We thank you for your constructive review, which helped us to further improve our paper. We have addressed your comments in the manuscript or discussed them below.

Specific comments:

• As recommended, we included a review of the existing literature and removed the statement about the lack of relevant literature. Our study's contributions are also discussed now in relation to the existing studies. (lines in revised manuscript: 41-61)
• Also as per your suggestion, a section has been added in Sect. 4 where our findings on LCoH are reflected in relation to previous studies. (lines in revised manuscript: 421-428)
• The wind profiles for the wind farm were obtained using our in-house wind farm optimizer (10.18154/RWTH-2020-03444). It uses open access data from the German Weather Service (DWD https://opendata.dwd.de/climate_environment/CDC/grids_germany/multi_annual/wind_parameters/resol_1000x1000/). Our calculations resulted in site-specific Weibull parameters (wind profile) with a scale parameter A of 7.79 and a shape parameter k of 2.13 at 80 m above ground. The existing wind farm has 13 turbines installed, each rated at 1.8 MW, with a cut-in wind speed of 2.5 m/s, a nominal wind speed of 12.5 m/s, and a cut-out wind speed of 34 m/s. We used a corresponding power curve. We have now clarified this in the manuscript and added the necessary information to calculate the sorted annual load curve (sALC). We have also changed each 23.8 MW in the manuscript to 23.4 MW (13*1.8 MW) (including Figure 5 and Figure 7). This was a typographical error, and all data based on it have been calculated using the correct value of 23.4.
  
  The sALC for the larger rated wind farm was obtained by using the power curve of 13 wind turbines, each rated at 4.5 MW, using the same site-specific Weibull parameters, but a cut-in wind speed of 3 m/s, a nominal wind speed of 12 m/s, and a cut-out speed of 24.5 m/s. The relevant parameters for calculation of LCoH are the sALC, possible positions of the electrolyzer (available area) and the POCC, as shown in Figure 4. The position of turbines is insignificant except for calculating the sALC. To ensure comparability of the use cases for the two wind farms with a rated power of 23.4 MW and 58.5 MW, the available area and the POCC were kept constant. This has now also been clarified in the manuscript.
• Regarding the question on how we determined the electrolyzer capacity at 2 MW and 10 MW for the two use cases described in Sect. 3.1, these are two exemplary combinations of a wind farm and an electrolyzer. Figure 7 provides a discussion on every possible combination between electrolyzer and wind farm we considered. However, it is not practical to display every calculated combination. The results in Figure 5 present interesting cases regarding the switching favorable distribution modes within the possible electrolyzer positions. In addition, by comparing the results for the use cases shown, it is clear that the position of the electrolyzer depends on the capacity of the electrolyzer and the amount of hydrogen produced.
• Regarding the comment on line 414-414: While other studies have examined the impact of grid and hybrid power, we believe this is a critical next step in our LCoH calculation tool. This is because it considers the entire site-specific infrastructure and transport mode. We now point out this limitation in the manuscript, but generally keep the reference to future work in the paper for the reasons mentioned above. (lines in revised manuscript: 463-464)

Crucial assumptions, if not discussed above:

• Regarding the issue of the crucial assumption on efficiency changes in operation, we have now added a brief discussion on the implications of this in Sect. 4 of the manuscript. Future development of our method will address and incorporate efficiency changes due to partial load. (lines in revised manuscript: 445-447)
• Regarding the comment on wake effect losses: We clarified in a comment above how the sorted annual load curve was determined for the wind farms and in the manuscript. The authors agree that this is a strong simplification. However, in this particular work, it is done in order to minimize the modeling effort, since the focus is not on the AEP calculation, but on the modeling of the hydrogen system, including hydrogen distribution. It has been stated in Sect. 2.1.1 that historical SCADA data should be utilized if available. If not, wake models such as the wake model introduced by Katic (https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/a-simple-model-for-cluster-efficiency) can be used (lines in revised manuscript: 142-144). It is important to note that, as per the Katic model, the effect of wake becomes quadratically stronger at higher wind speeds. Consequently, the margin of error for the results obtained in this study becomes more significant for larger electrolyzer/farm ratios and higher-rated electrolyzer powers. As shown in the left panel of Figure 2, small electrolyzer capacities operate far below the power output of the wind farm for the majority of the year. When they do operate at similar levels, it is only during periods of low wind speeds, resulting in relatively low wake impacts, according to Katic. We show that low electrolyzer/farm ratios are optimal, where the results are least affected by the error caused by ignoring the wake. However, we agree with the reviewer’s critique and have added a brief discussion of the impact in Sect. 4 of the manuscript. (lines in revised manuscript: 447-449)
• Regarding potential excess heat revenues: This study was solely focused on cost approximation and minimization of hydrogen production. Utilizing waste heat from the electrolysis process can potentially improve the overall system efficiency and have a positive impact on the economic efficiency of the system. However, it does not affect the LCoH, which is minimized in this study. Therefore, it is not considered. Nonetheless, in a detailed profitability analysis of a hybrid wind farm, income from waste heat utilization should be considered. This would also require modeling all necessary infrastructure components for heat transport and exchange.
• The question on the availability of grid electricity has been addressed within Sect. 4 with regards to reducing LCoH (see Eq. 8). However, we included an extra statement to indicate that the availability of additional electricity from photovoltaic for hydrogen production may lead to a further reduction in LCoH, due to the complementary power feed-in of photovoltaic and wind energy. (lines in revised manuscript: 457-458)

Technical Corrections:

• p.3 Line 93: The abbreviation "E" stands for electricity in LCoE and has been corrected in line 35. It is not reintroduced a second time as well now. (line in revised manuscript: 104)
• p.3 Line 95: H2 has now been changed to hydrogen.
• p.8: The proper Table references are now given. (lines in revised manuscript: 220, 225 & 232)
• Also, all additional typographical errors have been corrected.

