Photovoltaic Power Prediction Using Analytical Models and Homer-Pro: Investigation of Results Reliability
, Hassan Mohamed 4 and El Manaa Barhoumi 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Normal
Author Response
Dear Editor,
The authors would like to thank the Editor, the Assistant Editor and the reviewers for their critical analysis of the submitted paper, thereby improving the quality of the paper. The suggestions and comments made have been taken into consideration and they are incorporated in the revised manuscript. The response to the comments made are summarized below following the same sequence. The corrections in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in color to simply checking. Moreover, according to your comments, the literature survey has been improved, and more related published results are discussed in the introduction.
Thank you again and hoping that our manuscript will be accepted and be published in your esteemed journal.
Response to the reviewer 1:
The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the time spent in reviewing this manuscript. The response to the comments made are summarized below following the same sequence. The corrections in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in color to simply checking.
|
Comment 1 |
The paper “Photovoltaic power prediction using analytical models and Homer-Pro: Investigation on results reliability” present an interesting topic. The results of the paper are an interesting fact. However, the novelty of the research paper can be improved still more with comparison of recent software’s. |
|
Response 1 |
We would like to thank the respected reviewer for his positive feedback. The novelty of the paper is improved and highlighted in the updated manuscript. The results are also compared to the results given by the online PV calculator (Photovoltaic Geographical Information System), developed by the European commission |
|
Comment 2 |
The authors are expected to clearly identify and demonstrate the novel contributions of their paper, which would justify publication in an archival journal. |
|
Response 2 |
According to respected reviewer comments, the contribution of the paper has been highlighted and added to the updated manuscript. |
|
Comment 3 |
Intelligent controllers are more predominant in all the aspects as compared with traditional controllers. Why Homer-Pro is considered give proper justification. |
|
Response 3 |
According to respected reviewer comments, the use of Homer Pro justified and explained in the updated manuscript. Homer Pro is a sophisticated software application for modelling and analyzing power systems. It is intended for modelling and analyzing complicated power systems such as micro grids. It has a graphical user interface that makes it simple to design and run power system models, and it includes a comprehensive variety of analysis and optimization capabilities. One of Homer Pro's primary features is its ability to simulate both AC and DC power systems, making it especially helpful for analyzing hybrid systems that incorporate both sources of power. |
|
Comment 4 |
Formulate the objective functions and give all the equality and inequality constraints. |
|
Response 4 |
According to respected reviewer comments, the objective function and constraints (for optimization Homer Pro model) are added to the paper. |
|
Comment 5 |
Discuss the details of the dataset / real data considered for prediction. |
|
Response 5 |
According to respected reviewer comments, details about the dataset / real data considered for prediction have been discussed in the updated manuscript. |
|
Comment 6 |
Give a detailed algorithm or sequence diagram representing all parameter’s initial conditions. |
|
Response 6 |
According to respected reviewer comments, a detailed algorithm showing the approach used for the investigation of data reliability has been added to the updated manuscript. |
|
Comment 7 |
Show the convergence characteristics and the convergence criterion. |
|
Response 7 |
According to respected reviewer comments, the convergence characteristics and the convergence criterion are shown in the updated manuscript. |
|
Comment 8 |
Show the dynamic response characteristics with all domain specifications and detailed explanation needed with numerical values. |
|
Response 8 |
We would like to thank the reviewer for raising this point. However, the aim of the paper is to compare the final results (total generated power) and not the dynamic responses of the different models. Moreover, dynamic responses are not available in the real power station (Dhofar Company) and Homer simulation model. However, this point will be discussed and analyzed in our future works. |
|
Comment 9 |
Comment on the power quality analysis |
|
Response 9 |
We would like to thank the respected reviewer for raising this point. However, the analysis of the power quality is not available for Homer Model. For the Simulink model, we are currently working on the analysis of the power quality by analyzing the voltage Stability, the Harmonic Distortion, and Frequency Deviations effects. This work consists of the aim paper that will be submitted soon. |
|
Comment 10 |
Can the research work be extended with the intensity of the algorithm using Artificial Intelligence? |
|
Response 10 |
We would like to thank the respected reviewer for raising this point. Our research team is working on the development of AI models for the simulation of PV systems. This work consists of our future papers. |
|
Comment 11 |
Strengthen the conclusion by including the percentage analysis of all the results in-terms of numerical outcomes. |
|
Response 11 |
According to respected reviewer comments, the conclusion is updated and the percentage analysis of all the results in-terms of numerical outcomes are included.
|
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1- Put references in IEEE format
2- The introduction is very lng and not 100% relavent to the objective of the paper.
