Thank you for the comments and suggestions. We appreciate your effort and tried to make the 

remarked sections more clear and added relevant information. Please find our details answers 

below:

Line 17: “Geological latent”. Unclear. Please, revise the statement.

-> Latent heat storage is a fixed term. The use of geological formations as storage volume is tested in 

this research project, therefore geological latent heat storage. This is explained in line 25-35.

Lines 22-60: Any link between your research and Equivalent Porous Medium models to enhance 

geothermal energy usage in quaternary deposits? See relevant literature below: - Case studies of 

geothermal system response to perturbations in groundwater flow and thermal regimes. 

Groundwater, 61, 255-273.

->Of course the plant operation will affect groundwater flow and the thermal regime in the subsurface, 

however in this manuscript we do not address this topic. The focus of our work is on the feasibility of 

imaging the development of a frozen volume in the subsurface with geophysical methods.

Lines 43-44: “Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) has been regularly used for monitoring of 

geological storages”. Please, insert recent review paper that discusses electrical geophysical methods 

in the field of geothermal energy; Review of Discrete Fracture Network Characterization for 

Geothermal Energy Extraction. Frontiers in Earth Science, 11, 1328397:

-> Many thanks for the reference to the inspiring paper. We checked it carefully and do not see 

relevance of the proposed article, since it does not address the use of ERT and focuses on fracture 

characterization, while this project is set in unconsolidated sediments, where no fractures are 

present. The remark, that the whole project setting is in unconsolidated sediments will be added in 

the site description.

Line 60: You should have only one aim and 3-4 specific objectives looking at the content of this 

paper. Please, revise the final part of your introduction.: 

-> The paragraph will be changed to specify the goals more clearly.

Line 63/64: Insert detail on the thickness of the quaternary glacial sediments and nature of the 

bedrock below.

-> We have no information on the total thickness of quaternary glacial sediments and only operate in 

the first <20m. Prior site investigations give no indications on being close to bottom of the 

quaternary deposit, so bedrock does not have an influence on our measurements. 

Line 67: Provide detailed description on the sedimentary heterogeneities and lithologies in glacial 

deposits. Several experts in geophysics, hydrogeology and civil engineering might be not familiar.:

-> Many thanks for pointing out these issues. We will extend information concerning glacial deposits.

Line 181-190: Have you got information on the stratigraphy of the boreholes to describe the nature 

of low and high hydraulically conductive layers?:

-> We do have a core from drilling point MP055. See lines 186-188: “Sediment coring at MP055 

matches the high hydraulic and low electric conductivity with a sand layer and the low hydraulic and 

high electric conductivity with higher clay content.” Information will be provided in Figure 4 

additionally.

Line 196: You should have cores to address the comment above.

-> See comment above, information on the stratigraphy are provided.

Line 340: Remind to the reader that the sediments are of glacial origin in the conclusions.: 

- > We will add in the conclusion that our investigations are performed in glacial sediments. 

Figure 1: The spatial scale of the figure is unclear.:

-> Thank you for pointing that out. Depths information will be added to get an idea about spatial 

scale.

Figure 6: The black line is unclear in the graph.: 

-> The legend will be updated to clarify the meaning of the black lines.

Thank you for the comments and suggestions. We appreciate your effort and tried to make the remarked sections more clear and added relevant information. Please find our detailed answers below:

Section 2.1:  Geological description of the area is poor. It does not say much if you state that there are "quaternary glacial sediments". More detailed description must be added. If this is glacial till.. what is the clay contet for example? As sediment properties will influence effectiveness of GPR as well as changes in volume of the soil if freezing will accour.

-> Many thanks for pointing out these issues. We will extend information concerning glacial deposits  and soil properties.

Line 106: ERT resolution is affected by many factors (electrode spacing, applied electrode configuration, 2D or 3D survey, overall electrical properties of the soil and numerous settings that you can change during data inversion process) and it is not good idea to state that 10m level is some magical depth where resolution drops. Also it is much more better to have high conductivity layers then low conductivity layers for ERT. My suggestion is to avoid discussion about ERT at all. No necessity to include it in this paper. & Line 110: Also for GPR it is not streightforfard to get the distance. It is also product of your interpretation.

-> It was not the intention to sound like ERT resolution would drop significantly below a specific depth. We are sorry if this may have been formulated inadequately. Of course ERT resolution depends on multiple factors, yet resolving the exact position of a vertical layer boundary in the target depth of >10m is not very accurate, and further decreased by the high conductive layer above the target, because then less current runs through the aquifer. We will revise this paragraph.

RC Line 112: If you would previously described soil type in moire detail it would be clear why 10m is already far for GPR. In sandy sediments you can get in depth of 20+m with ~200 MHz.

-> The statement will be adapted to make clear, that determined position is indeed just an interpretation of GPR reflections converted to distance using measured velocity profiles. In combination with the improved site description we will make more apparent why GPR penetration is limited in our setting.

We are very grateful for your detailed review. All the formal corrections and recommendations for citation, rephrasing for better readability, consistency with formatting of formulas and the grammatical errors will be considered. Your further comments will be addressed in the supplement.

Thank you for your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate 

the time and effort you have invested in evaluating our work.

We acknowledge the need for significant improvements in the presentation of our manuscript. We 

will address the spelling and grammatical errors and improve the quality of the figures. We will also 

seek the assistance of a native speaker to ensure the language is polished and clear.

Regarding the methodology, while we understand your point about the application of Ground 

Penetrating Radar (GPR) being considered standard, we believe our focus on process observation and 

structural exploration in a highly unusual experimental context brings a unique perspective that fits 

within the multidisciplinary scope of EGU Solid Earth. Our approach, though based on existing 

methods, is tailored to the specific challenges and conditions of our study, which we believe adds 

value to the current body of knowledge.

We also recognize the importance of discussing the need for migration in GPR data. However, due to 

the large trace distance used in our study, migration is not feasible or appropriate. The large trace 

distance results from our aim to develop a fast applicable measuring setup, which necessitates a 

compromise between resolution and efficiency. This lower resolution diminishes the effectiveness of 

migration in correcting for hyperbolic patterns. Instead, we have focused on depth conversion from 

traveltimes and have provided a robust analysis within these constraints. We will clarify this point in 

our revised manuscript to ensure it is well understood.

Regarding the 3D geological model, we will rephrase the manuscript and clarify our intention. We 

create a 3D velocity model shown in Figure 5. With the information from the logging one can 

extrapolate the geological layers according to the velocity model.

We will clarify our approach, especially in areas such as first arrival picking corrections, to ensure that 

our methodology is comprehensively explained and transparent.

While we understand your concern about the journal's suitability, we believe that EGU Solid Earth, 

with its focus on experimental and multidisciplinary research, is an appropriate venue for our work. 

Our study emphasizes structural exploration aiming for process observation in unconsolidated 

shallow aquifers, e.g. glacial aquifers, which align with the journal's scope. 

We appreciate your detailed comments and will address each one carefully in our revision. Thank you 

again for your valuable feedback.

Replies to all the comments are provided in the supplement.