Optimal Multi-Objective Power Scheduling of a Residential Microgrid Considering Renewable Sources and Demand Response Technique
, Soichirou Ueda 1, Akito Nakadomari 1, Keifa Vamba Konneh 1, Tomonobu Senjyu 1, Ashraf M. Hemeida 3 and Mohammed Elsayed Lotfy 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of the article „Optimal Multi-objective Power scheduling of A Residential Microgrid Considering Renewable Sources And Demand Response Technique”
Abstract: There is twice CO2 instead of CO2
- Introduction
The introduction is written correctly, the discussion and the literature review are done correctly. I have no critical comments, the introduction introduces the reader to the issues described in the article well.
- System
The word "system" is too general for a chapter name.
Figure 1 - System configation. I do not see a system configuration here. I see 5 different systems.
The mathematical models of individual elements are described very modestly.
Subsections 2.1 and 2.2 should not be referred to as a technology acronym (PV, FC??)
Equation 1: Where did the insolation data come from for energy analysis? What is the source of data.
Why the model does not take into account the operating temperature of PV panels ??
Equations 2-4: The reviewer does not know how the work of the fuel cell was modeled according to these equations. How many kg of hydrogen will the fuel cell use to produce kWh of electricity? Is the model dynamic based on transfer functions or static based on balance equations?
Equations 5-7: As above. How much hydrogen does the electrolyser produce with the consumption of 1 kWh of energy, what is the hydrogen production time ??, what is the efficiency of the process ??
To what pressure is the hydrogen compressed, how much energy is lost to the hydrogen pressure?
- Demand Response
On what basis were the values of the parameters in Table 1 determined?
- Objective function
Formula 17: Cbio is not defined.
- Constraints
Pbio??
Pbiomin < Pbio < Pbiomax
Biomass: It appears in two systems and there is no word for it in the model. How was technology modeled? Burning biomass, Gasifying biomass? Cogeneration technology or only for electricity production ?? The reader has to guess ??
There is Pbio in patterns but it is not known where it comes from.
- Results and Discussion
There is no reference in the text to Table 4.
The results from Tables 3 and 4 should be described in more detail and compared. What is the tank capacity unit?
The drawings are numbered incorrectly.
In the text from 2 to 6, but they have numbers from 3 to 7.
Even such a simple thing, the authors did not check before sending the manuscript.
The simulation results are described very modestly.
In conclusion, I think that the manuscript has not been prepared in a sufficiently appropriate way to be considered suitable for publication.
Author Response
Response to Editor and Reviewers
Manuscript Number: sustainability-1940944
Paper Title: Optimal Multi-objective Power scheduling of A Residential Microgrid Considering
Renewable Sources and Demand Response Technique
Response to Editor and Reviewers:
The authors are thankful to the respected Editor and all the Reviewers for their insightful
suggestions and constructive comments in order to improve the quality of our manuscript
to be suitable for publication in a reputed Sustainability journal. We appreciate the
opportunity to revise the manuscript, and we are grateful for the developmental feedback
that the Editor and the Reviewers have provided throughout the review process. We hope
that you believe that the resulting manuscript is stronger. Thank you for the time you
dedicated to reading and thinking about our manuscript. We look forward to hearing
your thoughts about our revised manuscript.
Authors, Reply to the Reviewers’ Comments
Response to Reviewer #1
Point-1: Abstract: There is twice CO2 instead of CO2
Reply: The authors are thankful for the comments of the reviewers. We considered this point
in the resubmitted manuscript by avoiding such mistakes.
Point-2: Introduction: The introduction is written correctly, the discussion and the literature
review are done correctly. I have no critical comments, the introduction introduces the reader
to the issues described in the article well.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers.
Point-3: System: The word "system" is too general for a chapter name.
Reply: The authors are thankful for the valuable comments of the reviewers. We considered
this point in the modified manuscript by changing the word system.
Point-4: Figure 1 - System configation. I do not see a system configuration here. I see 5
different systems.
Reply: The authors are thankful for the valuable comments of the reviewers. We corrected
this problem and considered making the caption more representative.
Point-5: The mathematical models of individual elements are described very modestly.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. The authors considered
describing the used technologies clearly in the modified manuscript.
Point-6: Subsections 2.1 and 2.2 should not be referred to as a technology acronym (PV, FC??)
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. The authors have
considered this point in the modified manuscript.
Point-7: Equation 1: Where did the insolation data come from for energy analysis? What is
the source of data.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. The values of the solar
radiation are the Egyptian solar radiation data, and we mentioned that in the modified
manuscript
Point-8: Why the model does not take into account the operating temperature of PV panels ??
