有三个审稿人给出的意见分别如下，已修改前天刚返回期刊，现在状态under review了。。。好忐忑，求问接受的概率大吗？？？小硕想毕业啊。。。

Reviewer #1: Please make more synthetic conclusions/discussion.

Please cite more articles on biomass pre-treatment and energy conversion pathways such as:
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.01.012
- https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1437083






Reviewer #2: The paper analyses, through a multi-objective optimization model, the sector of power generation from biomass (forest and agricultural residues), analysing the relations between power producers and brokers and the effects of Chinese incentives.
The work is original (even if it should be better justified, as specified below) and the subject is fully relevant to the scope of the Journal. The dissertation is clear, even if it could be shortened in several parts. Most of the results are described but not adequately discussed (highlighting the correlations between input and key results).
So, I recommend accepting the paper for the publication in Energy after major revision, according to the following suggestions (E = essential amendments; P = preferred amendments; T = typographical errors).
1.      (E). A hint of the results should be given in the highlights.
2.      (T). I recommend taking care of the disposition of text, tables and figures, to simplify the reviewing process. For example, figure 1 placed between abstract and introduction seems a sort of graphical abstract and not the first figure of the paper.
3.      (E). The possible use of biomass as energy storage (as specified in the introduction, line 3) is controversial. As a matter of facts, biomass storage can involve a series of problems due to the risk of fire and to its decomposition. Please check the sentence.
4.      (E). It is not clear if the sentence "According to our investigation, …" (page 3, 3rd line from the bottom) is referred to the results of this study or to an input data. Please clarify it and possibly support the sentence with adequate references.
5.      (P). I suggest to follow the conventional style for the citations. In particular, "Ref." should be replaced with the name of the first author. For example, the sentence "… was conducted by Ref. [5], which…" should be replaced by "… was conducted by Kumar et al. (2008) [5], which…".
6.      (E). The introduction reports a very detailed review of literature on power generation from biomass and supply chain, but it does not specify the lacks covered by this work. I recommend reviewing the section in order to underline the innovation of the work.
7.      (E). The reading of section 2.1 is very complex. The equations should be better commented, in order to simplify the comprehension.
8.      (E). If I understand, the complete model (equation 45) is obtained by a sort of combination of the previous equations (1 to 44). In this case, I suggest to specify it and to report such a model in a specific paragraph ("2.3. Whole model" or something similar). If my interpretation is wrong, please clarify the meaning of equation 45.
9.      (P). The introduction of section 3 (from "China has become the world's larger…" to "… from excessive fuel costs than other countries&quot could be read as a general introduction of the whole paper, so it can be moved to section 1.
10.     (P). Since the sentence "After investigating 13 biomass…" (page 10, last line) has been already reported, i recommend adding "As mentioned" at the beginning.
11.     (E). Where do the parameters reported in tables 2 to 10 come from? They seem to be input data (according to that reported at the beginning of section 4.1), but in this case they should be supported by references.
12.     (E). Please justify the trend of figure 4, comparing them to the input data. Why - for example - the upper limit occurs in the period between November and April? And why the minimum occurs in June?
13.     (E). More in general, the figures reported in section 4 are described in the text, but not commented enough. I recommend reviewing the text, giving a reason on the key results.
14.     (P). The two sub-sections 5.1 and 5.2, in my personal opinion, could be merged in a single section.
15.     (E). Conclusions should be better supported by numerical results.




Reviewer #3: This work presents a mathematical method for the maximization of the profit and the social welfare of a 30 MW biomass power plant. The model is exhaustive and flexible, it can be applied to different kind of conversion technologies and biomass types. However, the work is focused only on a biomass combustion power plant with two kinds of biomass: agricultural residues and forestry residues. In other words, a very complex model is applied to a single case-study.  This cannot allow a reader to perceive the level of validity of such a model, and the paper could not be accepted in the present form.  In order to increase the scientific level of this contribution and in order to validate the optimization model, the authors are strongly invited to simulate different kinds of biomass conversion technologies such as gasification power plants and biogas power plants.

The paper is generally well organized and fairly well written.  However, some misspellings and typos are still to be corrected.  In addition, the following changes are suggested:
1) Add line numbering
2) Please do not use Ref [x] but cite the name of the author of the work.
3) 1x30 MWh is meaningless.  Probably, the authors intended to indicate a 30 MW electrical power plant
4) Nomenclature needs to be put at the end of the manuscript in a specific section, not in Table 1. 返回小木虫查看更多