Smart Integration Based on Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization Technique for Carbon Dioxide Emission Reduction in Eco-Ports

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper describes a method to optimize the amount of solar energy generated in a number of Egyptian sea ports, in order to reduce the carbon footprint of the said ports.

  Here go some comments to hopefully help improve the paper.
 
  1) There are many typos and awkward sentences.  The paper should be properly revised.
    Examples (non comprehensive list):
    [line 14] "This paper represents a smart..."
    [63]  "Partical swarm algorithm ..."
    [153] "preserve a inhabitants of particles"

  2) The title is too broad.  There are many methods to reduce carbon emissions, while the paper focus only on electrical energy distribution and photovoltaic production.  There is no discussion about other methods of reducing carbon emissions or even producing energy from renewable sources.
 
  3) The diagram shown in Figure 3. is not properly explained. What exactly does it represent? The size, shape, location and function of each element should be clarified.
 
  4) Some of the references presented in the paper are not peer-reviewed papers.  The references could be improved.
 
  5) The flowchart shown in Figure 6 is not clear - either the contents of the blocks should be clearer or the diagram should be explained in more detail in the text.
 
  6) The paper very briefly presents the PSO model.  However, it is not at all clear how the model was applied in this particular problem.  There are also no details of the convergence of the optimization process, and no details of the results obtained except for the solution presented as apparently "optimal".
 
  7) I also missed some discussion about other optimization processes and their results - the state of the art presented in the introduction is too succinct for a journal paper.
 
  8) It is also unclear from the paper if the authors considered the carbon footprint of producing the solar panels, as well as installing and maintaining the solar plants over a number of years.  That is a major weakness of the proposal, since the results may be totally different when other factors are put into the model.
   

Author Response

Dear Sir,

On behalf of the working team, thank you so much for your valuable comments. We appreciate your great effort and all your comments.

Hint: The authors have found that applying different colours to represent the response to every individual reviewer will be more clear than using track changes in MS-word.

The comments are considered as follows:

Reviewer (1):

The paper describes a method to optimize the amount of solar energy generated in a number of Egyptian sea ports, in order to reduce the carbon footprint of the said ports.

Here go some comments to hopefully help improve the paper.

1) There are many typos and awkward sentences.  The paper should be properly revised.

Examples (non comprehensive list):

 [line 14] "This paper represents a smart..."

[63]  "Partical swarm algorithm ..."

[153] "preserve a inhabitants of particles"

Thank you so much. The authors have revised the manuscript according to the mentioned comment. Please kindly check the improved parts. (highlighted in yellow). There will be another language revision round after technical modification and acceptance.

2) The title is too broad.  There are many methods to reduce carbon emissions, while the paper focus only on electrical energy distribution and photovoltaic production.  There is no discussion about other methods of reducing carbon emissions or even producing energy from renewable sources.

The “Introduction” has been revised and modified according to the reviewers' comments. Please kindly check the added and improved parts.

3) The diagram shown in Figure 3. is not properly explained. What exactly does it represent? The size, shape, location and function of each element should be clarified.

Based on Reviewer (3) comments, Figure 2 and Figure 3 (in the first version) have been removed.

4) Some of the references presented in the paper are not peer-reviewed papers. The references could be improved.

Sorry for that, but data and information which is taken from these references are some figures, system data or general knowledge.

5) The flowchart shown in Figure 6 is not clear - either the contents of the blocks should be clearer or the diagram should be explained in more detail in the text.

The explanation of the flowchart is added. Please kindly check the added part (Lines 162 – 172, highlighted in light blue).

6) The paper very briefly presents the PSO model.  However, it is not at all clear how the model was applied in this particular problem.  There are also no details of the convergence of the optimization process, and no details of the results obtained except for the solution presented as apparently "optimal".

Thank you so much. The authors have added the detailed description of the HPSOT, the system power flow, the problem constraints and fitness (cost) function in Section 4 “Simulation and Results”. Please kindly check the added parts. (highlighted in light blue).

7) I also missed some discussion about other optimization processes and their results - the state of the art presented in the introduction is too succinct for a journal paper.

As Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) technique can be considered one of the main base-stones in optimization techniques, the authors have used it for the targeted problem optimization. They haven’t tried any other optimization techniques, for this problem, yet. The HPSOT properties and characteristics (regarding the memory size, execution time, and convergence rate) are satisfied to solve the research optimization problem. The authors promise to try some other optimization techniques for this research problem (such as flower pollination, grey wolf, water cycle, … etc) and a comparative study will be held.

8) It is also unclear from the paper if the authors considered the carbon footprint of producing the solar panels, as well as installing and maintaining the solar plants over a number of years.  That is a major weakness of the proposal, since the results may be totally different when other factors are put into the model.

The station equipments, their installation, and maintenance cost are considered during the power station lifetime per unit MWh in “”. Please kindly check the modified part (Lines 119 – 122, highlighted in yellow).

Reviewer 2 Report

-This paper proposes an interesting work for implementing a Hybrid Optimization Technique based Particle-Swarm approach to reduce the Carbon-Dioxide emission in Eco-Ports.  However, there are some crucial issues related to problem formulation, as well as the results presentation.

-Improve the abstract to focus on the main objectives of the paper and include a quantitative measure of evaluation factors.

- The technical part of the article must be enhanced. Details on the methodological approach adopted should be defined precisely.

-L73: into five sections. Section 2,  you missed section 1.

-L91: In this research project,…. I think you mean research paper.

- The introduction does not provide sufficient background and proper referring to previous works which are needed.

- The conclusion is not adequate and needs to highlight the benefits of paper’s study.

- Needs more comprehensive evaluations and comparisons with other researchers for validating the obtained results. 

- Explain what the advantages of using this method compared to other methods.

- Avoid using many references together like in L51, 63, etc.

-L36: 20 20 20 agreement to reach by the year 2020, 20 %, not clear, add more details.

- Improve the resolution of Figures 5, 9

-Change the format of Axis in Figure 10 to illustrate precise information.

L200: The title of table 1 should be moved to the next page.

-Many grammatical or spelling errors that make the meaning unclear and sentence construction errors, which need proofreading. As examples:

L11: The daily increasing rate…..     should be      Increasing daily rate…..

L11: of the environmental pollution…..   should be      of environmental pollution…..

L14: represents a smart electrical…..  should be      represents smart electrical…..

L15: for optimal operation…..   should be   for the optimal operation…..

L16: targeting clean sustainable….. should be  targeting a clean sustainable…

L21: can be considered a hybrid…..   should be  can be considered as a hybrid…..

L23: integrated in the network cloud.….. should be  integrated into the network cloud.…..

L25: The purpose of green port.…..     should be   The purpose of a green port

.…..  

L181: illustrated on Figure 7 .…..     should be   illustrated in Figure 7

.…..

Author Response

Dear Sir,

On behalf of the working team, thank you so much for your valuable comments. We appreciate your great effort and all your comments.

Hint: The authors have found that applying different colours to represent the response to every individual reviewer will be more clear than using track changes in MS-word.

The comments are considered as follows:

Reviewer (2):

This paper proposes an interesting work for implementing a Hybrid Optimization Technique based Particle-Swarm approach to reduce the Carbon-Dioxide emission in Eco-Ports.  However, there are some crucial issues related to problem formulation, as well as the results presentation.

1) Improve the abstract to focus on the main objectives of the paper and include a quantitative measure of evaluation factors.

The abstract has been revised and modified according to the mentioned comment.  Please kindly check the modified parts (highlighted in light blue).

2) The technical part of the article must be enhanced. Details on the methodological approach adopted should be defined precisely.

Thank you so much. The authors have added the detailed description of the HPSOT, the system power flow, the problem constraints and fitness (cost) function in Section 4 “Simulation and Results”. Please kindly check the added parts. (highlighted in light blue).

3) L73: into five sections. Section 2,  you missed section 1.

L91: In this research project,…. I think you mean research paper.

The manuscript has been revised according to the mentioned comments.  Please kindly check the modified parts (Lines 72 – 73 and Line 89, highlighted in light purple).

4) The introduction does not provide sufficient background and proper referring to previous works which are needed.

The “Introduction” has been revised and modified according to the reviewer's comments. Please kindly check the added and improved parts.

5) The conclusion is not adequate and needs to highlight the benefits of paper’s study.

The authors do their best to improve the “Conclusion”. Please kindly check the added and improved parts.

6) Needs more comprehensive evaluations and comparisons with other researchers for validating the obtained results. 

Explain what the advantages of using this method compared to other methods.

As Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) technique can be considered one of the main base-stones in optimization techniques, the authors have used it for the targeted problem optimization. They haven’t tried any other optimization techniques, for this problem, yet. The HPSOT properties and characteristics (regarding the memory size, execution time, and convergence rate) are satisfied to solve the research optimization problem. The authors promise to try some other optimization techniques for this research problem (such as flower pollination, grey wolf, water cycle, … etc) and a comparative study will be held.

7) Avoid using many references together like in L51, 63, etc.