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. We consider solar
radiation as it has a great effect on solar output, but we consider studying the sensitivity to
parameters variation, including temperature changing effects in our future work.
Point-9: Equations 2-4: The reviewer does not know how the work of the fuel cell was modeled
according to these equations. How many kg of hydrogen will the fuel cell use to produce kWh
of electricity? Is the model dynamic based on transfer functions or static based on balance
equations?
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. The authors considered
this point in the modified manuscript by modelling the cost equation. The authors added the
simulation parameters in the appendix with details about the cost, the efficiency, and the
conversion values.
Point-10: Equations 5-7: As above. How much hydrogen does the electrolyser produce with
the consumption of 1 kWh of energy, what is the hydrogen production time ??, what is the
efficiency of the process ?? To what pressure is the hydrogen compressed, how much energy
is lost to the hydrogen pressure?
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. The authors added the
simulation parameters in the appendix with details about the cost, the efficiency, the
conversion values, and the hydrogen pressure.
Point-11: Demand Response: On what basis were the values of the parameters in Table 1
determined?
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. The self and cross
elasticities are set on the basis of prices and load to represent the flexibility to change the load
patterns and shift portion of load from period to another.
Point-12: Objective function: Formula 17: Cbio is not defined.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. The authors have corrected
this mistake in the modified manuscript.
Point-13: Constraints: Pbio??
Pbiomin < Pbio < Pbiomax
Biomass: It appears in two systems and there is no word for it in the model. How was
technology modeled? Burning biomass, Gasifying biomass? Cogeneration technology or only
for electricity production ?? The reader has to guess ??
There is Pbio in patterns but it is not known where it comes from
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. In the resubmitted
manuscript, the authors added a description of biomass modelling, which depends on
gasification technology.
Point-14: Results and Discussion: There is no reference in the text to Table 4.
The results from Tables 3 and 4 should be described in more detail and compared. What is
the tank capacity unit?
Reply: The authors are grateful for the valuable comments of the reviewers. The authors have
already modified the discussion section to clearly describe the obtained results and mention
all the obtained findings. Also, the tank capacity unit is written in the modified manuscript.
Point-15: The drawings are numbered incorrectly. In the text from 2 to 6, but they have
numbers from 3 to 7. Even such a simple thing, the authors did not check before sending the
manuscript.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. We corrected these
mistakes and also proofread the manuscript to ensure it appeared in the proper way.
Point-16: The simulation results are described very modestly. In conclusion, I think that the
manuscript has not been prepared in a sufficiently appropriate way to be considered suitable
for publication.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers.In the modified manuscript,
the authors considered improving the discussion of the obtained results to make it more
representative of the manuscript objectives to make it suitable for publication.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This reviewer suggests the following points to improve the paper quality:
1. Please try to avoid the acronyms in Keywords sections.
2. Try to include the nomenclature of all the symbols used in the work, at the beginning for better readability. Also list their design values in the Appendix.
3. Try to redraft the Introduction section, with background, challenges, literature review, scopes, motivation, contributions, and organization of paper. Highlight the novelties/major contribution of the work prior to organization pf paper in brief(preferably in 3-bulleted points). Also try to expand the literature review including some recent works (of last 3-years) in the similar field, such as, d.o.i.: 10.1049/icp.2021.2237, 10.1016/j.seta.2021.101622, 10.1016/j.ijepes.2021.107142, 10.1016/j.ijepes.2022.108619, and so on.
4. Try to maintain the work flow of the paper, especially during transition between sections and subsections.
5. Try to emphasize more on the problem statement and objective function.
6. Try to quote all the equations in related texts with proper citation (if adopted from published work)
7. The validation of the proposed method should be provided with comparative analysis.
8. Results should to be supported with more discussion for different scenarios of source and load variations.
9. Author may include some case studies for intermittent renewable sources (like solar and wind) and their impact on microgrid. The system responses should be analyzed during these renewable variations to confirm the system stability.
10. Redraft the Conclusion with numerical evidences to support your claim. Also include at least one future scope to it.
11. Try to redraft the References section with unified formatting as per the journal guidelines.
12. Proofread the entire manuscript to rectify some existing typos and grammatical errors.
Author Response
Response to Editor and Reviewers
Manuscript Number: sustainability-1940944
Paper Title: Optimal Multi-objective Power scheduling of A Residential Microgrid Considering
Renewable Sources and Demand Response Technique
Response to Editor and Reviewers:
The authors are thankful to the respected Editor and all the Reviewers for their insightful
suggestions and constructive comments in order to improve the quality of our manuscript
to be suitable for publication in a reputed Sustainability journal. We appreciate the
opportunity to revise the manuscript, and we are grateful for the developmental feedback
that the Editor and the Reviewers have provided throughout the review process. We hope
that you believe that the resulting manuscript is stronger. Thank you for the time you
dedicated to reading and thinking about our manuscript. We look forward to hearing
your thoughts about our revised manuscript.
