Identifying Challenges in Engaging Users to Increase Self-Consumption of Electricity in Microgrids
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a conceptual analysis and the results of an experimental work on the encouraging strategies that must be implemented to transform passive prosumers into active prosumers. Thus, the authors perform a detailed analysis of the specialized literature on the topic. After searching the literature to identify conflicting aspects, the authors carry out an experimental work and find interesting conclusions on how to implement signals and incentives, the problem of heterogeneity of end users of electricity and the level of users' commitment in different aspects.
For this reviewer, the proposal is interesting to understand the behavior of a passive prosumer and about the best strategies to transform these consumers into assets within a community microgrid. Thus, this reviewer has no conceptual observations. The only secondary observation of this reviewer is that the paper is very long and some sections can be reduced without losing the quality of the research work.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 1 comments:
Point:For this reviewer, the proposal is interesting to understand the behavior of a passive prosumer and about the best strategies to transform these consumers into assets within a community microgrid. Thus, this reviewer has no conceptual observations. The only secondary observation of this reviewer is that the paper is very long and some sections can be reduced without losing the quality of the research work.
Response: Thank you for your feedback! Yes, we are aware of the length issue. We were however not sure what parts that can be left out. If you have suggestions, we would love to hear them for how we can shorten the paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper investigates an existing microgrid containing PV panels as a RES generation unit, to identify the challenges for motivating users to increase their consumption during high PV energy production to increase renewable energy absorption. The methodology presented is mainly based on interviewing consumers and interacting with them through a "Microgrid board game" and a "Microgrid Toolbox" developed by the researchers. The paper has succeeded in achieving its goals, but of course, the methodology has been applied to only one specific microgrid case with very case-specific consumers. The methodology's generalisation should be further tested; however, the presentation and the information provided could be implemented for further investigation in similar cases.
Author Response
Response: Thank you for your feedback. We are aware of that this paper covers a specific case study and we encourage future research to learn from our study and further investigate whether generalisations can be made.Reviewer 3 Report
Comments on “Identifying challenges in engaging passive prosumers to increase self-consumption of solar energy in microgrids”
Dear Authors,
The study aims to investigate issue when the housing agency pays a dynamic cost that reflects market conditions but then charges the actual electricity users a flat volumetric rate. There is no specific results in manuscript, there is lack of statistical analyses.
The paper must be significantly improved. Please consider the following remarks:
Major comments:
- The Abstract and Conclusions should be re-written. The Authors should put some most important elements of the performed research and some numbers should be presented. Please add specific summary of research and simulation (please add numbers, please also add analyses for different size of PV installation - kWp).
- Line 47: Please add equation for “self-consumption rate”
- Line 132-135 Please add information about building: energy demand profile for several days, not only aggregate values like in Figure 4 and Figure 5.
- Line 174: please add results for: an exploratory data analysis
- Line 179-181 Please add analyses including how the number of buildings/apartments influence results
- Line 190-191. Please add hourly data (in Figure) “Using hourly data on 15 of the 16 apartments, the residents’ monthly and annual costs were calculated”
- Equation 1. Please add sample of data (in Figure). Please add unit (for example SEK/kWh)
- Line 315 Please try to confirm (including scientific method) that results with only one player is still relevant
- Figure 3. Please add: for which localization is it? Please add installed power? Please add Table with information about PV panel. For which year results were obtained? Typical Meteorological Year?
- Figure 4. Is there drawn mean or median value? Please add correlation between insolation and energy consumption. Please add Figure included insolation, temperature. Please add statistical analyses for relevant of Elderly home energy consumption.
- Line 363-365, line 368-370. Please add how this sentence was obtained. Using only mean value per year is not enough for scientific purpose
- Figure 9. Please improve the quality. Please add specific information (building, apartment, PV) and legend
- Please add sensitivity analyses of results
- Please answer the following questions: What about the discussion the numbers (please consider make table with comparison results from other countries from references or different method)? In what way this calculation could be put into practice and on what scale? Only in Sweden?
How the reader can understand the accuracy of your results (after major revision)?
Minor comments (answers are not necessary):
Line 86, 97, 123: Please avoid using lumped references. The references must be cited one by one showing what is new in the present publication with respect to the cited reference.
