Scenario-Based Optimization towards Sustainable Power Generation in Sudan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have the following minor concerns;

 

Keywords are not alphabetically arranged.

Quality of Fig. 1 is very low. Please update it. The figure 8 is not explained in the text.

 

Some related latest renewable energy-based studies are ignored in the literature review such as https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.05.291, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2023.109420. Similar works can be considered for the better literature survey. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have the following minor concerns;

 Keywords are not alphabetically arranged.

Keywords have been alphabetically arranged. Line 27.

Quality of Fig. 1 is very low. Please update it. The figure 8 is not explained in the text.

The quality of Fig.1 improved. Lines 214-215

The explanation of Fig. 8 was added to the text. Lines 532 and 535.

Some related latest renewable energy-based studies are ignored in the literature review such as https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.05.291, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2023.109420. Similar works can be considered for the better literature survey. 

The literature in the text is enriched and updated by the latest renewable energy-based studies. Lines 55-59 and Lines 76-94.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Specific comments

In this work, Ali et al. reported optimization towards sustainable power generation in Sudan. I can see that considerable work was done by the authors in this paper. However, the editorial check should consent or check the unconventional style. In its present form, the following issues should be addressed.

A few questions should be considered as follows.

Specific comments

1.      What is the primary objective of the paper mentioned in this study? The topic is too broad.

2.      How does Sudan's electricity supply situation relate to its abundant natural resources?

3.      What crucial factors are considered in the sustainability assessment of power generation in Sudan?

4.      Why is the LCOE higher in the GHG-stringent scenario compared to the cost-effective scenario?

5.      How do the two governmental and least-cost plans differ in this study, and what are their implications for Sudan's power generation?

6.      Which clean energy pathways are identified as the most sensitive to LCOE, and how can they contribute to Sudan's power generation?

7.      What is the proposed rational scenario for power generation in Sudan, and what is the expected generation mix in this scenario?

8.      How does the rational scenario aim to improve sustainability performance in Sudan's power generation?

9.      What are the key takeaways or recommendations from the study for addressing Sudan's electricity supply shortage while ensuring sustainability?

 

Minor comments

 

Authors should pay major attention to the grammar and phrasing of every sentence; polishing is far from enough. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Specific comments

In this work, Ali et al. reported optimization towards sustainable power generation in Sudan. I can see that considerable work was done by the authors in this paper. However, the editorial check should consent or check the unconventional style. In its present form, the following issues should be addressed.

A few questions should be considered as follows.

Specific comments

1. What is the primary objective of the paper mentioned in this study? The topic is too broad.

The primary objective is explained in the text. Lines 120-122.

2. How does Sudan's electricity supply situation relate to its abundant natural resources?

Most of the introduction section focused on this topic. An explanation of the relation is added in the text. Lines 73-75.

3. What crucial factors are considered in the sustainability assessment of power generation in Sudan?

Crucial factors are explained in the methods section. Lines 152 -155.

4. Why is the LCOE higher in the GHG-stringent scenario compared to the cost-effective scenario?

The reason is already explained in Lines 455-458.

5. How do the two governmental and least-cost plans differ in this study, and what are their implications for Sudan's power generation?

The differences and implications are detailed in the text. Line 260-265.

6. Which clean energy pathways are identified as the most sensitive to LCOE, and how can they contribute to Sudan's power generation?

Solar, wind, and hydroelectricity pathways are identified as the most sensitive to LCOE. Lines 533-536.

The contribution of these pathways was detailed and presented in the rational scenario section. Lines 561-656.

 

7. What is the proposed rational scenario for power generation in Sudan, and what is the expected generation mix in this scenario?

The rational scenario is developed in this study based on the current operating pathways for power generation in Sudan. The scenario is refined to avoid the unreliability of the conducted scenarios and cases. The generation mix is detailed in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10. Lines 656-659.

8. How does the rational scenario aim to improve sustainability performance in Sudan's power generation?

The sustainability is improved by a more realistic generation mix that suits the availability of natural resources in the country. The details of the rational scenario impacts are compared to the other conducted scenarios and cases in Fig. 5 for the LCOE, Fig. 6, and Fig. 7 for the cost of generation, GHG emissions, and natural resources used.

 

9. What are the key takeaways or recommendations from the study for addressing Sudan's electricity supply shortage while ensuring sustainability?

        The following statement is added to the text: “To ensure the sustainability of power generation in Sudan, it is recommended to utilize the available natural resources by incorporating clean energy pathways such as solar, wind, and hydroelectricity”.  Lines 689-693.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor comments

 Authors should pay major attention to the grammar and phrasing of every sentence; polishing is far from enough. 

The complete article has been proofread and corrected to improve the language. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper aims to manage the natural resources for sustainable power generation to meet the electricity demand in Sudan. The sustainability assessment is conducted by integrating quantitative power generation impacts on water, land, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, besides the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). The topic is quite interesting. However, there are several significant problems in the paper.

1. The authors are recommended to add more mathematical models in this paper for the readers to better understand the research object.

2. Please avoid continuous citations in the introduction section. The authors should clarify the research focuses of each reference clearly.

3. The figures in this paper are mostly bitmaps. The authors are recommended to replace the original bitmaps with vector graphs for readers to read these figures easily. The direct use of the downloaded pictures should be avoided.

4. The introduction section is not comprehensive enough. The authors are recommended to expand the introduction in the order of “background-research gaps-contributions”.

5. What are the differences between the research model in this paper and the models in the following works?

Li L, Feng S, Bai Y, et al. Enhancing hydrovoltaic power generation through heat conduction effects[J]. Nature Communications, 2022, 13(1): 1043.

Xia Y, Xu Q, Fang J, et al. Emission reduction estimation by coupling peer-to-peer energy sharing with carbon emission markets considering temporal and spatial factors[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2023, 421: 138452.

Xia Y, Xu Q, Li S, et al. Reviewing the peer-to-peer transactive energy market: Trading environment, optimization methodology, and relevant resources[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022: 135441.

6. The authors are suggested to revise their conclusions. The method limitations, possible application scenarios, and future research directions also need to be clarified clearly.

7. Although the research focus is clear, the whole paper looks like a technical report instead of an academic paper. The authors need to develop some novel models instead of just using the existing data.

 

English in the current version should be improved.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper aims to manage the natural resources for sustainable power generation to meet the electricity demand in Sudan. The sustainability assessment is conducted by integrating quantitative power generation impacts on water, land, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, besides the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). The topic is quite interesting. However, there are several significant problems in the paper.

1. The authors are recommended to add more mathematical models in this paper for the readers to better understand the research object.

Six equations of the mathematical optimization model are added to the text. Lines 171-186. 

2. Please avoid continuous citations in the introduction section. The authors should clarify the research focuses of each reference clearly.

The introduction section is revised, and clarifications of references are added to the text.

3. The figures in this paper are mostly bitmaps. The authors are recommended to replace the original bitmaps with vector graphs for readers to read these figures easily. The direct use of the downloaded pictures should be avoided.

Figures are changed in the text to the vector graphs.

4. The introduction section is not comprehensive enough. The authors are recommended to expand the introduction in the order of “background-research gaps-contributions”.

The introduction section is expanded by adding new paragraphs related to the literature review. Lines 55-59, Lines 73-94, Lines 102-103, Lines 118-122.

5. What are the differences between the research model in this paper and the models in the following works?

Li L, Feng S, Bai Y, et al. Enhancing hydrovoltaic power generation through heat conduction effects[J]. Nature Communications, 2022, 13(1): 1043.

Xia Y, Xu Q, Fang J, et al. Emission reduction estimation by coupling peer-to-peer energy sharing with carbon emission markets considering temporal and spatial factors[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2023, 421: 138452.

Xia Y, Xu Q, Li S, et al. Reviewing the peer-to-peer transactive energy market: Trading environment, optimization methodology, and relevant resources[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022: 135441.

The authors checked the proposed papers and found their topics and models are unrelated to the current work.    

6. The authors are suggested to revise their conclusions. The method limitations, possible application scenarios, and future research directions also need to be clarified clearly.

The conclusion section is revised by adding limitations, application of the rational scenario, and future research work. Lines 689-693.

7. Although the research focus is clear, the whole paper looks like a technical report instead of an academic paper. The authors need to develop some novel models instead of just using the existing data.

 The authors used the existing data to develop a rational scenario with the novelty of a new proposed scenario for sustainable power generation in Sudan. Lines 561-656.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English in the current version should be improved.