Authors, Reply to the Reviewers’ Comments
Response to Reviewer #2
Point-1: Please try to avoid the acronyms in Keywords sections.
Reply: The authors are thankful for the valuable comments of the reviewers. We considered
this point in the modified manuscript.
Point-2: Try to include the nomenclature of all the symbols used in the work, at the beginning
for better readability. Also list their design values in the Appendix.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. We considered this point
by adding the nomenclature and an appendix at the end of the manuscript according to
journal guidelines.
Point-3: Try to redraft the Introduction section, with background, challenges, literature
review, scopes, motivation, contributions, and organization of paper. Highlight the
novelties/major contribution of the work prior to organization pf paper in brief(preferably in
3-bulleted points). Also try to expand the literature review including some recent works (of
last 3-years) in the similar field, such as, d.o.i.: 10.1049/icp.2021.2237,
10.1016/j.seta.2021.101622, 10.1016/j.ijepes.2021.107142, 10.1016/j.ijepes.2022.108619, and
so on.
Reply: The authors are thankful for the comments of the reviewers. According to your
recommendation, we divided the introduction into subsections to make it easier for the reader
to grasp the idea of the work. Also, we expanded the literature review considering the
mentioned references. These references helped us widen our knowledge and improve our work.
Point-4: Try to maintain the work flow of the paper, especially during transition between
sections and subsections.
Reply: The authors are thankful for the valuable comments of the reviewers. In the modified
manuscript, we considered maintaining the workflow and also dividing the introduction into
subsections.
Point-5: Try to emphasize more on the problem statement and objective function.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. The authors considered
describing the motivation, the contribution and the objectives clearly in the modified
manuscript.
Point-6: Try to quote all the equations in related texts with proper citation (if adopted from
published work)
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. The authors considered
this point in the resubmitted manuscript by adding references to the equations.
Point-7: The validation of the proposed method should be provided with comparative analysis.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. The authors considered
this point in the modified manuscript. We added a section about the optimization technique.
Moreover, we improved the discussion part to show the comparative analysis of the studied
case studies.
Point-8: Results should to be supported with more discussion for different scenarios of source
and load variations.
Reply:The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. In the modified manuscript,
the authors considered improving the discussion of the obtained results to make it more
representative of the manuscript objectives.
Point-9: Author may include some case studies for intermittent renewable sources (like solar
and wind) and their impact on microgrid. The system responses should be analyzed during
these renewable variations to confirm the system stability.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the valuable comments of the reviewers. In this
manuscript, we considered solar energy only as the selected location has a high potential for
PV establishment, but it does not have enough wind speed for establishing wind generators.
We consider it in our future work to utilize wind energy and study the sensitivity to parameters
variation.
Point-10: Redraft the Conclusion with numerical evidences to support your claim. Also
include at least one future scope to it.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. The authors considered
redrafting the conclusion in the modified manuscript.
Point-11: Try to redraft the References section with unified formatting as per the journal
guidelines.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. The authors considered
this point in the modified manuscript to make references unified by using the journal
guidelines in their latex file.
Point-12: Proofread the entire manuscript to rectify some existing typos and grammatical
errors.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. The authors considered
this point in the modified version of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper "Optimal Multi-objective Power scheduling of A Residential Microgrid Considering Renewable Sources And Demand Response Technique" is reviewed . My comments are as follows.
*. The abstract of the paper contains irrelevant information about the actual work done by the authors. I recommend that all the introductory lines be added in the introduction section and include the key findings of the paper in the abstract.
*. I have faced difficulty in knowing the abbreviations of the paper. For example, in the abstract, what is ToU?. Further to this the subscript and superscript should be used liberally. The formulae is CO_2 not CO2.
*. In continuation with the above comment, i suggest adding a nomenclature section to the paper.
*. Please add this latest paper in the literature review. Zakir, M., Arshad, A., Sher, H.A. and Lehtonen, M., 2021, October. An Optimal Power Management System Based on Load Demand and Resources Availability for PV Fed DC-Microgrid with Power-Sharing among Multiple Nanogrids. In 2021 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT Europe) (pp. 01-05). IEEE.
*.In Fig. 1 what are these systems. Please add detail in the caption.
*.All the equations used in the paper use non standard symbols. For example, multiplication is x , not * sign. Moreovoer, the equations within the text are to be inside the ( ).