Sorry for that, but some information in the introduction and literature review are the summary of these references.

8) L36: 20 20 20 agreement to reach by the year 2020, 20 %, not clear, add more details.

Some details have been added. Please kindly check the added part in the “Introduction” and Reference [1]. (Lines 48 – 50, highlighted in light purple).

9) Improve the resolution of Figures 5, 9.

Change the format of Axis in Figure 10 to illustrate precise information.

They have been improved. Please kindly check the modified Figures. (highlighted in light purple).

10) L200: The title of table 1 should be moved to the next page.

It has been moved.

11) Many grammatical or spelling errors that make the meaning unclear and sentence construction errors, which need proofreading. As examples:

L11: The daily increasing rate…..     should be      Increasing daily rate…..

L11: of the environmental pollution…..   should be      of environmental pollution…..

L14: represents a smart electrical…..  should be      represents smart electrical…..

L15: for optimal operation…..   should be   for the optimal operation…..

L16: targeting clean sustainable….. should be  targeting a clean sustainable…

L21: can be considered a hybrid…..   should be  can be considered as a hybrid…..

L23: integrated in the network cloud.….. should be  integrated into the network cloud.…..

L25: The purpose of green port.…..     should be   The purpose of a green port

.…..  

L181: illustrated on Figure 7 .…..     should be   illustrated in Figure 7

Thank you so much. The authors have revised the manuscript according to the mentioned comment. Please kindly check the improved parts. (highlighted in yellow). There will be another language revision round after technical modification and acceptance.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

This is my review concerning the paper "Smart Integration Based on Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization Technique for Carbon Dioxide Emission Reduction in Eco-Ports" by

Alsnosy Balbaa et al.

The authors investigate the distribution of PV generation facilities among Egyptian seaports and power flows between them.

The paper fits the scope of the journal sustainability and the topic is interesting and worth investigating.

However, in the current form, the paper is not acceptable.

I have major concerns:

The modelling approach is not described sufficiently.

The authors use Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization Technique (HPSOT) 

to solve an optimization problem that consists of an objective (Eq. 15), whose single terms are given by Eq. 8-10.

However, almost all details of the problem are missing.

What are the constraints and how are they included?

Why is the HPSOT even used? Your objective seems to be linear or at least convex (depending on the losses term in the objective).

What exactly is the input data and how was it derived?

What are the penalty costs and how are they derived?

In the current form, the results are neither understandable nor reproducible.

The authors describe the HPSOT description in more detail than their own model.

However,  the figures describing algorithms (Figure 4 and 6) have blurry text and should be improved.

The conclusion section is rather a summary than a conclusion.

I don't see where the described problem is a unit commitment problem.

Please elaborate.

Are figure 1 and 2 really necessary or is one enough? They almost describe the same.

Fig. 3 is absolutely unnecessary.

The abstract is too long in my opinion. Can you put it into a meaningful order such as Introduction - Methods - Results - Conclusion?

The use of the English language is understandable but should be improved. The paper contains a lot of questionable grammar.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear Sir,

On behalf of the working team, thank you so much for your valuable comments. We appreciate your great effort and all your comments.

Hint: The authors have found that applying different colors to represent the response to every individual reviewer will be more clear than using track changes in MS-word.

The comments are considered as follows:

Reviewer (3):

Dear authors,

This is my review concerning the paper "Smart Integration Based on Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization Technique for Carbon Dioxide Emission Reduction in Eco-Ports" by Alsnosy Balbaa et al. The authors investigate the distribution of PV generation facilities among Egyptian seaports and power flows between them. The paper fits the scope of the journal sustainability and the topic is interesting and worth investigating.

However, in the current form, the paper is not acceptable.

I have major concerns:

1) The modeling approach is not described sufficiently. The authors use Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization Technique (HPSOT) to solve an optimization problem that consists of an objective (Eq. 15), whose single terms are given by Eq. 8-10. However, almost all the details of the problem are missing.

What are the constraints and how are they included?

Why is the HPSOT even used? Your objective seems to be linear or at least convex (depending on the losses term in the objective).

What exactly is the input data and how was it derived?

What are the penalty costs and how are they derived?

Thank you so much. The authors have added the detailed description of the HPSOT, the system power flow, the problem constraints and fitness (cost) function in Section 4 “Simulation and Results”. Please kindly check the added parts. (highlighted in light blue).

2) In the current form, the results are neither understandable nor reproducable.

Section 5 “Discussion” has been added. Please kindly check the added and improved parts. (highlighted in light blue).

