Adaptation of an Insulated Centralized Photovoltaic Outdoor Lighting Installation with Electronic Control System to Improve Service Guarantee in Tropical Latitudes
, Jose R. Andres-Diaz, Enrique Navarrete-de Galvez and Alfonso Gago-Calderon *Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper deals with the presentation of an electronic centralized management system that can regulate the consumption based on the energy available in the batteries for outdoor lighting installation. In my opinion, the study is supported by results and data, but it needs some improvements.
First of all the organization of the paper should be changed. Sections 1.1 and 1.2 should be moved in a new section 2.1 and 2.2. The results should be reported in a separate section (i.e. section 3.2 should be section 4) including the measurements reported in section 4. While the equation used to calculate all the parameter (e.g. equation 4) should be moved above (for instance, in the methodology section). A new section describing the system and the set up (including the measurement equipment in section 3.3) has to be added. A nomenclature section should be added or the acronyms should be explained the first time they are cited in the manuscript.
The affirmation in line 213-214 should be supported by some technical standard (e.g. the European standard regarding the street lighting). The affirmation in line 214-215 is not so correct: the installed power is not the only parameter to guarantee the illuminance value on the road. Furthermore, the values that have to be guarantee could be the luminance (according to the categories of the street base on the speed limit). Add a reference for AEMET.
Quotes of figure 1 are not clear and the use of the word "section" is not appropriate or not clear as well. The sentence in line 225-226 is not clear. What do you mean by saying "generate the system"? The sentence in line 231 should be corrected by writing the consumption in Wh.
A flow chart should be added in the methodology section to explain graphically step by step the method. The economic results should be further commented in order to understand the advantages reported in line 28.
Finally, the paper cited other studies, but the results should be supported by the comparison with similar devices in order to underline the novelty of the proposed system.
Author Response
We thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and the associate editor for his work managing the review process. All changes included in the new version uploaded of the manuscript following the recommendation and advises of the reviewers are in red printing.
In this document we attend specifically to all the considerations received.
REVIEWER 1:
A.- First of all the organization of the paper should be changed.
A.1.- Sections 1.1 and 1.2 should be moved in a new section 2.1 and 2.2.
A.2.- The results should be reported in a separate section (i.e. section 3.2 should be section 4) including the measurements reported in section 4.
A.3.- A new section describing the system and the set up (including the measurement equipment in section 3.3) has to be added.
As suggested a new organization of the paper has been generated as follows:
- Introduction
- Determinants of location in the development of autonomous photovoltaic lighting systems
2.1. Differences of hours of sun related to the latitude of the installation
2.2. Cost analysis of PV and PVB systems. Influence of each type of component.
- Objective
- Methodology
- Initial installation dimensioning
5.1. Calculation of the daily consumption of the installation
5.2. Dimensioning of the array of batteries
5.3. Dimensioning of the photovoltaic generator
5.4. Dimensioning of the rest of equipment in the installation
- Resulting installation
6.1. Test equipment installed
- Analysis of the measured values of the initial design of the PVB system
- Design modifications to include light and battery levels management systems
8.1. DC power grid and lighting technology
8.2. Electronic control architecture.
8.2.1. Hardware assembly configuration
8.2.2. Communication bus
8.2.3. Cost of the control architecture
- Testing procedure of the improvement of the installation
- Conclusions
A new chapter 2 has been created including these 2 subchapters named in A.1.
Results are reported in a separate section
A section describing the system: set up and the measurement equipment has been added.
A.4.- While the equation used to calculate all the parameter (e.g. equation 4) should be moved above (for instance, in the methodology section).
We consider that all the equations used either to dimension the installation (Eq. 1 & 2) as well as to evaluate its performance (Eq. 3 & 4) are listed and described in their respective chapters according to where their information is calculated and useful. We believe that placing all together in the same place may conduct to a possible mislead of their usage and difficult the comprehension of the content.
A.5.- A nomenclature section should be added or the acronyms should be explained the first time they are cited in the manuscript.
As requested, the full text has been reviewed and all the acronyms are now explained the first time they appear in the manuscript.
