Research on Dynamic Reactive Power Compensation Scheme for Inhibiting Subsequent Commutation Failure of MIDC

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review 1

The article concerns an actual problem concerning, as stated in the title, Dynamic Reactive Power Compensation Scheme for Inhibiting Subsequent Commutation Failure of MIDC. The paper shows strong theoretical background, however, below there have been pointed out some remarks and comments, which should help Authors clarifying some issues and uncertainties found in the paper.

 

Comments and general remarks:         

1. Authors should avoid lumped citations, and describe the particular parts and corresponding references in more detail;
2. The paper needs layout editing.
3. Section 2.2 – Authors should present the schematic diagram of the analyzed part of the grid.
4. Paper is hard to follow and in my opinion, needs English Language Editing.
5. The presented in section 6 power system used for calculations, should be defined with corresponding parameters and presented in e.g. Appendix 1.
6. There are missing spaces between values and units in the whole paper.
7. Low figures quality in the whole paper.
8. The PSO algorithm used for optimization has not been sufficiently described. There is needed a table with algorithm configuration data and optimization routine. What was the single optimization time?

 

Some minor issues:

Lines:

Page 1 – inappropriate formatting.

26: Authors state that: ‘AC system can easily lead to commutation failure [2]’ – such a statement should be described and clarified in more detail;

38: Inappropriate citation format;

70: AHP-TOPSIS abbreviation should be appropriately defined according to the journal requirements.

137: Low figure quality;

213: Equation 10 should be checked and corrected;

Author Response

Please check the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very informative and well-organized paper on the configuration of DRPCE to avoide subsequent commutation failures in MIDCs. The key contribution is the utilization of a modified PSO algorithm to solve the multi-objective optimization problem that considers both the inhibitory effect and the economic performance.

The manuscript is in near-to-publication form. I only have 3 minor comments.

1. Correct the Figure number in line 132 from Figure 2 to Figure 3.
2. Add the variation of the DC-voltage in Figure 5.
3. Explicitly state which is the optimal approach in the conclusions, on your point numbered with 2).

Author Response

Please check the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article presents the use of the STATCOM and SVC systems for reactive power compensation, thus stabilizing the voltage or changing it to the expected values.

Reading the article several times, each time, the impression was that there is nothing revealing in it .

Comments:

1. The SVC and STATCOM systems are used jointly or separately for the purposes of voltage compensation and voltage stabilization.
2. Figure 3 - missing units and too small font.
3. As we know, by compensating only the reactive power, S = P cannot be obtained. If the STATCOM is controlled by the p-q method, it injects a deformation to the network by itself - the reactive power cannot be compensated to 0 (as shown in Figure 10).

Author Response

Please check the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, the paper has been improved according to the first review, and the questions with remarks have been addressed appropriately. However, I would like to point that:

1. In equation (14) and Table B3 there are a inappropriate multiplication signs '*' where should be dot signs;
2.  There are still missing spaces between values and units (e.g. line 328, Table B.1, and some others);
3. It would be a bit easier for readers to express costs in Table 4 also with USD or Euros;

Author Response

 Thank you again for reviewing our paper and indicating these valuable suggestions to improve the  paper quality. We have corrected the problems you pointed out one by one and converted the costs in Table 4 into USD to help readers understand.

Wish you all the best and good health.

Reviewer 3 Report

No comments and no suggestions.

Author Response

Thank you again for reviewing our paper. We wish you all the best and good health.