The complete article has been proofread and corrected to improve the language. 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript " Optimization Towards Sustainable Power Generation in Sudan " studied the sustainability assessment is conducted by integrating quantitative power generation impacts on water, land, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, besides the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). Cost-effective, resources and GHG emissions-effective, and GHG stringent scenarios are executed in this study to investigate the effect of different constraints on the sustainability of power generation in Sudan”. However, the manuscript has many unclearly unit and writing. The writing in this manuscript should be logically scrupulously. For these reasons I suggest that this manuscript could be Major correction revision.  The following are the comments.

 

1.      Title needs to re-phrase; it is not related to main goal. it should write in top-level English language.

2.      Introduction: it needs to be improved

3.      Why do the authors neglect the literature of review section ?

4.      The contribution section is not clear.

5.      Optimization structure is not clear (should have objective function and constraints)

6.      Method, it is not covering the research gap.

7.      Some figures are not clear. Put Figs. in the best format.

8.      The whole manuscripts need to re-phrase. Some abbreviations need to explain like GPLP, LGPLO, and ….

9.      The general thought is towards in Sudan, it must be general.

10.  MATLAB Simulink is not satisfied; may you check methodology and then get the results are not virtually.

11.  The result is not enough to proof validation, no benchmark and less analytical data.

12.  Conclusion nee to be less and less. I hope you can suggest a future work to readers interest in your work.

13.  Systematic view must add to general manuscript.

14.  there is a missed of some ref.s that has to add .

15.  I hope you can check the article in Proofreading again.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Non

Author Response

The manuscript " Optimization Towards Sustainable Power Generation in Sudan " studied the sustainability assessment is conducted by integrating quantitative power generation impacts on water, land, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, besides the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). Cost-effective, resources and GHG emissions-effective, and GHG stringent scenarios are executed in this study to investigate the effect of different constraints on the sustainability of power generation in Sudan”. However, the manuscript has many unclearly unit and writing. The writing in this manuscript should be logically scrupulously. For these reasons I suggest that this manuscript could be Major correction revision.  The following are the comments.

 

1. Title needs to re-phrase; it is not related to main goal. it should write in top-level English language.

The title is modified to “Scenario-based Optimization Towards Sustainable Power Generation in Sudan”. Lines 1-2.

 

2. Introduction: it needs to be improved

The introduction section is revised, and clarifications of references are added to the text. Lines 29-144.

 

3. Why do the authors neglect the literature of review section?

The introduction section is expanded by adding new paragraphs of literature review. Lines 76 -94.

4. The contribution section is not clear.

The contribution is more clarified. Lines 115-122.

5. Optimization structure is not clear (should have objective function and constraints)

Equations of the model are added to the text to explain the objective function and constraints. Lines 171-186.

6. Method, it is not covering the research gap.

The research gap is explained in the introduction section. Line 104-122.

7. Some figures are not clear. Put Figs. in the best format.

Figures are modified to a better format.

8. The whole manuscripts need to re-phrase. Some abbreviations need to explain like GPLP, LGPLO, and ….

Abbreviations are checked and explained in the text. Lines 201-203.

9. The general thought is towards in Sudan, it must be general.

The paper is based on Sudan’s situation of natural resource availability, existing power generation, and constraints and indicators. A general study can be repeated with different inputs and done separately in a different paper.  

10. MATLAB Simulink is not satisfied; may you check methodology and then get the results are not virtually.

We didn’t use MATLAB Simulink in this study. We used a linear programming model through Excel LP.

11. The result is not enough to proof validation, no benchmark and less analytical data.

The results are mathematically obtained in all scenarios and then refined logically by developing a Rational Scenario.  

12. Conclusion nee to be less and less. I hope you can suggest a future work to readers interest in your work.

The Conclusion section is improved, and the suggested future work is added and clarified. Lines 689-693.

13. Systematic view must add to general manuscript.

The manuscript is revised to highlight the systematic view.

14. there is a missed of some ref.s that has to add .

Thirteen References are added to the text. Lines 706-791.

15. I hope you can check the article in Proofreading again.

The complete article has been proofread and corrected to improve the language. 
Comments on the Quality of English Language

Non

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have fully addressed my issue. The reviewer does not have more questions.

English in the current version is acceptable.

Reviewer 4 Report

congratulations