We thank you for your questions and comments, which we have addressed in the manuscript or discussed below. Your review was very helpful to further improve our work.

Minor Edits:

• All comments have been incorporated, unless they have been made obsolete by rephrasing certain parts.
• Referring to the question regarding the a in Table 2: a means annum here and is used throughout the manuscript (e.g. Table 1). For clarification, the unit is now also been introduced as part of the introduction of Eq. (2) and (3). (line in revised manuscript: 96)

Major Questions:

• Line 123: The electrolyzer consumes all the electricity it can, i.e. a 1 MW electrolyzer will consume 1 MWh of electricity in 1 hour if the amount of electricity produced by the wind farm in that hour is equal to or greater than 1 MWh, and if the power output is always greater than 1 MW in that hour. This is also shown in Eq. (4), where the available energy is used to calculate . (please also see the comment on your comment on Line 292)
  
  No assumptions are made about the profitability of selling hydrogen or electricity. The objective is to minimize the Levelized Cost of Hydrogen (LCoH), as given in Eq. (1), which is a pure cost-based question. The question of when to sell electricity to the electricity grid and when to use it for hydrogen production to optimize the revenue and profit of a wind-hydrogen system is a complex control and energy management issue for hybrid farms. This has been addressed within other work. As stated in our future work section, it should be considered to combine our method with those methods, to calculate an optimal Levelized Revenue of Hydrogen in the future. However, it is not certain which parameter will ultimately be the more important one to optimize, due to uncertainty about market trends regarding electricity and hydrogen prices.
• Lines 283-284: Currently, the optimization algorithm is implemented in such a way that it tries all combinations, so that the computation time T(n) scales with O(n), where n is the land area, since the evaluated points double with double land area. So far, the authors have not encountered any problems with the computational time, since only linear equations have to be solved for the discrete point evaluation, which does not require much computing power. In case of computational problems due to large areas to be analyzed, the grid resolution of the discretized points can be adjusted to reduce the number of points to be analyzed. The computation time T(m) would be reduced by O(1/m²), where m is the distance between the grid points. The resolution could be increased again for areas with promising LCoH determined in this way.
• Line 292: We agree with this suggestion and have added a reference to the two use cases discussed in Sect. 3.1 to Sect. 3.2 and put their electrolyzer/farm ratios in the context of the optimal electrolyzer size study (lines in revised manuscript: 361-363).
  
  It is assumed that any extra electricity not used by the electrolyzer is sold to the grid, but not meaning the profitability is considered, as already clarified in the response to the comment to line 123: The economics of a wind-hydrogen farm are not evaluated here. But in a way, that not using the excess electricity not used by the electrolyzer (equal to , according to Eq. (4)) would negatively affect the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCoE) of the wind farm, which are kept constant during the optimization (see Figure 4). This is due to the way LCoE are usually calculated (discounted TOTEX of a wind farm divided by its AEP). Not using the remaining electricity would therefore be equivalent to reducing the AEP of the wind farm, which would result in an increasing LCoE and therefore LCoH.
  
  To clarify on that, we added an additional sentence to Eq. (4), stating that it is assumed that the difference between the AEP and is fed to the power grid. (line in revised manuscript: 137)
• Figure 6: We agree that the two blue lines were difficult to distinguish. Therefore, the figure was revised as suggested, using not only different colors for the lines, but also different line styles to ensure that they can be distinguished even when printed in black and white. We also used colors that people who are colorblind can distinguish. (page 14 in the revised manuscript)
• Line 377: The authors agree that the term “scenarios” may be misleading here as there seems to be more to it than a change in fuel price or the exclusion of the pipeline as a distribution mode. Therefore, we have reworded this part to remove the term “scenario” and added the information that the fuel prices used here are exemplary. The fuel price change is used to show qualitatively how it would affect the operating window of the diesel truck. Therefore, the authors feel that no further information is needed on why the fuel price might rise or fall in the future, as there is plenty of research on this. (lines in revised manuscript: 393-395)
• Line 394: No, the hydrogen used for transportation is subtracted from the total amount of hydrogen produced. This adjustment is made by reducing the amount of hydrogen by the truck’s hydrogen usage before calculating the final LCoH using Eq. (1). This approach guarantees that all hydrogen system components are sized based on the actual amount of hydrogen produced. This is similar to a hydrogen fuel price that exactly matches the LCoH. To clarify, this is now also stated in the paper (lines in revised manuscript: 409-412). As the amount of hydrogen used there is no cumulative error over long distances. However, a thorough economic analysis of the hybrid farm would be necessary to determine if selling the hydrogen used by the truck would result in higher profits than the cost of diesel fuel for a diesel truck (also considering the higher CAPEX of the hydrogen truck as shown in Table 2). But as the methodology is designed to provide preliminary design for site-specific wind-hydrogen systems, no further deliberation is provided here