Operation Optimization of Wind/Battery Storage/Alkaline Electrolyzer System Considering Dynamic Hydrogen Production Efficiency
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The Manuscript ID energies-2471513, titled “Operation optimization of wind-battery storage-alkaline electrolyzer system considering dynamic hydrogen production efficiency” belongs to the field of Hydrogen production, subfield integrated energy systems.
Concerning the scientific content of the paper
1. In my opinion, the Abstract must be developed, emphasizing the novelty of the research work.
2. The Introduction must be consistent, and reading the manuscript, in my opinion, this goal was achieved.
3. In the Introduction, line 147 is mentioned reference [17] and line 149 is mentioned reference [19]. Why? What about reference [18]? The references must be numbered in the mentioned order in the manuscript. Reading the manuscript, I couldn’t find any mention of reference [18].
4. The paragraph “4. Results and Discussion” doesn’t contain any kind of comparison of the results with the published data for hydrogen production using other methods, for example, hydrogen production using solar PV energy.
5. Normally, the new results must be compared with the results obtained by other researchers in the same field. I didn’t remark on this aspect.
6. The paragraph “5. Conclusions” must highlight better the novelty of the newly designed model of operation optimization of wind-battery storage-alkaline electrolyzer system considering dynamic hydrogen production.
About the presentation of the paper concerning the Manuscript Type MDPI journal template
1. The References don’t respect 100% the form demanded by the Manuscript Type MDPI journal template.
For the aspects mentioned above, I advise a minor revision of the paper.
I advise the authors to use Grammarly Premium to check and correct the English Language words, phrase structure, and correctness of the scientific engagement.
There are minor corrections to the English Language required.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestion. Regarding the comment reply, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper established an operation optimization model for a wind-battery storage-alkaline electrolyzer system. The following issues need to be addressed:
a. The need of the research should be better highlighted.
b. The non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II keyword needs to be added.
c. The objectives of this research need to be clearly stated at the end of introduction section.
d. Some acronyms are used without being defined before (line 16, 157, 204, 252).
e. Some of the equations’ parameters should be described or are incorrectly described (e.g., line 244).
f. The objective functions of the optimization model need to be better described.
The manuscript is well written, but needs to be thoroughly edited (e.g., Figure 2, …).
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestion. Regarding the comment reply, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript from Meng Niu addresses the optimization of a RES+battery+H2 system in dynamic operating conditions which is relevant to the community. The manuscript can be accepted provided that the authors address the following comments:
from The literature review could be expanded with other relevant articles, for example the authors could consider the following papers and the references therein https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adapen.2021.100048, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113901, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117019
Saying that RES+H2 systems in dynamic operations have not been studied in literature is quite misleading (there are studies which do this in detail (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.06.098)
Report all used parameters (battery efficiencies, constraints, etc.) in a Table for transparency
The hydrogen production curve (Figure 4) comes from the Faraday Law, this should be reported in the methodology and not in the results
The figures could be optimized, double check all the units are correct (e.g. MWh not mwh)
Figure 8 legend - green line should be "battery storage" not "energy storage"
Figure 9 - the explanation of the peaks in discarded energy and profit with a small variation of hydrogen price (1 CNY/kg) is not convincing, this is possibly something due to numerical conversion of the optimizer. Please re-elaborate on this
OK, minor checks needed
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestion. Regarding the comment reply, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Please find the comments in the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Need improvement.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestion. Regarding the comment reply, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Now the manuscript is revised considerably, and the authors addressed almost all the comments. However, authors still can improve the justification of the Entropy method application as it is criticised for sensitivity to the scale of data and overemphasis on diversity among criteria.
Author Response
Thanks for your suggestion, please refer to the new attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