B.1- The affirmation in line 213-214 should be supported by some technical standard (e.g. the European standard regarding the street lighting).
The following text has been added: “Class P4 of routes for people and cyclists according to the EN 13201-2:2015 - Road lighting - Part 2: Performance requirements”
As indicates in the manuscript, this is the perimeter pathway of a school and the porpoise of the installation is safety and surveillance.
B.2.- The affirmation in line 214-215 is not so correct: the installed power is not the only parameter to guarantee the illuminance value on the road.
We have reworded this sentence so that the idea gets clearer expressed: “It has been experimentally verified that for the distribution and distances between the existing model of lanterns and the PVB system in the installation (as indicated in Figure 2) these desired values are achieved using 40W induction lamps at each points of light.”
B.3.- Furthermore, the values that have to be guarantee could be the luminance (according to the categories of the street base on the speed limit).
As indicated in point B.1 the requirements are for a P4 class and no luminance considerations are to be taken into account. Nevertheless, the objective of this paper is not related to the lighting characteristics of the luminaires but to optimally design and operate the PVB power generating system.
B.4.- Add a reference for AEMET.
New reference Nº 23 has been added
C.1.- Quotes of figure 1 are not clear and the use of the word "section" is not appropriate or not clear as well.
We have renamed this concept using the term “cable run” in all the manuscript.
C.2.- The sentence in line 225-226 is not clear. What do you mean by saying "generate the system"?
This expression has been changed for “built the PVB system”.
C.3.- The sentence in line 231 should be corrected by writing the consumption in Wh.
This has been corrected as indicated.
D.1.- A flow chart should be added in the methodology section to explain graphically step by step the method.
A new Figure 1 has been added with a flow char detailing the steps of the methodology used in this work
D.2.- The economic results should be further commented in order to understand the advantages reported in line 28.
At the end of the new chapter 8, the following paragraph has been added:
“The total cost of the actions executed implies less than 88 € (22.50 € for 2x4mm2 in bus for the wiring section 1 and 65.39 € for the electronic control). This money allows a basic performance of the installation without disruption of service of an average sea-son design of the PVB system. As evaluated in chapter 7, the energy deficit found requires to triple both the number of PV panels and the battery units of the bank (beyond the oversize of the battery charger unit). Using Table 1 as reference, the cost of these additional equipment reaches the amount of 6,920.00 €. (7,873% more than the proposals)”
E.- Finally, the paper cited other studies, but the results should be supported by the comparison with similar devices in order to underline the novelty of the proposed system.
The following text and references listed below has been included in the manuscript at the end of chapter 8:
“Systems found in the literature to control minigrid of streetlights concern Power Line Communication (PLC) (Thanh, 2017) or wireless (Marino 2017) data networks to interact with the luminaires and the criteria to dim the luminaires are based in the presence of users (detected using sensors) or the expected usage of the via based on timing criteria (Cañipa, 2019) (Sun, 2010).
The economic evaluation of these systems are complex as expressed by Vieira et al. (Vieira 2019) “Initially the developed IoT system was considered not worth the investment, the initial investment would not be fully recovered before the end of the battery life. However, it was worth the investment in the isolated areas where there was no power supply.” In all these cases listed, the system studied allows complex energy saving schemes and point-to-point dimming capability. However, the expressed budget of these control systems surpass by much our proposal and make them non-affordable by most markets which cannot assume large payback periods.”
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
line 214, 230 and 359 - it was really 40W induction lamp? not sodium HPS lamp or metal halide MH lamp? If this was induction lamp please add to the paper info about it type and manufacturer/brand.
Author Response
We thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and the associate editor for his work managing the review process. All changes included in the new version uploaded of the manuscript following the recommendation and advises of the reviewers are in red printing.
In this document we attend specifically to all the considerations received.
REVIEWER 2:
A.-line 214, 230 and 359 - it was really 40W induction lamp? not sodium HPS lamp or metal halide MH lamp? If this was induction lamp please add to the paper info about it type and manufacturer/brand.
