An Evaluation of the PV Integrated Dynamic Overhangs Based on Parametric Performance Design Method: A Case Study of a Student Apartment in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper evaluates the application and energy performance of three PVSD design strategies in five different cities in China. It also proposes to use the parametric performance design method and simulation program to assess the three PVSD design strategies. This research shows some levels of creativity and falls within the scope of the Sustainability, and it is suggested to accept this paper for publication with minor changes. Some minor suggestions are listed below.
1) Please rephrase the first sentence in Abstract from ‘reduce the energy consumption for indoor’ to ‘reduce the indoor energy consumption’.
2) Please avoid acronyms in the abstract, for instance, the full name of the EUI should be clearly stated.
3) In the introduction section, please state the novelty of this research more clearly.
4) In figure 9(b), the legends of equipment, electricity and angle are missing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Despite the research topic cannot be considered a novelty, the study is carried out in a clear and detailed manner. Each part is well structured and results are accurately expounded. Discussion on the need of multi-objective design and further research should be delineated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is relevant to the Journal and is generally interesting to the readers.
In the fixed-shade scenario, how is the shade (fixed) angle determined? Is it first optimised using simulation and a certain optimisation technique? If so, what is the target performance indicator in optimising the angle? Please explain.
Similar question for the rotate-shade and move-shade scenarios, how to determine the defined angle and height (for the move-shade) in each month?
Is it possible that when another (slightly different) shade angle is chosen for each scenario in each city, the resulting EUI will be lower than the reported one in this study? How can we assure the reliability of the results? More explanation and discussion are needed.
Figure 12 is probably the most interesting part for the policy/decision makers. As observed, the payback period is the longest for Changchun, which is located in the most severe climate among the five. The payback is period is the shortest for Shenzhen, which has the warmest climate type. But when comparing between the shade scenarios (fixed, rotate, or move), it is seen that the scenarios types do not yield significant difference of payback period in Shenzhen. Can it be suggested that installing fixed-shade PVSD is more recommended in Shenzhen, since it will require less maintenance cost (compared to the moving or rotating one)?
Meanwhile, for Changchun, the move-shade PVSD is clearly recommended due its superiority in terms of payback period, compared the other two types. But why does this actually happen? Can the authors give their views on these findings?
In Table 2, is the electricity price reported per kWh (i.e. price/kWh)? Or else?
It is suggested to add a separate section on Discussion, prior to the Conclusion section. Comparison with other studies in literature, limitation and outlook, potential applications, etc., can be put in that Discussion section.
Minor comments:
Fig. 1a: 'angel' should be 'angle'.
Table 1: The unit W (Watt) and K (Kelvin) should be written in capital letter. The values of lighting and equipment loads can be rounded to two decimal places.
Line 190: the "i" in fi and yi should be written as subscript, so: fi and yi.
Please use proper multiplication sign (×) instead of asterisk (*) in the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
1) The article is fascinating, but the authors have minimized the present research work.
1) Line 23 EUI requested to add energy use intensity
I wanted to suggest some open-access published work that must cite.
a) Effect of dual surface cooling of solar photovoltaic panel on the efficiency of the module: Experimental investigation
b) Experimental Investigation of the Effect of a Combination of Active and Passive Cooling Mechanism on the Thermal Characteristics and Efficiency of Solar PV Module
c)Experimental Study on Performance Enhancement of a Photovoltaic Module Using a Combination of Phase Change Material and Aluminum Fins—Exergy, Energy and Economic (3E) Analysis
d) Thermal management of solar photovoltaic module to enhance output performance: an experimental passive cooling approach using discontinuous aluminum heat sink
2) In line 153 authors must check there is a typo-error lady bug value I hope it must be 0.69
3)Experimental uncertainty achieved by the authors is not highlighted?
4) Figure 6 (b) y-axis it must be from left to right authors written from right to left modify
5) Results and Discussion explained no modification is needed
6) In conclusion authors must highlight the significant results of the work. Authors are requested to add significant results only this section must be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been revised and can now be recommended for publication.
