Dear Christian,

thank you for posting your responses to the referees and for sketching a path forward to a revised version.

Frankly speaking, I’m not entirely at ease with the tone that has emerged during the interactive discussion: TCD is committed to foster scientific discourse, and appeals to both reviewers and authors to engage in an objective and constructive dialogue. I hope that this position will be embraced in any further communication – especially when shared with the community, as is the case for TCD’s review process.

For what the next steps is concerned, I encourage you to submit a revised version of your article, taking the comments of both reviewers into account. This re-submission will be re-seen by the referees.
I subscribe to your argumentation that splitting the paper into two different parts, directed to two different audiences, might not be the best solution in this case. Here, I concur with the suggestion of Reviewer #2, that is to move various parts to the supplementary information.
I would also appreciate if you could keep in mind the critical comments of Reviewer #1 when it comes to presentation quality. Ensuring that standards concerning spelling, grammar and citation are met is amongst the authors duties, and certainly a sign of respect towards the time invested by the reviewers.

I am looking forward to your revised contribution that -- both reviewers agree here -- can be anticipated to become an important contribution to the field.

Best wishes
Daniel

Dear Christian,

your manuscript has now received an additional round of review.
I was happy to see that the reviewer was satisfied by the amendments performed during the revision, since this echoes my appraisal.
In light of the above, I’m happy to accept the article for publication.

Before going ahead with the paper-production process, I would ask you to take into consideration the smaller comments provided by the referee. Similarly, I’ve attached an annotated version of your manuscript that contains some minor editorial suggestions.

The only point that might require a deeper thought is at P.27: to me, Lines 24-31 contain some of the key messages in the paper, and I was wondering whether these could be made even more accessible by providing some indications of scale?
For example: Could you provide an order of magnitude for the "limited size" of the systems and storage capacity mentioned at P.27 L.26-27 and L.30? Is "limited storage capacity", for example, something in the order of 10, 100, or 1000 m^3?
I believe that such information would be extremely appreciated by the larger readership.

In the supplementary material, I noticed that the title slightly differs from the one of the main text. Here, consistency might avoid some unnecessary confusion for the readers. As a final, cosmetic detail, you may also want to remove the temporary files contained in the folder “extended_model” (the one ending with “.m~”).

I truly appreciated the comprehensiveness of the supplementary materials, including information about the licence under which your code is distributed. Exemplary!

Best wishes and congratulations for completing this work.
Daniel