Energy Sustainability of a Cluster of Buildings with the Application of Smart Grids and the Decentralization of Renewable Energy Sources

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article was an interesting report on using several modeling tools to meet emission and demand requirements in building management outlined by emerging state standards.

Demonstration of processes and tools that may be used for this kind of analysis, as well as considering the realistic means necessary to achieve these standards, is quite interesting.

The English in this document is quite challenging to follow and has many grammatical and/or spelling errors, which distracts from the message.

There is at least one plot that is marked as part of an "Evaluation Only" product, which is unlikely suitable for publication.

There are some assertions in the opening paragraphs of the document that are not supported by references. Please justify the basis for the assertions.

With a streamlined message, improved English, and reliable plot sources, this could be a strong publication.

Author Response

Bod 1. The English in this document is quite difficult to follow and contains grammatical and/or spelling errors that distract from the message.

Answer 1: I had the English in the text corrected by translator. Nevertheless, I will have the article esited by English speakers at MDPI.

Bod 2: There is at leaste one piece of land that is marked as part of a "Rating Only" product that may not be suitable for publication.

Answewr 2: I'm sorry if understand correctly, I don't know of any product worth evaluating.

Bod 3: There are some statements in the introductory paragraphs of the document that are not suppurted by the references. Please justify the basis for the claim.

Answer 3: Very sorry. You're right. I thought that if did not quote, then it is clear from the title of the statement. So I corrected it in the article and I documented the citations everywhere.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,   I have received your manuscript titled: 'Energy sustainability of a cluster of buildings with the application of smart grids and decentralization of renewable energy sources' that proposes some sort of comprehensive approach for evaluation of block of buildings in terms of NZEB. In this form manuscript is not ready for publication in journal Energies.   General comments: 1. There seems to be strong connection and correlation of this manuscript and citation [26]. Main differences and contribution in comparison to that reference must be provided.   2. Paper is too long and extensive. There are large parts of text, especially in Introduction part that are more general in nature and not strongly and specifically dedicated to the topic of this manuscript. 3. Sentences are too long. Sentences should be in average long 2-3 lines. For example, there are just 4 sentences from line 28 to line 44. 4. English quality of text must be improved. 5. Large part of text in Methodology part is too general and should be thrown away or replaced to Introduction. For example: lines 531 to 544, lines 549 to 558, lines 668 to 679 etc. 6. Most figures quality is bad and must be improved 7. It is not clear how stated equations are incorporated in methodology. If they are not actually included, they should be thrown away. Otherwise, their inclusion in methodology should be elaborate, when and where exactly  8. There is no Conclusion of manuscript at all 9. Some of the major numerical findings should be included into abstract   Specific comments: 1. Please don't use personal form of speech, such as 'us', 'we' and 'our'. There are plenty of such examples in text 2. Lines 15 and 16: unfinished sentence 3. Line 76: '36%' - reference needed 4. Line 107: '60%' - reference needed 5. Lines 128 to 131: 'in order to' twice in same sentence, bad sentence 6. Line 153: 'ABMS' introduced first time without explanation (it is explained later in text) 7. Line 160: 'project' - please elaborate 8. Lines 430 to 437: to complex sentence 9. Line 567: 'are' instead of 'is' 10. Line 586: 'je' - typo? 11. Line 592: what is 'small power'? 12. Line 690: ND - is it really 'total power consumed' or number of consumers? 13. Line 692: 'je' - typo? 14. Line 710: what is 'V'? It is not in equation 15. Some variables and parameters are in italic, and some are not (for example lines 736 to 739). Please be consistent 16. Lines 812 to 815: confusing sentence 17. Line 815: 'B' please don't use same variable name for different parameters (see equation 17) 18. Line 838: 'operating' instead of 'providing' 19. Line 941: sentence can't begin with 'Or' 20. What are those red vertical lines on Figures 7 and 8? 21. Line 1033: 'significant factor' instead of 'big item' 22. Change the look of Figure 21. It is very unintuitive 23. Lines 1369 to 1373: same sentence repeated twice 24. Line 1418: 'more' instead of 'More' 25. Line 1435: throw away 'should be selected' 26. Line 1456: '....' ??? 27. Line 1475: totally irrelevant for this manuscript

Author Response

General remarks:

1. There seems to be a strong connection and correlation between this manuscript and the citation [26].
2. The main differences and benefits compared to this reference must be stated.
3. The article is too long and extensive. Much of the text, especially in the introduction section, is of a more general nature and is not strongly specifically devoted to the topic of this manuscript.
4. The sentences are too long.
5. Much of the text, for example, the methodology is too general and should be deleted or replaced by an introduction
6. The quality of most images is poor and needs to be improved.
7. It is not clear how these equations are incorporated into the methodology. If they are not included, they should be discarded.
8. There is no Manuscript Conclusion at all.

 

Response to general remarks:

1. First of all, I apologize a lot and I accept your opinions. Given your general assessment, I state:

- I have removed two chapters in the article at your recommendation, thus answering questions 1 to 5.

2. Re point 6. The poorer image quality is caused by the fact that the graphic output is made using the Print Screen of the project. DesignBuilder is not primarily intended for high-end graphics output. It is enough for us if we can get readable from the program - numerical and graphic values of the information we need.
3. Re point 7: The equations have been removed from the article.
4. To point 8. I have included a chapter in the article: Conclusions.

 

Specific note:

Point 1: Do not use a personal form of speech, such as "we", "our".

Answer 1: In some (general) sentences, we have rephrased the sentences to avoid using "we" and "our". However, since we are describing our study, our procedures and our opinions, this personal form cannot be avoided. 16: Unfinished sentence.