*.In eq. (1), the Id is called as incident solar radiation. This is confusing because I is reserved for current in electrical engineering. I suggest that letter G be used here so that it comes in consistency with the papers on PV technologies.
*.Section 2.4 is a generic statement which can be stated without even citing reference 55. I suggest that add the grid data here and remove the reference.
*.How is the optimization simulated in the system. I am not convinced with this direct approach. A flowchart of the coding will help the researchers reproduce this work. The information about the executing software is also critical which is missing here.
*.I am not able to understand the impact of proposed scheme. Perhaps it is because there is no benchmarking here. I urge the authors to consider some latest optimization paper for benchmarking. E.g.
Sibtain, D., Murtaza, A.F., Ahmed, N., Sher, H.A. and Gulzar, M.M., 2021. Multi control adaptive fractional order PID control approach for PV/wind connected grid system. International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems, 31(4), p.e12809.
Author Response
Response to Editor and Reviewers
Manuscript Number: sustainability-1940944
Paper Title: Optimal Multi-objective Power scheduling of A Residential Microgrid Considering
Renewable Sources and Demand Response Technique
Response to Editor and Reviewers:
The authors are thankful to the respected Editor and all the Reviewers for their insightful
suggestions and constructive comments in order to improve the quality of our manuscript
suitable for publication in a reputed Sustainability journal. We appreciate the opportunity
to revise the manuscript, and we are grateful for the developmental feedback that the
Editor and the Reviewers have provided throughout the review process. We hope that you
believe that the resulting manuscript is stronger. Thank you for the time you dedicated to
reading and thinking about our manuscript. We look forward to hearing your thoughts
about our revised manuscript.
Authors, Reply to the Reviewers’ Comments
Response to Reviewer #3
Point-1: The abstract of the paper contains irrelevant information about the actual work done
by the authors. I recommend that all the introductory lines be added in the introduction
section and include the key findings of the paper in the abstract.
Reply: The authors are thankful for the comments of the reviewers. According to your
valuable recommendations, we modified the abstract to express the key findings of the work.
Point-2: I have faced difficulty in knowing the abbreviations of the paper. For example, in the
abstract, what is ToU?. Further to this the subscript and superscript should be used liberally.
The formulae is CO_2 not CO2.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. Depending on your
valuable recommendations, the authors considered this point by adding a nomenclature at the
end of the manuscript.
Point-3: In continuation with the above comment, i suggest adding a nomenclature section to
the paper.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. The authors considered
this point by adding a nomenclature that contains the used symbols at the end of the
manuscript.
Point-4: Please add this latest paper in the literature review. Zakir, M., Arshad, A., Sher, H.A.
and Lehtonen, M., 2021, October. An Optimal Power Management System Based on Load
Demand and Resources Availability for PV Fed DC-Microgrid with Power-Sharing among
Multiple Nanogrids. In 2021 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT
Europe) (pp. 01-05). IEEE.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. The authors expanded the
literature review, considering the mentioned references.
Point-5: In Fig. 1 what are these systems. Please add detail in the caption
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. The authors considered
this point in the modified manuscript by changing the caption to be more representative.
Point-6: All the equations used in the paper use non standard symbols. For example,
multiplication is x , not * sign. Moreovoer, the equations within the text are to be inside the ( ).
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. The authors considered
correcting these mistakes in the modified manuscript to represent the manuscript in the best
way.
Point-7: In eq. (1), the Id is called as incident solar radiation. This is confusing because I is
reserved for current in electrical engineering. I suggest that letter G be used here so that it
comes in consistency with the papers on PV technologies.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. The authors considered
this point in the modified manuscript. We used the letter G to represent the solar radiation to
better cope with solar technologies.
Point-8: Section 2.4 is a generic statement which can be stated without even citing reference
55. I suggest that add the grid data here and remove the reference.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. We considered modifying
the manuscript to model and explain the grid equations.
Point-9: How is the optimization simulated in the system. I am not convinced with this direct
approach. A flowchart of the coding will help the researchers reproduce this work. The
information about the executing software is also critical which is missing here.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. We added a section about
the optimization technique with a flow chart to describe its operation.
Point-10: I am not able to understand the impact of proposed scheme. Perhaps it is because
there is no benchmarking here. I urge the authors to consider some latest optimization paper
for benchmarking. E.g. Sibtain, D., Murtaza, A.F., Ahmed, N., Sher, H.A. and Gulzar, M.M.,
2021. Multi control adaptive fractional order PID control approach for PV/wind connected
grid system. International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems, 31(4), p.e12809.
Reply: The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewers. We considered this point
in the modified manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The value of the article has increased.
Reviewer 3 Report
tHANK YOU FOR addressing my comments
