Dear authors,
I have revised your study and the responses to the comments you have received.
Even though quite limited in terms of generality, I think that the quality of the research is sufficient for publication in WES. However, there are some points that need to be further elaborated prior to publication, i.e.:
1) Comment #1 of Reviewer #1 was not assessed properly (only a small sentence has been added). The Introduction is theoretically correct but it has not a clear narrative path, switching between the two different ways of analyzing a ducted wind turbine. Please revise it.
2) Line 20. Please revise the sentence on static pressure. The present one is incorrect.
3) Please increase the number of contours in the CFD plots to better highlight the possible differences between the results
4) Please include a paragraph reporting the settings for the URANS calculations

Dear Authors,

please address carefully all comments of the Associate Editor in a revised manuscript. In particular, make sure to address point 1, which -in addition to the reviewer's request for an improved description of the working principle- also calls for a more general revision of the introduction for a clearer storyline.

Thank you, and best regards
Carlo Bottasso