Point 2: Lines 15 to 16: unfinished sentence

Answer 2: Corrected.

Point 3: Line 76: No reference "36%"

Answer 3: Fixed.

Point 4: Line 107: No "60%" reference

Answer 4: Corrected.

Point 5: Lines 128 to 131: "in command" twice in the same sentence.

Answer 5: Corrected.

Point 6: Line 153: "ABMS" explanation.

Answer 6: Corrected

Point 7: Line 160: specify "project".

Answer 7: Corrected. "NZEB Project".

Point 8: Lines 430 to 437: compound sentence.

Answer 8: Since I have set aside 2 chapters, I have corrected long sentences wherever it was needed.

Point 9: Line: 567, 586 592 690, 692, 710, 736-739 are partial issues.

Answer 9: I deleted the text of the listed lines in the article. So there was nothing to fix. I have replaced the two excluded chapters with another text.

Point 10: Lines 812 to 815: confusing sentence

Answer 10: Yes, it's true. Fixed.

Point 11: Line 815: "B" does not use the same variable name for different parameters.

Answer 11: Deleted. The text was excluded from the article and replaced by another text.

Point 12: Line 838: "operational" instead of "supply".

Answer 12: Thank you. I am sorry. I did it.

Point 13: Line 941: The sentence cannot begin with "or".

Answer 13: Thank you. I am sorry. I made a repair.

Point 14: What are the red vertical lines in Figures 7 and 8:

Answer 14: The vertical lines mean that the limit is set when the object we are solving is to be heated.

Item 15: Line 1033: "significant factor" instead of "large item"

Answer 15: Thank you for making the correction.

Point 16: Change the look of Figure 21. It is very non-intuitive.

Answer 16: Graphic output is done using the Print Screen of the project. The HOMER program is not primarily intended for top-level graphics output.

Point 17: Lines 1369 to 1373: The same sentence is repeated twice.

Answer: Corrected.

Point 18: Line 1418: "more" instead of "more".

Answer 18: Corrected. Thank you.

Point 19: "throw away" must be "picked".

Answer 19: Corrected. Thank you.

Point 20: Line 1457: "…" ???

Answer 20: Thank you corrected.

Paragraph 1475: completely irrelevant for this manuscript, the use of the same variable name for different parameters.

Answer: I have corrected and simplified this part of the text. Thank you for the recommendation.

 

Addition:

Thank you very much dear reviewer. I apologize for such mistakes. I would like to wish you all the best until 2022, especially good health and happiness and well-being.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revisions to this document bring it closer to the level of a journal article, thank you for your efforts. However, the length of the document and narrative flow are as a chapter of a textbook rather than a journal article.

At times this appears to be a review of multiple softwares, while at other times a demonstration of design optimization. Clarifying the purpose of the publication and streamlining the article to support that purpose would dramatically increase its viability.

The conclusions of the document appear to be more of an extension of the introduction than drawing conclusions from the body of work.

Author Response

ENERGYS. Reviewer No. 1 (second round)

 

Dear reviewers,

Thank you very much for your review (second round) of my article in ENERGIE magazine.

Let me comment on your three remarks.

1 note: You write that the level of the article is close to the chapter in the textbook. You're right. I tried to explain the issue of energy performance of buildings (EPB) in terms of energy sustainability. Because this issue is described and applied differently. I have "my view" on this, which is based on experience with designing NZEB buildings on the platform of the Czech Republic. As an academic and researcher at the Czech Institute of Informatics, Robotics and Cybernetics, I deal with this issue scientifically. In my research, I have the experience that this forces me to explain this issue in detail. So I am very sorry that I took it this way and I ask for your forgiveness and respect for my opinion. But I do not question your opinion, on the contrary, I underline it. I will deal with this in my next work.

Note 2: It is true that energy sustainability is a satisfaction of the requirement of the EU and the Czech government, and the related issue of reducing energy consumption and CO2 production is crucial. From the point of view of ENB, streamlining the current process of solving NZEB constructions will not be possible without a deeper analysis. Based on my experience and knowledge of the Six Sigma methodology, which I apply in the process of research into methods of efficiency and quality of services, projects, production, etc. I came to the conclusion that it is necessary to analyze current software offerings focused on efficiency and energy sustainability. The result of this analysis, which lasted several decades, is a statement that I gathered in a clear table No. 3 and 5. At first glance, it seems simple, but to verify the effectiveness of the software (optimization of smart buildings) in the number of about 50 species, no small thing. The selected software was experimentally verified, from which the following were selected: HOMER, PV * SOL, Monte Carlo, DesignBuilder, GAMS and thanks to that it was possible to perform experiments with the possibility of fine optimization of ENB. This created a new ENB model called the Building Energy Model (EMB). This is the basis of my contribution in the shift of science and research in the system of fine optimization of ENB in ​​the process of creating NZEB. This conclusion was subsequently verified in an experiment, which is specified, including the results in the article.

Note 3: Yes, you are right. It is necessary to draw a conclusion. So I wrote a new CONCLUSION.

 

Dear Mr. Reviewer, Thank you very much for the detailed and useful comments that I will literally follow. When I think about your statement, I feel inclined to do things well and effectively on your part. I take it to heart. Thanks !!!

 

In Prague 22.1.2022

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

thank you for your changes.

Wish you all the best in New 2022.

Regards

Author Response

Reviewer number 2: Notes

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for supporting my article. In any case, I will greatly appreciate your comments and I will take them to heart.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Best Regards

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Bohumír Garlík, CSc., DBA

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf