Long-Term Field Observation of the Power Generation and System Temperature of a Roof-Integrated Photovoltaic System in South Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article titled "A Long-Term Observation on the Effect of Temperature on a Roof-Integrated Photovoltaic System in South Korea" has been submitted for publication in the journal Sustainability. The article is innovative and has explored an interesting topic. However, the writing of the article is not acceptable. Many important parts are missing from the article. In the following, I have expressed my opinions about the article.
1- The introduction has briefly reviewed the previous articles, but has not addressed the existing gaps in this field well.
2- State the purpose of the article clearly at the end of the introduction.
3- Figure 1 is not of good quality, draw it twice.
4- The most important part of the article that should be reviewed is the explanation about the laboratory method and the tools used in it. You must explain about the error of devices and measurements, the method of recording data, etc. For example, you can refer to the article Experimental study of the effect of simultaneous application of the air-and water-cooled flow on efficiency in a Photovoltaic thermal solar collector with porous plates.
5- You should fully explain the uncertainty in the article. For example, you can refer to the article Entropy generation and exergy analysis of Ag–MgO/water hybrid nanofluid within a circular heatsink with different number of outputs.
6- The article should be checked in terms of writing in order to eliminate possible defects in the writing of the article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thanks.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1.Keywords should be appropriately selected
like "roof top Photovoltaic", the word "roof-integrated" can be avoided, try to avoid short term keywords, like BIPV, write in full form and " module temp.effect". its not look keyword for search
overall, try to write related technical terms of words (not simple words) and full abbreviated words in keywords
2. Section -material and Methods not up to the level
3.Figure 1 is not showing any technically related to research
4.From July 2022 to December, no data shown for PV power generation and solar details
5.There is no innovative in this proposed study. Rising panel temperature affecting PV performance is already known concept. Also, 2.5 years data, author shown that for analysis, but only considered monthly data which is not enough to predict and justify the exact finding
English language should be improved
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thanks.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript « A Long-Term Observation on the Effect of Temperature on a 2 Roof-Integrated Photovoltaic System in South Korea” by Azhar et al. relates a 2.5-years long monitoring of power conversion efficiency, as a function of temperature, for a model roof-integrated photovoltaic system. The study showed that the power conversion efficiency of the system was affected by the temperature - 3 measures were performed, Internal Temperature, Module Rear T and Roof Rear T. At the highest temperatures, half of the power which was supposed to be generated (during the months with best irradiances) was lost due to the temperature increase. The study concludes that temperature control is important for preventing power loss and that finding solutions for this problem is crucial.
The work is interesting for the research community working on photovoltaics and may have some impact later on. It deserves to be published after minor corrections (text improvements and some calculations but no additional experiments). However, the manuscript has some flaws that need to be addressed before publication. Hereafter are listed suggestions for improvements.
1) The manuscript is generally clearly written except on some aspects that need improvements. Please correct.
The introduction deals with several important factors influencing the conversion efficiency of the system, including T. This is relevant and OK. However, the discussion on the temperature effect lacks structure and clarity. Some “random” examples are given with metrics, but this does not give a clear idea of the state-of-the-art on this topic, which is necessary for the reader’s understanding. Significant references are missing.
For example, 3 (one is a review) on the temperature effect are suggested here:
Sustainability 2021, 13(23), 12952; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132312952
M. Jun Huang / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 95 (2011) 957–963
S. Kaplanis, E. Kaplani, J.K. Kaldellis,Renewable Energy 181 (2022) 235.
It is important to present in the introduction: (1) what is the background on T effect study and the main findings of others; (2) what is the original knowledge brought by the authors in the present work/what is the main finding, that adds to the state of the art.
2) When discussing experimental measurements and in tables/graphs of results, the experimental uncertainties are missing. Please correct whenever possible.
3) Here, the temperature that affects the PV performance is the Internal Temperature of the module. The others are taken as references, for example to demonstrate that the PV device does not increase the T under the roof (for the comfort in the building) – which is a good thing. Please make the clear distinction in the text: in conclusion, the T that needs to be regulated is the Internal Temperature of the module. This will put specific constraints on the mitigation strategies. Any (preliminary) work to mention for perspectives on this matter?
4) The discussion on the correlation of the parameters, power generation, solar irradiance, temperature, efficiency monitored in time is interesting and important here. However, some aspects are lacking. From one year to another, the efficiency should be compared to demonstrate that the PV system is stable (at least on this timescale) and that the natural cycles in T do not affect the performances.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thanks.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
1. The presented article authors focused on study on temperature for rooftop PV system, what is the need of this, and why to perform long observation on it, the methodology of the article is not clear.
2. The necessity of the proposed method need to be explained in detail.
3. The presented results are not sufficient to prove the concept.
4. How possibilities having to implement this in a real time
5. How it will be useful in enhancing of power generation from PV system
6. The current paper ABSTRACT does not accurately reflect the content of the paper.
7. Better stress the connection between methods, linked to fundamentals, and the applied end side.
8. The objective, methodology, and results should be better described, discussed and justified.
9. In addition to detailed discussions and analyses of the results, the whole paper shall be written as an integrated article with the new results responding to the research questions (objectives).
10. The originality of the paper needs to be further clarified. Sufficient results are important to justify the novelty of a high-quality journal paper.
11. The authors do not explain the novelty of the present study compared to other studies. There is a need to identify the scientific gap that you come to cover and to state clearly how you cover it. Also, apart from this fact, you have to highlight why your work is important to the field.
12. Regarding the literature review: needs to be expanded and revised according to what has been recently published in reputable scientific journals. Therefore, an updated and complete literature review (state-of-the-art) should be conducted to present the most recent knowledge gaps in the research, with a strong relevance to the topic of the paper. The literature search needs to be reformulated, and literature that includes sufficient background in the field should be presented and then discussed/justified what novelty has been added to the literature, what previous studies have suggested and where the current study stands. State the importance of the research and its literature background!).
13. The article's originality needs to be stated clearly.
14. There is a need for adding more discussion comments about the results.
There is a need to compare your results with the others in order to provide a proper discussion part. This part can show the scientific value of your work in a proper manner.
15. Regarding applied values, the results should be further elaborated to show how they could be used for real applications.
1. The presented article authors focused on study on temperature for rooftop PV system, what is the need of this, and why to perform long observation on it, the methodology of the article is not clear.
2. The necessity of the proposed method need to be explained in detail.
3. The presented results are not sufficient to prove the concept.
4. How possibilities having to implement this in a real time
5. How it will be useful in enhancing of power generation from PV system
6. The current paper ABSTRACT does not accurately reflect the content of the paper.
7. Better stress the connection between methods, linked to fundamentals, and the applied end side.
8. The objective, methodology, and results should be better described, discussed and justified.
9. In addition to detailed discussions and analyses of the results, the whole paper shall be written as an integrated article with the new results responding to the research questions (objectives).
10. The originality of the paper needs to be further clarified. Sufficient results are important to justify the novelty of a high-quality journal paper.
11. The authors do not explain the novelty of the present study compared to other studies. There is a need to identify the scientific gap that you come to cover and to state clearly how you cover it. Also, apart from this fact, you have to highlight why your work is important to the field.
12. Regarding the literature review: needs to be expanded and revised according to what has been recently published in reputable scientific journals. Therefore, an updated and complete literature review (state-of-the-art) should be conducted to present the most recent knowledge gaps in the research, with a strong relevance to the topic of the paper. The literature search needs to be reformulated, and literature that includes sufficient background in the field should be presented and then discussed/justified what novelty has been added to the literature, what previous studies have suggested and where the current study stands. State the importance of the research and its literature background!).
13. The article's originality needs to be stated clearly.
14. There is a need for adding more discussion comments about the results.
There is a need to compare your results with the others in order to provide a proper discussion part. This part can show the scientific value of your work in a proper manner.
15. Regarding applied values, the results should be further elaborated to show how they could be used for real applications.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thanks.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article can be published.
Author Response
Authors appreciate reviewer's positive feedback. Thanks.
Reviewer 2 Report
Please note down following review comments:
1. In Introduction section at end, it is required to add contributions of this study, as with some bullet points
2. Table 1, need to add more details of solar PV array, including configuration of solar PV arrays,
3. Two expressions, (line no.211 and 215) page 6, assign equation numbers for that
4. Figures 3, 4, and 6, assign each individual figure with names and description
5. Authors, needs to consider some real time minutes level data of solar PV (some additional areas, if applicable) for analysing and justifying the study of work
Needs to check thoroughly and do the corrections accoedingly for grammatical and spell errors
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Authors have answered for all queries raised by the reviewer. Now article can accept for its publication.
Authors have answered for all queries raised by the reviewer. Now article can accept for its publcation.
Author Response
Authors appreciate reviewer's positive feedback. Thanks.
