Research on Two-Stage Regulation Method for Source–Load Flexibility Transformation in Power Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present a two level optimization method aiming to enchance power system flexibility. The idea behind the paper is interesting, however the paper organization must be improved before publishing in a major journal such as Sustainability. The following points could be considered by the authors before resubmission:

- The paper relies on extensive use of acronyms that could be all listed in the end as per MDPI template to enable a faster tracking of all acronyms.

- The organization of the paper is not clear. Section 3 appears twice, a few itens from the template are seen in the final version. Moreover, a few of the variables mentioned in the text body are not properly formatted.

- Both scenarios are analyzed in a single section. The results are mixed and discussed altogether. This should be improved. Both cases should be presented and considered separetly so that the authors can better ellaborate on them.

- The comparison with other single layer methods is not clear. Authors should better comment on this.

- Figures are in general not well discussed. Authors should reflect on the importance of the figures they have chosen and better ellaborate on their content to support the results.

- Following sentence appears to be missing a couple of words :" Optimizing wind power incorporation can be as the optimization objective of upper level model to determine the total power of thermal power, wind power and EIL in day -ahead."

- Authors should double check if all variables are correctly defined in the text body.

- Is the grid topoloy relevant for the optimization problem? Authors should comment on this. The test system is presented only through the characteristics of the generators. Howerver, power losses are an important feature on any power system optimization problem and that should be dependent on the grid topology.

- Why  were the wind profiles of scenarios 1 and 2 chosen? What do they represent in an actual power system with high wind power penetration?

There are a few typos and missing words.

Also, there are template like itens that can be seen, especially the topic previous to the bullet list

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1.Load dispatch is a current research hotspot with numerous research achievements and literature. The abstract, introduction, and conclusion of this article do not disclose any specific differences between it and other literature.

2. The first letter of the keyword must be capitalized. There are too much background text in the introduction, please keep it simple. The literature review in the introduction is valuable and shows that the topic has been studied from different angles. However, the shortcomings or limitations in the existing literature are summarized.

3. While the introduction Outlines the general approach to the proposed method, a more concise summary of the key steps would have been more helpful. This will help the reader to better grasp the structure of the paper and understand the content of subsequent chapters. No indent at the beginning of line 4.151.

4. The coordinated operation of energy storage and wind farms can reduce the volatility of wind, but the high price of energy storage makes it impossible to configure in large quantities. How do you consider this problem?

5.The example analysis in the article is relatively simple and fails to demonstrate academic value well.

6.he narrative content of the article is too tedious, and the content should be simplified.

7. Please check the consistency of the reference format (e.g., capital letter format in article title, italic format in journal title, etc.).

8. Please ensure that references are up to date and that the sources used are no earlier than the last five years.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The following are my suggestions for the manuscript. Kindly consider.

• Abstract: The use of the term "anti-peak regulation" does not seem correct. Kindly reconsider.
• The Abstract should have one sentence per each:  context and background, motivation, hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions.

• The research gap and the novelty of the work have not been elaborated clearly. The same is a

• The Abstract and the Conclusion sections are advised to be revised by incorporating the research findings (quantitative as much as possible) and their impact.
• What do the Authors mean by "flexibility characteristics"? Kindly elaborate.
• The use of the term "power system resources" does not seem appropriate. Please reconsider.
  
• "improve the control ability over wind power variations". Kindly elaborate in detail.
• Is the " two-level coordinated optimization model" newly developed by the Authors or taken from a literature source? Please mention how this model can be used for other applications as well.
• Can this optimization model be used for hybrid renewable energy systems? (e.g. hybrid wind-solar with battery storage) 
• The figures and Tables used for the manuscript are appropriate.
• The citations are also observed to be suitable and sufficient.
• Please mention the direct and direct impact of this research on the current literature and on the industries as well.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the authors in their effort to reply to all of the suggestions.

The organization of the manuscript has improved significantly. Furthermore, the discussion of the results improved, supporting the conclusions of the study.

Authors are encouraged to include the grid topology in future studies and to provide in the final version of this manuscript the topology of the test system that they used in this research. Although in their answer authors mentioned that this method was tested for a single grid (which is fine) the test system topology should be described in the final version to ensure that results can be fully reproduced by other research groups on the topic.

The paper has improved the English level. A final check for typos is encouraged.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.I think Part 2 can be deleted as it is a general introduction and does not have a significant impact on the core methods. It is recommended that the author refine it appropriately.

2.The data provided in the second paragraph of the conclusion is based on specific examples and does not have general regularity. Suggest providing conclusions with promotional value.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is revised as per the suggestion of the reviewer and recommended for "accept" decision. 

The manuscript required minor proof-reading in order to convey the intended and correct understanding to the Readers. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf