Electric Vehicle Charging Station Power Supply Optimization with V2X Capabilities Based on Mixed-Integer Linear Programming
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments
· List of abbreviations must be inserted in the first sections of the paper.
· Justify the novelty of the work.
· The introduction section can be substantially improved with a better explanation and motivation of why the problem is being solved is relevant for broader readers. Significantly, the broader readers will be interested in knowing why they should care about the proposed work.
· In the literature survey section, you should include a survey about why you chose the technique in your research work.
· A contribution section should be included.
· The abstract of the paper should be written highlighting the novelty of the proposed work, method incorporated and the significant findings that give importance to your proposed work.
· The authors should include the justification that how their research contribution is novel and significantly efficient considering practical implementation.
· The authors should include a flow chart of the complete work highlighting the complete process involved in the work.
· The conclusion should be improved and have concluding remarks regarding the findings of the work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageGrammatical corrections and proofread required for the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper addresses the growing need for efficient power supply optimization in Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS) with Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) capabilities. It emphasizes the significance of strategic investments in charging infrastructure to promote electric vehicle adoption while mitigating grid congestion and reducing overall costs. The study proposes and compares four power supply models for EVCS, incorporating smart charging and V2X approaches, with a focus on minimizing both capital and operational costs. Realistic data from EV users is utilized for model testing, considering various energy sources and their integration to achieve cost-efficiency.
My Comments:
1) Provide a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) approach used for the models, enabling a better understanding of the optimization process.
2) Enhance the discussion on the comparison of the four model variants, elaborating on the specific advantages and disadvantages of each model in a more analytical and comparative manner.
3) Clearly mention the sources of the realistic data from EV users and how this data was validated to ensure its accuracy and relevance to the study.
4) Discuss the potential integration of Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) operations and how the proposed model could account for providing ancillary services, generating extra income, and improving overall grid stability.
5) Discuss the potential impact and feasibility of incorporating a V2V model to support departing vehicles, considering the scenario of sudden departures.
6) Strengthen the conclusion by suggesting potential areas for future research in a more cohesive and forward-looking manner.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is aptly written and such studies are need of the hour. The work is novel and can be accepted for publication after addressing the below mentioned issues.
1) The authors have mentioned "The authors of [25] improve the idea by adding a solar PV system and BESS to the..." This style of writing has been used throughout the manuscript which is not scientific writing. The authors may rewrite the sentence as "Dupka and Butrylo [25]" improved the idea....". The authors must make the changes in all the places in the manuscript.
2) In section 1.1., the authors have simply stated the conclusion of the literature referenced. This is not the correct method. The authors must critically review the literature.
3) The authors have not clearly addressed one use case in V2V or V2B or V2G case. Although it is mentioned. The use case is: suppose one of the EV owners wants to hurriedly leave the parking. If the energy stored in the vehicle is used to power the building, in that case the SoC of the battery pack in the vehicle will be less and if the owner of the vehicle leaves in hurry with less SoC then he/she may not be able to reach his destination. How will the system handle that?
4) The authors have not at all discussed the MILP, which is actually used to solve the problem.
5) The issues with the study and the future work must be added.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe subject is within the scope of the journal and the objective of research is well stated. However, the work needs to further be strengthened.
All the following indicated aspects should be clarified and better explained in the manuscript.
Problem formulation
1. Optimization model: The authors should clearly characterize the overall problem that they intend to solve through reinforcement learning. What type of decision variables (i.e. integer, real, etc) and how many? How many constraints (bounding, inequality, equality)?
Problem formulation and resolution
2. Is the proposed framework solved in a distributed fashion? Several recent scientific studies on related topics (https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2023.3291549, https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TII.2017.2755465), show that optimal scheduling of microgrids must consider distributed techniques, to take large scale scenario into account. The Authors should comment this point.
3. How does the proposed formulation deal with uncertainty of parameters? For instance, robust optimization is a viable technique to deal with uncertainty of parameters (e.g., https://doi.org/10.23919/ECC.2019.8796182, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2018.2803728, documents that could be cited in the text). The Authors should comment this point.
Case study
4. The outcome of the proposed approach should be assessed and condensed into a suitable indicator(s) that synthetically summarizes the related overall correctness and accuracy.
Conclusions
5. Conclusions needs to be extended to present further implications for future research and many managerial insights based on the results of the study, as well as limitations.
Minor
6. The authors should check that all the used acronyms are explained.
7. Mainly the English is good and there are only a few typos. However, the paper should be carefully rechecked.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper can be accepted with the following questions carefully addressed.
1. In line 51, what is the meaning of capacity number?
2. The introduction section can be shortened to cover the topic more quickly.
3. It is recommended that the relevant literature be organized in a logical way, rather than being discussed one by one in separate paragraphs.
4. Is there any improvement in the solving algorithm?
5. The results section should be presented as a new section. In addition, the relevant practical implications need to be further discussed, rather than just comparing the results with others.
6. What policy recommendations can be drawn from the findings?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish expression requires further improvements.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPrevious comments and concerns have been sufficiently addressed.
