Next Article in Journal
Study on the Mechanism and Chain Generation Relationship of Geological Disaster Secondary Coal Mine Accidents
Previous Article in Journal
A Method for the Definition of Emergency Rescue Routes Based on the Out-of-Plane Seismic Collapse of Masonry Infills in Reinforced-Concrete-Framed Buildings
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Feasibility Assessment of Rural Hybrid Microgrid Using Canal-Based Microhydel Resources: A Case Study of Renala Khurd Pakistan

Sustainability 2022, 14(22), 15417; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215417
by Misbah Sattar 1, Fawad Azeem 2,*, Zulfiqar Memon 3, Hasan Zidan 3 and Sobia Baig 2
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sustainability 2022, 14(22), 15417; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215417
Submission received: 5 October 2022 / Revised: 26 October 2022 / Accepted: 14 November 2022 / Published: 20 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic Clean Energy Technologies and Assessment)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper the canal hydro source at Renala Khurd, Pakistan, is studied under various scenarios, regarding combinations of hydroelectric power, solar photovoltaics PV, batteries storage and grid connection, and from the viewpoint of sizing and economic indexes.  The study is carried out using Homer software. The results show that, with grid connection, the combination of hydel power as a supplementary source with solar PV sources and  reduces the sizing of solar PVs.

The paper is interesting.

Taking into consideration that Homer software is not open source, and consequently, is not available to many international readers, the detailed mathematical equations for modelling the generation of energy from solar PVs, microhydel, with additional batteries storage, with genetic algorithm, and also, the detailed computations of economic indexes would help the researchers to better understand, and eventually replicate and continue the study.  

Additionally, references must be added to support the mathematical modelling.

Table 1 must be verified if the heading is Area in Km2, or Length in Km.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Main concern:

The manuscript was written like a lab report, not a journal paper.

The methods utilized are existing and nothing new. The optimization performed by HOMER Pro software is not a research contribution unless the authors understand how the program was developed and contributed to adapting the program/algorithms for this study. Obviously, the authors only conducted a simple case study (or simulation) without actually advancing the software or enhancing the understanding of the methodology. As mentioned, such an effort is only a lab report, but not meeting the standard of a journal (research) article.  

Many subchapters (e.g., chapter 3) are lacking explanation and must be expanded, e.g., eq. 3 and eq. 4.

Secfion 3.2.2: "However, to ensure the reliability, the battery power state of the charge is should be kept above 40%." Why? Not clear. 

Why analyze 4 scenarios? There are many unmentioned questions like this that need to be addressed. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The study is interesting. However, presentation of the paper needs significant improvements. Some recommendations about the paper are given below:

1.     It would be best to rewrite the abstract to show your contributions evidently.

2.     The research gap is not clearly defined and presented.

3.     I would like to see more discussion of the literature so that I can clearly identify the article relates to competing ideas.

4.     It would be best to explain more about the background of this subject specialty the hybrid power system networks.

5.     It would be best to mention how the data is collected.

6.     The figures are not presented very well.

7.     The conclusion of this paper is general and not well presented. It is look-like a summary rather that conclusion.

8.     There are several grammatical mistakes. Please work close to a native English speaker to refine the language of this paper.

9.     Please check the style of references.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

1) The manuscript entiltled: Feasibility Assessment of Rural Hybrid Microgrid using Canal Based Microhydel Resources: A Case Study of Renala Khurd Pakistan. It is the interesting work and the paper can be acceptable for publication after moderate revise.

2) Abstract should be rewritten. The abstract section seems to be too general. It should clearly indicate the introduction, background, broader context, main key findings and conclusion. Please provide it

4)  The introduction section is too lengthy and many unwanted sentences are reported. Please remove and make the introduction to be informative and concise

5) Authors can cite recently published article which is focused on five climatic conditions in India: Techno-economic optimization of PV system for hydrogen production and electric vehicle charging stations under five different climatic conditions in India,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.09.015

5) Why the present study focused on Renala Khurd Pakistan? What is the speciality on the selection site

6) Show the selected cite in the Pakistatan map and highlit it. Therefore, readers can understand where the locations

7) What are the security measurements should be taken by the government because the selected site is located near the border of India. However, a regular army drills has been conducting by Indian forces?

8) Figures lack of clarity Improve it.

9) please indicate the novelty and research gaps to be filled by the study in the introduction section clearly

10) The results and discussion section is tedious. Please improve it

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Following-up with my previous review, the manuscript is very much improved and can be recommended for publication.

Author Response

There is no further revision requested by the worthy reviewer. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did attempt to answer some of the concerns.

However, the manuscript still lacks real technical contribution.  The part on GA optimization was mentioned in the methodology, but not explained in detail before the presentation of the results. The limitation of the methodology has not been discussed and analyzed. 

Results illustrations need higher-resolution figures. 

Author Response

Authors are grateful to the reviewer for valuable comments. 

  1. The manuscript still lacks real technical contribution

Ans/Response: As per recent reviews of the study conducted by authors, micro hydro energy has not been economically assessed as a distributed generation for the grid-connected microgrids. On the other hand, many parts of the world especially South Asian and African countries have great potential for a micro hydro generation as a distributed generation source for nearby areas thus making a fully green islanded or grid-connected microgrid configuration. This study provides a comprehensive technical and economic assessment of optimally utilizing various resources including micro hydro sources which has not been done so far up to the knowledge of the authors. 

The study also performs optimization through a genetic algorithm with fixed and variable resources to find the best optimal solution which again is novel as far as micro hydro distributed generation optimization is concerned. 

2. The part of GA optimization was mentioned in the methodology but not explained in detail before the presentation of the results  

Ans/Response:  The worthy reviewer has rightly indicated that GA optimization was not explained in detail. Now section 3 of GA optimization is expanded and explained in detail which is highlighted in red with marked changes.

3. The limitation of the methodology has not been discussed in detail and analyzed 

Ans/Response: The limitation of the methodology was related to the clear explanation and expansion of the methodology section which authors tried to improve up to the level of satisfaction of the worthy reviewer.

4. Figures need higher resolution 

 Authors have tried to improve the figures up to a significant extent. However, if needed by the journal, quality will be further enhanced.

Reviewer 3 Report

the authors have answered the comments  

Author Response

There are no further recommendations from the worthy reviewer. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank You So Much for your improvements. However, authors have missed to calculate Environment analysis for the calculation of environment energy authors can refer to the recently published article section 3.6 and consider the values of carbon emissions of Pakistan for the present article. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122010400

Author Response

The worthy reviewer has rightly indicated that environmental analysis was missing in the article. As per the directions of the reviewer, section 4.9 has been added with the heading of environmental comparison of different scenarios of the study. The mentioned article provided great help in performing the environmental analysis which has been cited as article 37 in the reference for the readers. Furthermore, all the changes are marked as track changes highlighted in red.  

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The raised concerns have largely been addressed. 

Author Response

Reviewer Comment: The raised concerns have been largely addressed

Ans/Compliance: Authors are grateful to the respected reviewer for acknowledging the efforts done in order to improve the article as per valuable suggestions and comments. In continuation to that, we have comprehensively gone through the article again to improve the article in terms of grammar, style, interpretation of results, and novelty. 

 

Back to TopTop