Multi-Objective Robust Scheduling Optimization Model of Wind, Photovoltaic Power, and BESS Based on the Pareto Principle

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors propose a multiobjective optimization for renewable energy production and management.

The paper topic is interesting and falls in the journal scope.

The paper is well organized and the topic is interesting. However, the writing quality is unacceptable. 

Authors make extensive use of acronyms without explaining them, write formulas without describing the terms, and the english level is close to the one from an automated translation software.

Understanding this paper will be very difficult for readers without extensive knowledge on the topic.

Remarks:

1) Acronyms such as TOU and BESS should not be used in the abstract and should be explained as soon as used in the introduction. This is valid for all acronyms used in the paper.

2) Paper structure (line 90 and on) should refer to sections.

3) Bibliographic research is very poor. For instance:

Authors states: "The output curve of photovoltaic power system generally satisfies the Beta distribution, the specific formula of photovoltaic power output refers to the literature [20]"

Reference [20] is " Optimal allocation model of BESS system in virtual power plant environment with a high penetration of distributed photovoltaic generation" from the "Automation of Electric Power Systems" journal.

The paper is not even indexed in google scholar, and I can't find non-chinese pages referring to the journal.

The topic of power generated from photovoltaic devices and plants is widely covered in international literature, and is a core topic for MDPI journals such as Sustainability and Energies.

Authors should review all their bibliography including more relevant and reliable papers.

4) Mathematical descriptions needs a major revision, for example

* In Eq. (1), please define "k" and "s" subscripts and the dimensions of g (kWh I presume?)

* In Eq. (2-3), please define the superscript "d" and "c" and the dimensions of ρ

* The set in Eqs.(4,5,6) is barely readable

* Eqs. (8,9,10,11)  seems sensible, but authors should discuss them. Why the term for g is squared? What is the dimensional analysis here?

* In Eq. (13) I suggest authors do not use the superscript for carbon dioxide. Superscripts and subscripts are already extensively used, and should be reduced in number, not increased.

* Undefined terms in Eq. (14). What is L0 and ΔL ?

8) Text in Fig. (3) needs to be larger, and the two objectives should be explicitly stated on the axes along with their dimensions.

9) Table (3) should be reorganized in subtables for better readability.

10) I suggest different plots styles for figs (4) and (5) (thinner curves and less colors, MS Office is not very good for plots)

In conclusion, paper is interesting and I see a lot of effort was put into it, but it needs major revisions in writing/english quality, bibliographic research and results presentation to be acceptable for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1:

Authors propose a multiobjective optimization for renewable energy production and management. The paper topic is interesting and falls in the journal scope. The paper is well organized and the topic is interesting. However, the writing quality is unacceptable. Authors make extensive use of acronyms without explaining them, write formulas without describing the terms, and the English level is close to the one from an automated translation software. Understanding this paper will be very difficult for readers without extensive knowledge on the topic.

Response 1:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have reworked the language, modified the typos in the text, and polished the language. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

 

Point 2: Acronyms such as TOU and BESS should not be used in the abstract and should be explained as soon as used in the introduction. This is valid for all acronyms used in the paper.

Response 2:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have already added the explanation of the acronyms in the text, so that this would allow the reader to understand the meaning of the acronyms, such as TOU and BESS in the introduction. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 3: Paper structure (line 90 and on) should refer to sections.

Response 3:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. According to the format of sustainability, we have revised in paper structure. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 4: Bibliographic research is very poor.

Response 4:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. According to the format of sustainability, we have revised bibliographic research in section introduction, to enrich the literature review. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 5:

Authors states: "The output curve of photovoltaic power system generally satisfies the Beta distribution, the specific formula of photovoltaic power output refers to the literature [20]". Reference [22] is " Optimal allocation model of BESS system in virtual power plant environment with a high penetration of distributed photovoltaic generation" from the "Automation of Electric Power Systems" journal The paper is not even indexed in google scholar, and I can't find non-chinese pages referring to the journal.

Response 4:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. According to the format of sustainability, we have revised bibliographic research in section introduction, to enrich the literature review, we listed the literature review section as a special chapter. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

 

Point 6: The topic of power generated from photovoltaic devices and plants is widely covered in international literature, and is a core topic for MDPI journals such as Sustainability and Energies.

Response 6:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. According to the format of ENERGIES, we have revised the format in REFERENCES identically in the section REFERENCES. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 7: Authors should review all their bibliography including more relevant and reliable papers.

Response 7:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. According to the format of sustainability, we have revised bibliographic research in section introduction, to enrich the literature review. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 8: Mathematical descriptions needs a major revision, for example

Response 8:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have revised Mathematical descriptions in the paper. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 9:* In Eq. (1), please define "k" and "s" subscripts and the dimensions of g (kWh I presume?)

