Next Article in Journal
Do Socially Responsible Investment Funds Sell Losses and Ride Gains? The Disposition Effect in SRI Funds
Previous Article in Journal
Innovation Management Systems and Standards: A Systematic Literature Review and Guidance for Future Research
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Two-Stage Physical Economic Adjustable Capacity Evaluation Model of Electric Vehicles for Peak Shaving and Valley Filling Auxiliary Services

Sustainability 2021, 13(15), 8153; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158153
by Dunnan Liu 1, Tingting Zhang 1,*, Weiye Wang 1, Xiaofeng Peng 2, Mingguang Liu 1, Heping Jia 1 and Shu Su 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2021, 13(15), 8153; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158153
Submission received: 14 May 2021 / Revised: 2 July 2021 / Accepted: 4 July 2021 / Published: 21 July 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is much improved since the original version. It is now also much clearer. While the text is significantly improved, there are some minor points that need fixing, for example:

- line 67: "the author" -> "we"

- Each acronym should be defined explicitly the first time it is used. For example, "AC" is only explained in line 276, after being used several times before (including in the abstract)!

- line 109: "relatively single" what does this mean?

- line 366: "tracking, hunting and hunting." there may be duplicate behaviors here

 

Other points:

- Figure 1: stage 2 is not really clear. What is the meaning of the arrows?

- Eq. 38, what is the meaning of the symbol?

- table 4: better to clarify which parameters belongs to which algorithm, for example with a horizontal line

Author Response

Reviewer#1, Concern # 1: The work is much improved since the original version. It is now also much clearer. While the text is significantly improved, there are some minor points that need fixing:

Author response: The valuable comment from the reviewer is highly appreciated. We are very sorry for our incorrect writing in this paper and we have made correction according to the reviewer’s comments.

(2) Response to comment: "the author" -> "we"

Response:We made changes to line 67, checked similar issues in the rest of the manuscript and made the following changes:

-Lines 64-65: The statements of “the author construct a two-stage physical and economic adjustable capacity evaluation model of EVs for participating in ancillary services market.” were re-written as “we constructed a two-stage physical and economic adjustable capacity evaluation model of EVs for participating in ancillary services market.”

 

-Line 547: The statements of “the author selected private EVs as the research object…” were re-written as “we selected private EVs as the research object…”

 

-Line 577: The statements of “the author have more opportunities to obtain the actual operation data…” were re-written as “we have more opportunities to obtain the actual operation data…”

(2) Response to comment: Each acronym should be defined explicitly the first time it is used. For example, "AC" is only explained in line 276, after being used several times before (including in the abstract)!

Response:We define “EVs (electric vehicles)” in line 9 and “AC (Actor-Critic) algorithm” in line 15, then rewrite these two words into acronyms in the following parts of the article and highlighted in red font in the following parts of the article.

(3) Response to comment: line 109: "relatively single" what does this mean?

Response:in line 104, The statements of “The travel activities of private cars are relatively single…” were re-written as “The travel activities of private cars are relatively clear and fixed…”

(4) Response to comment: line 366: "tracking, hunting and hunting." there may be duplicate behaviors here.

Response:Line 354: The statements of “tracking, hunting and hunting” were corrected into “tracking, hunting and capturing”, which represents three important stages of Gray Wolf algorithm.

Reviewer#1, Concern # 2: Some other points

Author response: The valuable comment from the reviewer is highly appreciated. According to the opinions of the reviewer, we revised as follows:

(1) Response to comment: Figure 1: stage 2 is not really clear. What is the meaning of the arrows?

Response:In the second stage, the objective function is to find the optimal subsidy which can maximize the revenue of the load aggregators. Then, the objective function is divided into two parts, namely the income from ancillary services market and the incentive cost paid to EV users. The income is determined by the clearing price of ancillary services and the adjustable load capacity of electric vehicles. At the same time, the incentive cost of aggregators depends on the adjustable load capacity of electric vehicles and the subsidy given to users. When we evaluate the adjustable load capacity of electric vehicles, the subjective willingness of EV users is considered into the model, which shows that the degree of participation of electric vehicle users is affected by the subsidy price. Further, we established a logistic function between the adjustable load capacity and the subsidy price. Therefore, the output of the model is to find the best subsidy level.

Besides, we have improved Figure 1, marked variable marks above the arrows, and supplemented the block diagram of income and cost.

Figure 1. the logical framework of this paper.

(2) Response to comment: Eq. 38, what is the meaning of the symbol?

Response:We supplemented the explanation of Eq. 38 as follows:

“The capture activity is mainly realized by the decrement of A. the value of a decreases linearly from 2 to 0 with the number of iterations. In the process of decrement, the corresponding value of A will change between [-a, a]. If , the next generation of wolves will be closer to their prey; If , the wolves will disperse away from the prey, resulting in the loss of the optimal solution position and falling into the local optimum. The updating formula of a value is as follows:

?=2−2∗??

 

where t is the current number of iterations, T is the preset maximum number of iterations.”

(3) Response to comment: table 4: better to clarify which parameters belongs to which algorithm, for example with a horizontal line

Response:We have redrawn the table 4 to show and distinguish the parameters of the two algorithms more clearly.

Table 4. Algorithm parameters setting.

algorithm

parameter

value

AC algorithm

Iterations

1500

Data pool capacity

1000

Number of data randomly extracted

32

TD learning rate

0.9

Strategy gradient learning rate

0.1

Discount factor

1

Wolf colony algorithm

Population number m

20

Iterations k

200

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors 

You have already considered all my points. 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recognition of this article, which is very important to me, and I will continue to study the relevant topics in this field

Back to TopTop