3- The Simulink model has been used in previous researches.
4- Fig. 1 is not referenced, it has been copied from previous researches
5- Fig. 3 is a general picture and I recommend delete it.
6- Fig. 4 needes more discussion
7- Fig. 6 shows output power and the caption is Energy sold. This needs a clarification is it power or energy.
8- Line 268 cotains of of, must be corrected.
9- Although the paper should include an experimental work, the authors did not show how they ran the experiment or setting up the experiment.
10- It is recommended repeat the work taking the comments into consideration.
English language is fine
Author Response
Dear Editor,
The authors would like to thank the Editor, the Assistant Editor and the reviewers for their critical analysis of the submitted paper, thereby improving the quality of the paper. The suggestions and comments made have been taken into consideration and they are incorporated in the revised manuscript. The response to the comments made are summarized below following the same sequence. The corrections in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in color to simply checking. Moreover, according to your comments, the literature survey has been improved, and more related published results are discussed in the introduction.
Thank you again and hoping that our manuscript will be accepted and be published in your esteemed journal.
Response to the reviewer 2:
The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the time spent reviewing this manuscript. Responses to the comments made are summarized below following the same sequence. The corrections in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in color to simply check.
|
Comment 1 |
Put references in IEEE format |
|
Response 1 |
According to respected reviewer comments, all the references have been put in IEEE format |
|
Comment 2 |
The introduction is very long and not 100% relevant to the objective of the paper |
|
Response 2 |
According to respected reviewer comments, the introduction has been reviewed and updated. Some paragraphs are reformulated, and others have been removed from the paper:
As solar panel efficiency was improved and storage technology becomes more affordable, PV is likely to become an even more important part of the global energy mix, enabling countries to achieve their climate goals while providing reliable and affordable electricity to their citizens.
Usually, rural, and remote areas don’t have access to electricity. Indeed, the cost of connecting small communities to the power grid is still considered expensive. Therefore, stand-alone hybrid PV systems are playing an interesting role in providing the required electricity to these areas. For stand-alone PV systems, the prediction of electricity generated by PV systems permits optimization of the size of different components such as batteries and inverters.
To increase the availability of electric energy, PV systems are combined with other renewable energy generators, e.g. wind turbines or diesel generators to form the called Hybrid PV systems. Hybrid PV systems permit to make the electricity supply and feeding more stable and reliable. [6]. For the Medium Scale and large-scale grid-connected PV systems,
In addition, Solargis offers a variety of additional data and services related to solar energy resources, including performance analysis and project development support, which can assist solar energy specialists in optimizing the layout and functionality of solar installations. Although Homer and Solargis software are considered powerful tools for predicting PV power output and supporting the development of solar and energy projects, these software programs are usually unavailable for students and research activities. In this context, this paper presents the development and comparison of an analytical model with software and actual data.
|
|
Comment 3 |
The Simulink model has been used in previous research. |
|
Response 3 |
Our proposed Simulink model looks like some models used in some previous research papers. Then, according to respected reviewer comment, the figure 1 has been updated to solve this issue.(It is replaced by a flowchart) |
|
Comment 4 |
Fig. 1 is not referenced, it has been copied from previous researches |
|
Response 4 |
According to respected reviewer comments, the figure is updated. |
|
Comment 5 |
Fig. 3 is a general picture and I recommend delete it. |
|
Response 5 |
Fig 3 is general but we took this Figure from the PV power station in Dhofar Oman as evidence that we have experimental results used for the validation of our models. |
|
Comment 6 |
Fig. 4 needs more discussion |
|
Response 6 |
According to reviewer comments, more discussion is added to Fig.4. |
|
Comment 7 |
Fig. 6 shows output power and the caption is Energy sold. This needs clarification is it power or energy? |
|
Response 7 |
Yes, thank you for the comments, it is power, the unit Kw and now it is corrected in the updated manuscript. |
|
Comment 8 |
Line 268 contains of, must be corrected. |
|
Response 8 |
Corrected according to respected reviewer comments |
|
Comment 9 |
Although the paper should include experimental work, the authors did not show how they ran the experiment or set up the experiment. |
|
Response 9 |
According to respected reviewer comments, a description of collecting experimental results is added to the updated manuscript. |
|
Comment 10 |
It is recommended to repeat the work taking the comments into consideration. |
|
Response 10 |
According to respected reviewer comments, the manuscript has been updated and all comments have been included. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All the queries are answered and the article may be accepted
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have completed all reviewr's comments