The lamps used for the AC grid test were induction lamps of 40W.
The objective of the paper is to focus on the development of the PVB generator and, related to this point, to compare its performance using AC or DC loads. Because of this, we used lamps that were available (these lamps were offered by the municipality) and that would not need additional components (ballast, capacitors, …) that may disrupt the consumption values expected. We tested the lamps to verify their total real consumptions which was very similar (+/- 5%) and it was then easy to find a LED lamp with that same watt requirement (40W)
We include in the manuscript the information of the lamp used: Manufacturer: LVD. Model: Induction Lamp Saturn Series LVZ-ZWJYTX2B-120/60-40.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been improved. I suggest citing the new added standard EN13201 and reporting, close to the absorbed power, the luminous flux of the lamps, the distance between the luminaires and, if it is possible, the photometry (they are important characteristics to be selected and that I meant in the first review). Finally, Figure 3 (line 313 and in the capture 321) should be "Figure 4". Figure 4 (line 326 and 332) should be "Figure 5"; Figure 5 (line 329 and 334) should be "Figure 6" and so on. In Figure 2 the quotas could be not still clear. Authors could see how to quote linear sizes, even if the draw is not in scale, and add the diameter with a specific symbol. I think you should add just "segments" at the beginning and at the end of the points of the sizes (e.g. where did the size 14.65 begin and where did it end?).
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for their second exam of the manuscript and to acknowledge all his comments to improve the text. All changes included in the new version uploaded of the manuscript following the recommendation and advises of the reviewers are in red printing.
In this document we attend specifically to all the considerations received.
REVIEWER 1:
A.- I suggest citing the new added standard EN13201
This item as reference nº 23 has been added. Additionally, all the references haven reviewed to adapt its format to that detailed by the template of the journal
B.- reporting, close to the absorbed power, the luminous flux of the lamps, the distance between the luminaires and, if it is possible, the photometry (they are important characteristics to be selected and that I meant in the first review).
The luminous flux of the lamp was already included in the manuscript in chapter 5.1 when the technical data of the induction bulb description is given “total individual consumption of 40W (2,600 lumens; power factor: 0.98; nominal input voltage: 230 VAC).” We have moved this information to the beginning of chapter 5.
As for the other two data indicated, we consider that their inclusion would lengthen unnecessarily the manuscript (which is already quite extensive) and may generate more confusion between readers that improve the transmission of the desired message: The objective of the paper is never to analyse a lighting installation but to study PVB energy generation systems. That the load is an outdoor lighting installation is relevant due to the power is required at night when no solar radiation is being capture but the lighting results are not relevant for the study and the conclusions that we offer. Thus, the better or worse selection of a photometry is not transcendent for the objective of the text.
Figure 2 show the values wiring distance between elements (lamps of the installation) this info is relevant for our porpoise as it is a significant factor of power loses in cables. Introducing the distance between bulbs (which is smaller than that of the wires that connect them as they do not go simply in a straight line) is not relevant for any calculation or analysis of the paper and may lead to bad interpretations of fast readers.
C.- Finally, Figure 3 (line 313 and in the capture 321) should be "Figure 4". Figure 4 (line 326 and 332) should be "Figure 5"; Figure 5 (line 329 and 334) should be "Figure 6" and so on.
This was a terrible mistake that we made when we added the new Figure 1 requested by the reviewer in the first exam. Thank you for noticing it. All the numbers of the figures have been corrected both in the main text and in their foot note description.
D.- In Figure 2 the quotas could be not still clear. Authors could see how to quote linear sizes, even if the draw is not in scale, and add the diameter with a specific symbol. I think you should add just "segments" at the beginning and at the end of the points of the sizes (e.g. where did the size 14.65 begin and where did it end?).
The following text has been added to specify properly the figure: “The distance values presented in Figure 2 mean the wires length of each cable run between the terminals of the equipment (batteries, inverter, or bulb caps) that are electrically connected at its ends.”
The diameter of the cable is a variable that varies in the development of the methodology. We consider that this information is not relevant at this point of the manuscript and is treated in Table 5.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