3) The authors describe the HPSOT description in more detail than their own model. However,  the figures describing algorithms (Figure 4 and 6) have blurry text and should be improved.

The explanation of the flowchart is added. Please kindly check the added part (Lines 162 – 172, highlighted in light blue).

4) The conclusion section is rather a summary than a conclusion.

The authors do their best to improve the “Conclusion”. Please kindly check the added and improved parts.

5) I don't see where the described problem is a unit commitment problem. Please elaborate.

In this research, the unit commitment addresses the problem of supplying the seaports electrical power demand by the optimal power generation source (either thermal or PV). It determines which electrical power source can supply which load, and by how much MWh (considering the minimum economic, and environmental losses).

6) Are figure 1 and 2 really necessary or is one enough? They almost describe the same.

Fig. 3 is absolutely unnecessary.

Figures 2 and 3 (in the first version) have been removed.

7) The abstract is too long in my opinion. Can you put it into a meaningful order such as Introduction - Methods - Results - Conclusion?

The abstract has been revised and modified according to the mentioned comment. Unfortunately, the authors couldn’t reduce the abstract to be shorter. Please kindly check the modified parts (highlighted in light blue).

8) The use of the English language is understandable but should be improved. The paper contains a lot of questionable grammar.

The English language has been initially revised. There will be another language revision round after technical modification and acceptance.

Round  2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper seems better and more complete now.  I hope these comments will help improve some minor issues:

1) There are still many English mistakes and awkward sentences.  A non-comprehensive list of examples:
  [21] "This study depends on the re-designed of some Egyptian seaports to be green ports"
  [29] "Connecting ports on red and Mediterranean seas are constructing constructs a network cloud"
  [91] Awkward sentence connection
 
  The flowchart also has at least one typo, "New position avoid[s] the constraint[?]"
 
 
2) In a scientific paper, it is usually desired that the affirmations are absolutely factual, free from any judgment. For example, this statement could be rephrased [76]"Many human activities share in the crime of destroying the virgin beauty of the environment"

3) I suggest the flowchart is proportionally scaled or some of the arrows shortened to maintain the aspect ratio (currently it seems the height was more compressed than width)

4) For multiplication, the appropriate x symbol should be used (rather than *, easily confused with convolution).

5) Captions or legends in the figures should clarify why some arrows have different colors.

6) In general, it is a good approach to put peer-reviewed sources in the References section, and other non-peer-reviewed references (such as websites) in a footnote.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

On behalf of the working team, thank you so much for your valuable comments. We appreciate your great effort and all your comments.

Hint: The authors have found that applying different colors to represent the response to every individual reviewer will be more clear than using track changes in MS-word.

The comments are considered as follows:

Reviewer (1):

The paper seems better and more complete now.  I hope these comments will help improve some minor issues:

1) There are still many English mistakes and awkward sentences.  A non-comprehensive list of examples:

[21] "This study depends on the re-designed of some Egyptian seaports to be green ports".

[29] "Connecting ports on red and Mediterranean seas are constructing constructs a network cloud".

[91] Awkward sentence connection.

The flowchart also has at least one typo, "New position avoid[s] the constraint[?]"

Thank you so much. The authors have revised the manuscript according to the mentioned comment. Please kindly check the improved parts. (highlighted in olive green). There will be another language revision round after technical modification and acceptance.

2) In a scientific paper, it is usually desired that the affirmations are absolutely factual, free from any judgment. For example, this statement could be rephrased [76]"Many human activities share in the crime of destroying the virgin beauty of the environment.

The statement has been rephrased (highlighted in olive green).

3) I suggest the flowchart is proportionally scaled or some of the arrows shortened to maintain the aspect ratio (currently it seems the height was more compressed than width)

The flowchart has been redrawn. Please kindly check the improved flowchart.

4) For multiplication, the appropriate x symbol should be used (rather than *, easily confused with convolution).

The “Equations” have been revised and modified according to the mentioned comment. Please kindly check the modified equations (highlighted in olive green).

5) Captions or legends in the figures should clarify why some arrows have different colors.

The captions have been revised and modified according to the mentioned comment. Please kindly check the modified captions of Figures 8 and 9 (highlighted in olive green).

6) In general, it is a good approach to put peer-reviewed sources in the References section, and other non-peer-reviewed references (such as websites) in a footnote.

Thank you so much, the authors will check with the journal’s editor if the footnote is accepted and how it can be done.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors adopted most of the suggestions. And the manuscript has been enhanced to an acceptable level that it could be published.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

On behalf of the working team, thank you so much for your valuable comments. We appreciate your great effort and all your comments.