Micro Pumped Hydro Energy Storage: Sketching a Sustainable Hybrid Solution for Colombian Off-Grid Communities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Generally, the presented work in the manuscript is a general information and highly relies on the literature (sections 3,4 and 5 are available in the literature) and there is no clear contribution of the manuscript. The manuscript needs deep analysis and more focus on system design and sizing  in the Colombian context (micro-PHS system and PV) . However, this reviewer has the following comments for the sake of the manuscript  improvement:  

·         The writing needs to be improved. There are some typos, Word “said” should be “set”, in technical writing it is recommended to use passive tense instead of using active tense “we”.

·         The abstract needs a rewriting to be more oriented and focused.

·         In section 5 titled “5. Off-grid infrastructure for communities in the Colombian context”, it should reflect the Colombian context, but what is provided is a general technical comparison which available in literature.

·         It is required to add more information about the feasibility of micro pumped hydro energy storage in the selected studied area/system.

·         Further, more financial aspects for overall system and system sizing guidelines for Colombian off-grid communities need to addressed.

·         The section: “6. General Conclusion”:

o   Should not be a general Conclusion, it needs to conclude the assigned objective of the study.

o   the “The PAGLIA ORBA platform” it is not mentioned in the previously in paper content, and appeared in the first time in Conclusion.

·         Reference style needs to be according to Journal format.

 

 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have presented "Micro Pumped Hydro Energy Storage: Sketching a Sustainable 2 Hybrid Solution for Off-grid Communities"

Comments and Suggestions for Authors.

1.  Quantitative analysis must be carried.

2. Qualitative results must be supported with quantitative results. 

3. Authors can update "Global Energy Review 2020" with latest reports.

4. Current article conceptual vs research literature (no clarity). 

5. Quality of the figures must be improved. 

Author Response

Please see attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The research subject is quite interesting, nevertheless there are some issues that need to be improved, namely:

-The number of bibliographic references is very low. The paper needs to be enriched with more references from recent years, particularly references of previous studies on this research subject and it is important to compare the achieved results of this paper with other recent studies worldwide.

- In the introduction (and other parts of the paper) , the authors  write;

“ CAPEX (Capital expenditures) … OPEX (Operational Expenditures…. LCOS (Levelized Cost Of Storage) ,,,,but it would be better if it was written as “Capital expenditures (CAPEX)….. Levelized Cost Of Storage (LCOS)….etc

-In line 49, you write PV , but I do not see the full  word written before….

- The authors should ad a section for literature review and a section for discussion

-The conclusion should be more completed with the limitations and expected future research

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the authors for addressing the comments. 

Reviewer 2 Report

No Comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for all the improovements.