Simulation-Based Evaluation of Charging Infrastructure Concepts: The Park and Ride Case
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A methodology was presented to evaluate different types of CSs based on real usage data in this paper. The research content of this paper is rich, the research method is reasonable, and the experimental verification results are clear. Overall, the quality of the manuscript is good. However, the following points need to be corrected:
1. The abstract needs to be rewritten. At least the abstract should include the innovations of this paper, how the methods used are different, and conclusions on the experimental verification results.
2. How can the method in this paper be applied in practice? What are the requirements for data in practical application? Can it be evaluated and corrected in real time?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time and effort to review this paper. We tried to respond to your comments as thoroughly as possible, edited the manuscript to clarify your comments to new readers. In addition, an English style and spell check was performed by an experienced native speaker. Please see the attachment for the point-by-point response.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall this is good work. After minor revision, this can be accepted.
Figure 1: from where the input parameters were collected?
Not clear about Figure 2a
Why particularly this methodology is good over others?
The inclusion of SDG and UN in the introduction will improve the overall writing.
Table 1 is a very good approach
AC and DC charging events. Please describe more details here.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time and effort to review this paper. We tried to respond to your comments as thoroughly as possible, edited the manuscript to clarify your comments to new readers. In addition, an English style and spell check was performed by an experienced native speaker. Please see the attachment for the point-by-point response.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper is on an important and timely topic. There are a number of important issues that are being addressed related to infrastructure and alternatives for EV charging and EV charging infrastructure.
1. The EVs, EV charging infrastructure, battery storage, and electrical grid can be considered as a system. EVs have batteries that have great value for this system. There are many good reasons to include more content related to peak power demand, time of use electricity pricing, power demand management of electricity, and pricing of EV charging in this manuscript. Solar panels can be added to parking lots to provide shaded parking and electricity. There is a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and this manuscript should be written with recognition that there is a growing need to balance supply and demand where renewable power is increasing and that power demand can be managed better if EV charging is integrated into the system. Please see the manuscript Solar-powered charging networks for electric vehicles, Energies 2021, 14, 966. This is an example of a manuscript that includes electric power demand management. At the Park and Ride charging facility for EVs, there is time to optimize EV charging to help balance supply and demand of electric power with the AC charging stations.
2. One issue that is important that is not included in the manuscript is the variation with time in serving the needs of the EV owners. In the data that has been collected, were there times when the system was full and all of the available power was being delivered?
3. Is there any effort to work cooperatively with the present system to consider grid management, time of use electricity prices, renewable generation issues, or use of EVs for battery storage? This reviewer thinks the manuscript can be improved by adding these issues appropriately.
4. The cost of electricity and the cost of charging should receive more attention.
5. Define all notation. I did not find a definition of CP.
6. Be consistent with AC18x7kW. 7 kW is used with 7.4 in Table 2 and some other places. AC7x18kW appears in the conclusions.
7. The term profit margin should be defined clearly.
8. In Table 3, the units of OPEX should be reviewed. Is this number per year or for the life of the CP?
9. In Table 5, more information is needed so the reader understands the source of the data. Is this for Park and Ride only?
10. On page 15, peak time appears and there are peaks in the figures. This can be related to peak power demands and the use of the word can be clarified.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time and effort to review this paper. We tried to respond to your comments as thoroughly as possible, edited the manuscript to clarify your comments to new readers. In addition, an English style and spell check was performed by an experienced native speaker. Please see the attachment for the point-by-point response.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for improving the manuscript.