Response 9:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added explanation of the "k" and "s" subscripts and the dimensions of g in the In Eq. (1). Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 10: * In Eq. (2-3), please define the superscript "d" and "c" and the dimensions of ρ

Response 10:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added explanation of the superscript "d" and "c" and the dimensions of ρ in the In Eq. (2-3). Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 11:* The set in Eqs.(4,5,6) is barely readable

Response 11:Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. The set in Eqs.(4,5,6) is introducing the BESS is in the discharging and charging state. Energy storage system often involves a variety of energy, equipment, substances and processes. It is a complex energy system that changes with time. It needs a number of indicators to describe its performance. Charging state refers to the state of the battery when it is charged. In short, the charging state when it is full is 100%. According to the relevant regulations of the state, there are different standards for the storage efficiency of batteries in different charging states. When the charging state is less than 50%, the storage efficiency of batteries is required to be more than 95%; when the charging state is 75%, the storage efficiency of batteries is required to be more than 90%; when the charging state is 90%, the storage efficiency of batteries is required to be more than 85%.

 

Point 12: * Eqs. (8,9,10,11)  seems sensible, but authors should discuss them. Why the term for g is squared? What is the dimensional analysis here?

Response 12:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. * Eqs. (8,9,10,11) mainly is the fuel cost and start-stop cost for thermal power generation, The operating cost of the unit can be expressed by a quadratic function. g is squared, the specific reference is as follows:

Carrion M, Arroyo J M. A computationally efficient mixed-integer linear formulation for the thermal unit commitment problem[J]. IEEE Trans on Power Systems, 2006, 21(3): 371- 1378. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 13: * In Eq. (13) I suggest authors do not use the superscript for carbon dioxide. Superscripts and subscripts are already extensively used, and should be reduced in number, not increased.

Response 13:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have removed superscripts for carbon dioxide in In Eq. (13), this will make the sentence clear, please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 14:* Undefined terms in Eq. (14). What is L0 and ΔL ?

Response 14:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added explanation of the superscript L0 and ΔL in Eq. (14). Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 15: Text in Fig. (3) needs to be larger, and the two objectives should be explicitly stated on the axes along with their dimensions.

Response 15:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have enlarged the text in Fig. (3), and stated on the axes along with their dimensions of the two objectives. We have added X and Y labels of the figures, and drew the figures properly in the text. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

 

Point 16: Table (3) should be reorganized in subtables for better readability.

Response 16:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have reorganized Table (3), and make the Table (3) better readability, and drew the Table (3) properly in the text. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

 

Point 17: I suggest different plots styles for figs (4) and (5) (thinner curves and less colors, MS Office is not very good for plots)

Response 17:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. In order to make the Table (3) better readability, and we have drew the figs (4) and (5) in different plots styles. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 18:

In conclusion, paper is interesting and I see a lot of effort was put into it, but it needs major revisions in writing/english quality, bibliographic research and results presentation to be acceptable for publication.

Response 18:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have reworked the language, modified the bibliographic research and results presentation in the text, and polished the language. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents a scheduling optimization for a hybrid energy system with multiple objectives. The paper however is lack of comparison with other related method. Here are some comments:

1.      Authors said the short term prediction is not the focus of the study, how did you introduce the uncertainty in the system? For example, how to vary the wind power and solar power in the simulation?

2.      In the whole paper, the paper described the method of their own, it is recommended to compare at least one of similar method.

3.      Reviewer suggests to change the title of ‘Example analysis’ in section 4 to be ‘Simulation studies’ or ‘Case analysis’

4.      The multi objective function is related with optimal weights, how to determine these weights?

Author Response

Reviewer2

This paper presents a scheduling optimization for a hybrid energy system with multiple objectives. The paper however is lack of comparison with other related method. Here are some comments:

Point 1: Authors said the short term prediction is not the focus of the study, how did you introduce the uncertainty in the system? For example, how to vary the wind power and solar power in the simulation?

Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. In this paper, the method of generating wind power output scene is consistent with the literature [22]. Considering the randomness of wind power output, the wind speed error is generated by simulation to generate wind speed prediction error sequence. The wind speed prediction is based on the historical wind speed data of the power grid. As the initial predicted wind speed, the ARMA (1,1) model and the Monte Carlo method are used to simulate the wind speed error. The obtained wind speed prediction error sequence is combined with the initial predicted wind speed to obtain the predicted wind speed in each scene in a certain scene, and then a plurality of wind speed scenes are generated by continuously repeating the above process, and a representative scene set is obtained by the scene reduction method. Finally, the wind speed is converted into wind power output to reflect the randomness of wind power output. I have added literature[18] on scenario reduction methods for wind power unit output. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 2: In the whole paper, the paper described the method of their own, it is recommended to compare at least one of similar method.

Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. In this paper, the golden section method is used to solve the model. With the deepening of the research, other methods will be considered to solve and optimize the model. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 3: Reviewer suggests to change the title of ‘Example analysis’ in section 4 to be ‘Simulation studies’ or ‘Case analysis’

Response 3:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. we have changed ‘Example analysis’ to ‘Simulation studies’ in section 4. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 4: The multi objective function is related with optimal weights, how to determine these weights?

Response 4:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. we have changed ‘Example analysis’ to ‘Case analysis’ in section 4. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments:

Before using abbreviations that might not be known to the reader, the full expression needs to be written at least once: Example: BESS, VPP, TOU, DG, MILP

The English needs to be improved before this manuscript can be reviewed scientifically. I recommend either a professional language service, or the help from a native speaker. If this is not done, the paper will have to be rejected, irrespective of its scientific value.

The source and statistical distribution of wind speed and irradiance data need to be described. Referencing two papers, of which one is not available to a majority of the audience (in my assessment) is not enough. If radiative and wind forcings are sampled from a statistical distribution this needs to be better explained.

The example given to 'prove that the proposed robust stochastic optimization scheduling model, and the optimization scheduling results are reliable and economical' is not a sufficient "prove". Adjust your choice of words: Either it is not an example or it is not a prove.

Specific comments:

Section 2.1. This section outlines the assumptions made for wind speed and irradiance data. However, the presented information is not sufficient and needs to be better referenced with respect to existing literature. The authors say that wind speed follows a Weibull distribution, without providing ample references. Then they say that the “specific formula for wind power’ comes from a paper, but they don’t point out which one it is and it never appears anywhere. Similarly, for the power output of a PV system. Unfortunately, I did not have access to the cited publication, but given that I have this problem, despite being part of a major technical university, I assume other will encounter the same problem and thus it is important that at least a minimal information is presented in the present paper.

Exchange 'gird' with 'grid'

l.141: The last cost term is not defined

Figure1: What is an 'uncertain set'?

l. 201/202: definition of lambda is not clear

l.226 Not twice step 5

l.228:  wrong reference, it should be equation (24) not (34)

Figure 2: needs a better description.

l.273/274: What does that mean? What is the consequence of this decision?

l.277/278: rephrase, the sentence does not make sense.

Figure 3: Pareto

Table 3: needs to be improved. What is interconnected electricity? In which order is the ratio given wind/solar or solar/wind? What is the unit of coal consumption rate? The number of interconnected electricity for case 3 (thermal power) seems incorrect.

Fig 4,5 and 6: specify x axis. Hours of the day?

Table 4: What are the numbers? Units?

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

Point 1: Before using abbreviations that might not be known to the reader, the full expression needs to be written at least once: Example: BESS, VPP, TOU, DG, MILP

Response 1:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have already added the explanation of the acronyms in the text, so that this would allow the reader to understand the meaning of the acronyms, such as TOU and BESS in the introduction. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 2: The English needs to be improved before this manuscript can be reviewed scientifically. I recommend either a professional language service, or the help from a native speaker. If this is not done, the paper will have to be rejected, irrespective of its scientific value.

Response 2:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have reworked the language, modified the typos in the text, and polished the language. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 3: The source and statistical distribution of wind speed and irradiance data need to be described. Referencing two papers, of which one is not available to a majority of the audience (in my assessment) is not enough. If radiative and wind forcings are sampled from a statistical distribution this needs to be better explained.

Response 3:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We

have added radiative and wind forcings are sampled from a statistical distribution of Somewhere in China. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 4: The example given to 'prove that the proposed robust stochastic optimization scheduling model, and the optimization scheduling results are reliable and economical' is not a sufficient "prove". Adjust your choice of words: Either it is not an example or it is not a prove.

Response 4:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have exchanged 'gird' with 'grid', modified the typos in the text, and polished the language. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 5:Section 2.1. This section outlines the assumptions made for wind speed and irradiance data. However, the presented information is not sufficient and needs to be better referenced with respect to existing literature. The authors say that wind speed follows a Weibull distribution, without providing ample references. Then they say that the “specific formula for wind power’ comes from a paper, but they don’t point out which one it is and it never appears anywhere. Similarly, for the power output of a PV system. Unfortunately, I did not have access to the cited publication, but given that I have this problem, despite being part of a major technical university, I assume other will encounter the same problem and thus it is important that at least a minimal information is presented in the present paper.

Response 5:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added existing literature of wind speed and irradiance data and output of a PV system, modified the typos in the text, and enriched the literature about output of renewable energy unit. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 6: Exchange 'gird' with 'grid'

Response 6:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have exchanged 'gird' with 'grid', modified the typos in the text, and polished the language. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 7: l.141: The last cost term is not defined

Response 7: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added definition of the last cost term in section 2.1. The last cost term is system operation cost. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 8: Figure1: What is an 'uncertain set'?