Line 131: Please avoid of using “we”. The same approach I suggest applying also in the rest of the manuscript.
Line 159-164 Please consider this part I do not think that is relevant
Figure 1. Please add bigger photo. Please explain most important parts
Figure 2. Please add specific explanation of “The setup of the Microgrid board game” to Appendix
Figure 6. Please improve quality. Please add the name of vertical axis. Please use unit: SEK/kWh
For all figures, please use Energies MS Word template
Please add List of Nomenclature/abbreviation. It should be given at the end of the article (before References, see Microsoft Word template).
Please use the new Energies Microsoft Word template
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The article aims at assessing the mismatch between supply and demand in a self-generating micro power grid, from the perspective of the demand-side, and Identify practical challenges in engaging microgrid-users to increase self-consumption. The article focuses on an overall topic that has been quite explored by others, but it is here analyzed from the angle of consumer behavior.
Here are some comments that can help authors while preparing their next version of the article:
- There are initials used in the test without the identification of their meaning. Although one can understand it from the context, document readability would benefit from it.
- There is no separate literature context framing the research. In fact, the authors provide some context in the introduction, but one would expect to find an analysis of models and experiments from others as a foundation to the choices taken by the authors in the article.
- The residential buildings are in fact independent buildings, but for the purpose of the research, they were considered as being connected. It would be relevant to understand how this affects the results of the research.
- There is no detailed information about the simulations performed to analyze how different price models would influence the distribution of the cost. Detail on this topic would benefit the article.
- It was not completely clear the passage from the data regarding municipal buildings to the assessment of the tenants using the toolbox. Clarification on this point would benefit the article.
- In section 2 there are 3 approaches described, but one is to expect reasoning regarding the link between them.
- It would provide context and more sense to the discussion if information regarding each of the cases used is provided, such as the number of persons in the elderly home and in the assisted living facility, the number of rooms in the preschool, and the number of families and their size for the residential case.
- Qualitative data was collected with interaction with those using the different facilities. Knowing who were the interviewees and why were these persons selected to be interviewed would improve the impact of the results. It would also be relevant to understand how the data from the interviews was treated and how results emerged from it.
- The authors state that “Each of the approaches used in the methods above could have been improved through more elaborate and detailed designs” (lines 649-650) and then elaborate on several limitations of the research, which leads to the question of why it was not done. The authors could elaborate on these limitations and attempt to justify what was done to reduce the impact of these limitations on the findings and results of the research.
The article is well written and is clear.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The authors followed my recommendations only partially.
Figure 1. Please add legend
Figure 2. Please add legend. Please add explanation of “Microgrid board game” to Appendix
Figure 3. I can not see any results
Figure 6. Please add year
Figure 7, Figure 8. I do not understand values included in Figure 7 and in Figure 8.
Figure 9. Please explain “house 1”, “house 2”,… Please add legend
Author Response
Figure 1. Please add legend
- Legend has been added
Figure 2. Please add legend. Please add explanation of “Microgrid board game” to Appendix
- Legend has been added. Explanation of Microgrid board game has also been added to the appendix.
Figure 3. I can not see any results
- We have assumed that the reviewer is referring to the font size in the bar chart. We have fixed rounding errors and made the font larger.
Figure 6. Please add year
- The year has been added in the caption under the figure.
Figure 7, Figure 8. I do not understand values included in Figure 7 and in Figure 8.
- We have tried to provide a more elaborate explanation for these figures in the captions beneath them.
Figure 9. Please explain “house 1”, “house 2”,… Please add legend
- We have changed the labels to ”residential building 1” etc. The scheme was provided by the company which provided and installed the components of the microgrid. They did not provide a key to their diagram unfortunately. For more details on the energy hub system and other components, please see: https://ferroamp.com/en/energyhub-system/
Reviewer 4 Report
The adjustments included in the article allowed clarifying previous issues.
Congratulation on the good work produced.
Author Response
Comment:
The adjustments included in the article allowed clarifying previous issues.
Congratulation on the good work produced.
Response: Thank you so much for your feedback!
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank You for improving the manuscript.
Figure 7 and Figure 8 in second round of my revision was empty (now is ok).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you for your comments and feedback on our manuscript.
