Optimal Operation of Stand-Alone Microgrid Considering Emission Issues and Demand Response Program Using Whale Optimization Algorithm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The comments are provided in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for you comments. We have improved our manuscript based on your comments and attached.

Regards

Mehrdad

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper has presented an optimum operation management model for a stand-alone microgrid that considers demand response programs. The study aims to minimize both the operation and emission costs. Different optimization techniques are applied to a microgrid system to improve operational strategy. The simulation is carried out in the MATLAB environment, and the results are presented to show the effectiveness of the proposed study. The work is interesting. The reviewer has the following comments that need to address in the revised manuscript.

 

1. The study title focuses on a stand-alone microgrid system, which has a great dependency on the energy storage system to determine optimal operation strategy because the storage can improve the reliability and energy management quality. The authors can improve the introduction by stating the significance of energy storage in operational performance improvement. An excellent reference can be sought as follows

• Performance Analysis of a dq Power Flow Based Energy Storage Control System for Microgrid Applications," in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 178706-178721, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3027193

In lines 17-18, it is claimed that the new microgrid concept was  introduced by the reference [2]. This is unfortunate that the authors have missed the correct references. The distributed generation-based microgrid was first introduced by the following paper in 2002.

• “Micro-grids”, IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting PES’02 Proceedings, New York, NY, January, 2002, pp. 146–149

Later in 2010, renewable source based microgrid considering the generation dynamics is presented in the following paper.

• Micro-grid System Based on Renewable Power Generation Units. In Proc., IEEE 23rd Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, May 2-5, 2010, Calgary, AB, Canada.

In the background, the above relevant information is missing.

2. The paper needs proofread. Some issues can be found as follows

In line 38, ………It will follow by demand response model…………Lines 16-18.. In lines 265-267, ….

 At first, the model was simulated regardless of DRP with WOA and the three optimization algorithms; PSO, ICA and GA, to assess the WOA’s performance…... presentation can be improved for easy understanding.

3. The contribution of the authors should clearly state at the end of the introduction section in 2-3 bullets.
4. The list of abbreviation and the acronym is in the literature review is unusual. It can be accommodated somewhere.
5. Table 1 and 4 are fuzzy, needs an improvement. The axis label of Figure 4 is not appropriate.
6. Figure 3, is it the forecasted wind speed or the meteorological wind data? It seems meteorological.
7. In Figure 5, use the legends to differentiate the graphs. Currently is not readable. In this figure, what the y-axis represents.
8. In Table 3, some numbers present best, worst, and average answers. What are these numbers indicate? It is also observed that the number differences are not significant in comparison to the other methods. How does the author justify such small differences can explain the better performance of the WOA method.
9. In obtaining results, the authors have used 100 iterations. What is the rationale for selecting this number? Increasing the iteration number might improve the performance of the other methods. Moreover, how much time required to complete this 100 iteration? Is it comparable to the dynamics of a microgrid?
10. In line 243, the table number is missing.
11. In Table 5, the different costs are indicated. However, this cost/reduction of the costs is for an hour, a month, or a year. The current presentation does not explain the core message it. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for you comments. We have improved our manuscript based on your comments and attached.

Regards

Mehrdad

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All comments and aspects have been amended by the authors. However, the units in Table 3 are wrong, please revise it! Active-power should be expressed as kW.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Thanks, authors for considering the corrections.
2. For Figures 2 and 4, the y-axis label to be written with the appropriate space.