aristide F. Massardo 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript titled “Fuel Cell systems for maritime: a review of research development, commercial products, applications and perspectives” is very interesting. The introduction section is well written, but some references can boost our knowledge about PEMFC's electrochemical details. Such as:
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15166076
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14247907
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15207209
Author Response
Thank You for the review. We included the suggested reference and we referred to them in the Introduction section, according to Your suggestion.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper aims to present a comparative review of the fuel cell systems suitable for the maritime field, focusing on PEMFC and SOFC technologies. It is a timely review. It could be accepted after a major revision.
1. Some figures used in this manuscript are meaningless. Please update them with more informative and vivid figures.
2. Are the fuel cells on the market all for maritime applications? If not, they are not closely related to the topic.
3. In Tables 5 and 6, more details of the fuel cell system can be included.
Author Response
1) Some figures used in this manuscript are meaningless. Please update them with more informative and vivid figures.
R: we deleted Figure 1 and we substitute Figure 2 with a more vivid one, thank You.
2. Are the fuel cells on the market all for maritime applications? If not, they are not closely related to the topic.
R: Thank you for the question. The most of the fuel cell systems we included in the paper are specific developed for maritime applications. A few products in Tab. 2-3 are for mobility/transport application and they can be marinized without significant modifications in terms of volumes and weights.
3. In Tables 5 and 6, more details of the fuel cell system can be included.
R: We included further details on Fuel Cell Systems in the text before Table 5, in the projects description. For space reasons, we cannot include further details in the table. However, we inserted all the reference in the table.
Reviewer 3 Report
The review seems ok, recent studies and systems have been gathered and could be accepted after some minor additions.
* I recommend to enhance conclusion.
* Some information regarding the prices of the systems and operating costs and efficiencies are needed.
Author Response
I recommend to enhance conclusion.
R: thank you, we expanded the conclusions according to Your review.
Some information regarding the prices of the systems and operating costs and efficiencies are needed.
R: thank you, we included new reference and we added both the estimated market prices for PEM and SOFC systems as well as operating costs. Regarding the efficiencies, they are included in Tables 2-3.
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper presents comparative review of the fuel cell systems suitable for the maritime field, and the difference between PEMFC and SOFC. International policies and some international projects are also displayed. However, same or similar investigations of fuel cells has been extensively reported in aircrafts, and this work should be more and advanced. I think that this manuscript is worthy to be published in processes after the following comments have been carefully addressed.
1. Some grammar mistakes can be avoided, such as last two lines in page 5.
2. Is there any international research projects funded by other countries?
3. Some references should be replaced by more representative ones, such as [51].
4. The Figure in manuscript should be revised more clearly before publication.
Author Response
1) Some grammar mistakes can be avoided, such as last two lines in page 5
R: Thank You, we corrected the mistake and we also made a general grammar review of the whole manuscript.
2) Is there any international research projects funded by other countries?
R: we added some research projects funded by USA and Asian Countries (Tab. 5 -6), thank you for Your review.
3) Some references should be replaced by more representative ones, such as [51].
R: We replaced ref. [51] with a more representative one, as suggested.
The Figure in manuscript should be revised more clearly before publication.
R: we added some clarification/explanation in the text before Figures 1-2, thank you.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed the comments. The current version is suitable for publication.
