Effect of Different Interval Lengths in a Rolling Horizon MILP Unit Commitment with Non-Linear Control Model for a Small Energy System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article presents the results of research with different UC methodes for a small energy system. It is a quite long article and therefore hard to follow.

In the introduction, ref. [39] (line 37) is between [3] and [4]. All references should be sorted in order.

The part of text describing the test system (lines 39-47) is not suitable for Introduction, it should be moved to section 2, with electrical schematic of the test system added.

Subheading 1.1 (line 52) is not necessary.

The authors in the introduction state what the focus od the work is (line 93, 117), but it is not clearly point out what the scientific contribution of the work is.

Wrong font in lines 125-126.

Headline 2. Materials and Methods (line 127) should be adapted to the content of this article.

Pointing to the future figures and sections (lines 131-133) is unnecessary and confusing.

Subheading 2.1 Program flow (line 139) should be completed (wich program?).

Second column in Table 1 is unclear, numbers 7, 8, 9, 10 were intended to be the fusnote marks?

Text related to the Fig.6. must to be before the Fig. 6 (lines 421-425).

The conclusion is again a summary of the overall research, but the final conclusion and contribution of the work should be emphasized more clearly.

All references should be completed according to the Energies Template (especially 9, 39, 40 ...).

Author Response

Dear Madam or Sir, thank you for taking the time and giving us a thorough as well as friendly review. We addressed most of your concerns, though not all. Please find the attached file for further details. Kind regards Gerrit Erichsen

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, Dear Editor,

This is a very well structured and written research paper. It clearly states the existing gap in the literature and proposes an interesting solution. The manuscript quite good documents undertaken research activities and most importantly enables the user to repeat the calculations. The results are convincing and very important from the perspective of UC research. Considering the good quality of the manuscript I have only some minor (polishing) remarks:

Please remove not used abbreviations from the abstract.

Please add some numerical results to the abstract section.

Please use more specific keywords. Do not simply repeat the title. 

Please add DOI numbers to the references when available. 

Author Response

Dear Madam or Sir, thank you for taking the time and giving us this very well-meaning review. We addressed most of your concerns, all but one. Please find the attached file for further details. Kind regards Gerrit Erichsen

Author Response File: Author Response.docx