Fleet Transition from Combustion to Electric Vehicles: A Case Study in a Portuguese Business Campus

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In Fig. 2 and 3, please clearly define Phase L1, L2, L3. What are the reasons cause the differences between these 3 curves?   For Scenario 2, please describe how it was programmed and uncontrolled. For Scenario 3, please describe how it was programmed and controlled. Please also explain the behaviors of the fluctuation of curve "Base + ' +CS's" in Fig. 8 while the fluctuation seems not so significant in Fig. 9, Scenario 4. More journal papers for reference are strongly suggested.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, all revisions are presented in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The comments for the Authors are included in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear reviewer, all revisions are presented in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents the study of the economic effect of EV charging of a fleet of electric vehicles that might substitute the combustion ones in the specific case of ISQ campus. The paper is divided into two parts. In the first one, it is provided a detailed description of the evolution of Portuguese mobility, of the incentives and overall costs for transitioning to electric mobility, and of the types of charging stations. The second part of the paper instead presents results of a simulation for the ISQ campus for which it is analyzed the advantages of a controlled charging fleet of EVs in terms of costs and CO2 emissions.

In my opinion, both parts present some criticisms that can be listed below.

For what concerns the first part of the paper, authors do not provide sufficient references. For example in section 2.3, it is missed the reference of equations 1 and 2. Afterward, it is said "In the latter case, in large car parks (capacity over 400 vehicles) the number of loading spaces may be limited to 41." but it is not clear from where this number comes from. I after have understood that this number is calculated in equation 8 (where it is not said that it derives from equation 2, and thus the readability is really poor), but it is really nonsense to insert a number without describing how it is derived. So, improve this point. In section 2.6 authors say "The average cost 203 per liter of diesel is what is in effect (1,403 €/liter), as well as the electricity cost (0,16 €/kWh)." without providing any references: I think references are necessary. In 2.8 equation 3 need references. The part of the simulation is not explained at all. Authors do not say how they derive the results, and how they set up the simulations. In section 5.1 authors said "The increase could be made from 41 to 91 load points" but I have not found the derivation of this number.  For what concerns the scenarios presented in Section 5.4, I am wondering why authors have not discussed the related literature, that presents many recharging schemes, even optimized. If the reason is that it is not the main focus of the paper, authors should discuss this point anyway, especially because this affects the conclusions of the works that are about the energy and cost savings.  The English need to be improved, because there are some grammar errors and typos.

For these reasons, I think that the paper needs a major revision. I think the two parts are overbalanced. I suggest improving the second part, discussing the methodologies, the related literature, and highlighting more the expected results. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, all revisions are presented in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

None.

Author Response

Thank you very much

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has been improved a lot and now the discussion on the simulations has acquired readability and significance. The description and the state of the art contribute to understanding the point of the paper, which in the previous version was extremely confused. Furthermore, the improvement in English contributes to clarity. I do not think that the work needs further consistent revision. 

I only want to remark some minor typos/changes:

1. at the end of line 84 there is a typo since the text says "In [ 77] authors made an extensive and up-to-date review of the existing literature on e- in Europe, [...]". Probably the part in bold is extra. 
2. lines 485-486-487 should be checked. I read: "Figure 3, the chargers nominal value is reached several times, but the average value After the battery reaches 94% charge, the Active Power consumption halves, replicating current behavior.". Capital letter to change
3. at lines 575-576 a typo: " The study presented in [35] develop an optimal charging scheme[...] ". Change develop with develops.
4. lines 614-625 are formatted with a different line-spacing

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We have attended all suggestions and made changes accordingly.

Thank you. once again, for your time and effort.

 

Best regards.