Response 8:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. The 'uncertain set' is the meaning of the wind power and photovoltaic output range. Similar queries based on uncertain sets of possible worlds, from the perspective of semantics or computational methods, are different from the traditional deterministic set of techniques. Because of the uncertainty of the items in the set, that is, an item appears. There is a certain probability in the set, which makes the traditional processing set technology no longer applicable. A metric formula based on the set ideal similarity of the possible world is proposed. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 9:l. 201/202: definition of lambda is not clear

Response 9: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added definition of lambda in section 2.1. lambda is a parameter of the objective function. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 10:l.226 Not twice step 5

Response 10:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have revised the problem of “Not twice step 5”, modified the typos in the text. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 11:l.228:  wrong reference, it should be equation (24) not (34)

Response 11:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have changed (34) to (24) in equation (24), modified the typos in the text. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 12: Figure 2: needs a better description.

Response 12:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added description of the Figure 2, modified the typos in the text, make Figure 2 sense. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 13:l.273/274: What does that mean? What is the consequence of this decision?

Response 13: The consequence of this decision is meaning of the results of system simulation in different scenarios, please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 14: l.277/278: rephrase, the sentence does not make sense.

Response 14: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have reworked the language, rephrased the typos in the text, and make the sentence sense. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 15:Figure 3: Pareto

Table 3: needs to be improved. What is interconnected electricity? In which order is the ratio given wind/solar or solar/wind? What is the unit of coal consumption rate? The number of interconnected electricity for case 3 (thermal power) seems incorrect.

Response 15:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. The interconnected electricity is meaning of the electricity from public power grid, the ratio given wind/solar is based on the actual operation data of a certain place in China. The unit of coal consumption rate is g/kW, the number of interconnected electricity for case 3 (thermal power) is corrected. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 16: Fig 4,5 and 6: specify x axis. Hours of the day?

Response 16:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added x axis of the Fig 4, 5 and 6, have added Units of the Fig 4,5 and 6. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Point 17: Table 4: What are the numbers? Units?

Response 17: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added Units of the Table 4, modified the typos in the text. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors improved their manuscript but bibliographic research is still very poor.

Additional insight on the Wind Power and Photovoltaic power output model is needed (Sec. 2.1), referencing only to [21] and [22] is not enough. 

Author Response

Point 1: Additional insight on the Wind Power and Photovoltaic power output model is needed (Sec. 2.1), referencing only to [21] and [22] is not enough.

Response 1:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added Wind Power and Photovoltaic power output model in section 2.1. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

no more comments, just suggest to add the 'unit', e.g., MW in Fig.4-6

Author Response

Point 1: no more comments, just suggest to add the 'unit', e.g., MW in Fig.4-6

Response 1:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added 'unit', e.g., MW in Fig.4-6. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Reviewer 3 Report

Some changes have been implemented and the English has improved significantly.

 

However, I do not see that all of my recommendations have been taken into account. It is of course possible that you do not agree with them, but in that case, I would have expected a conclusive explanation of why you chose not to consider them.

 

Instead you say that you have ‘already revised’ my ‘suggestion’, and made certain changes, even though that is not the case. For example: ‘We have added existing literature of wind speed and irradiance data and output of a PV system, … , and enriched the literature about output of renewable energy unit (not the case), ‘added definition of the last cost term in section 2.1’ (not the case).

 

The description of Algorithm 1 is still not clear, and while a few changes were made, others still seem illogical. For example, step 3, line 240: Where only one condition seems to lead to a follow-up step while the ‘else’ case is not treated.

 

l. 167: What is B_stor ? It does not match any of the variables above. I assume it should be B_s.

 

l. 200/201: Not all super and subscripts are explained. What is indicated by the secondary subscripts m and k? What do the superscripts a and f stand for?

 

l.271 What is P_EC x(lambda) ? It should be adjacent to equation (20).

 

Figure 2: “PJM30 bus system” This expression occurs for the first time here and it is not explained anywhere else. If the paper is meant to be understood by a broad audience, this needs to be explained.

 

In general, I still find too many names of methods and tools that I would classify as jargon and that would have to be described at least briefly. Otherwise the paper will not be understood by anybody slightly outside their field (like me).

 

Figure 3: Mention the two objective functions and units in the figure heading.

 

l. 359: Find a better way to name the method you employed.  “Golden section search algorithm compromise solution Pareto solution set” is not an appropriate name. It is too long and too confusing.

 

“Conflicts of interest” section: misplaced information.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors amended to all requests, the manuscript is now acceptable for publication.