Optimal Scheduling of Thermoelectric Coupling Energy System Considering Thermal Characteristics of DHN
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article is devoted to the study of the issues of optimal scheduling of the energy system, taking into account the features of district heating and various types of renewable energy. An original way of solving the stated problem is proposed, tested on the example of a two-bus power system.
It is recommended to rewrite the Abstract section. In particular, remove all abbreviations and move them to the main text of this work. It is necessary to clearly define the purpose, practical and scientific significance, including for ways of future research.
It is recommended to clearly indicate the purpose and objectives of the study (the Introduction section). A small methodology section would be beneficial for the reader to understand the sequence of the work, and some of the information required or used in the assessment.
The Conclusion section should be expanded. In this section, it is also necessary to show the practical significance of the results, as well as to demonstrate whether the hypotheses of the study are confirmed.
The Discussion and Results sections should be included in the paper separately from the Conclusion section.
Author Response
The authors are grateful to the reviewers’ and editors’ valuable time and constructive comments on the paper. We would like to address these comments in the revised manuscripts (highlighted in red) and in this reply as attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments:
The title is interesting. “Optimal Scheduling of Thermoelectric Coupling Energy System Considering Thermal Characteristics of DHN”. The authors aimed to propose a new heat characteristic index (TCI) in district heating system (DHS), which is applied to measure the impact of DHN on the flexibility of CHP units’ output. This is because of the strong coupling relationship between power generation and heating supply. However, in the present form, there are significant issues that need to be done. For improving the quality of the paper, the authors can address the following comments:
1. In the abstract, The optimal result can achieve balance among the system reliability, flexibility and economy. The authors can tell in one more sentence how?
Tell the readers about the significance of this study.
2. In the introduction, reference format [1-2], [15-16] please check.
3. In the introduction [5]-[7], the authors did not tell about the studies' outcomes.
4. In the introduction, the sentence starts “in reference [8]” and ends “in [8]”. “[9]” .......the next sentence started. Please rephrase the statement? Also in section 2 reference [21]
5. In the introduction, the authors claimed in recent years at [12]-[14] and the cited papers are from 2008 to 2015. Please include the latest research papers on the topic?
6. literature review, the reviewer suggested including a table to show the latest studies and their limitations. For example, include reference, year of the study, study objective or results, and limitations
7. Can the authors present in points or flowcharts the step by step to achieve the study in section 3?
8. Section 4, The model parameters are estimated or calculated from a real system, please specify?
9. In the results, the reviewer suggests having a comparison section to simplify the show the priority of your model.
10. In References, including from the latest 5 years of research papers.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors are grateful to the reviewers’ and editors’ valuable time and constructive comments on the paper. We would like to address these comments in the revised manuscripts (highlighted in red) and in this reply as attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper proposes an improved TCES scheduling model by taking into account a new thermal characteristic index based on quantized heat storage capacity of DHN. The paper has a merit in its originality and novelty of the proposed model. The introduction section could be improved by discussing further the current state of TCES model in the literature. The model is described thoroughly and the results presentations are concise showing various aspects of the model outputs.
Author Response
The authors are grateful to the reviewers’ and editors’ valuable time and constructive comments on the paper. We would like to address these comments in the revised manuscripts (highlighted in red) and in this reply as attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept in present form
Author Response
The authors are grateful to the reviewers’ and editors’ valuable time and constructive comments on the paper. We would like to address these comments in the revised manuscripts (highlighted in red) and in this reply as follows.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
Accept in present form
Answer:
Thank you for your affirmation of our paper. We are grateful to your evaluable time and constructive comments on the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
According to the new version of the paper, the comments replay and actions are not highlighted in the main content.
The reviewer's comments are not reflected in the paper content.
Author Response
The authors are grateful to the reviewers’ and editors’ valuable time and constructive comments on the paper. We would like to address these comments in the revised manuscripts (highlighted in red) and in this reply as follows.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
According to the new version of the paper, the comments replay and actions are not highlighted in the main content.
The reviewer's comments are not reflected in the paper content.
Answer:
Thank you for your nice suggestion. Thank you for your affirmation of our paper. In fact, we have revised our paper according to your previous comments, and made a response summary to your comments. In addition, we have revised the format of our paper based on the template.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
