Inertia and Primary Frequency Response Requirement Assessment for High-Penetration Renewable Power Systems Based on Planning Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the paper is good and written well. Please note down the following review comments:
1. In Introduction section, need to highlight the main contributions of proposed research work as bullet points
2. In Section 2, under the description of sub sections 2.1 to 2.6, there is no references provided for the statements of concept mentioned in that.
3. FIgure 1, no clarity (x sclae and y scale range and parmeter variables are not clear)
4. Most of the equations are not properly acknowledged with appropriate reference sources
5. Section 2.2.4, subheading name, not under able to stand , try to make heading name clear and meaningful
6. Equations 6 and 8, need to provide abbreviations for the variables used in that
7. In section 3.2, authors need to provide appropriate references for the statements mentioned in line numbers 294 and 299
8. Figure 2 diagram, the writeup in each block is not clear to read (need to make clear by increasing the font size)
9. In section 3.3.2, in point 1, statement, author mentioned that, through improving control strategies of renewable power sources, how the inertia can be improved? and also mentioned that by employing grid-forming control strategies, can you please provide some details about that?
10. In section 4, Why Authors chosen the modified configuration of WSCC3 9 bus system for analysis particularly?
11. For the simulation case study, need to mention what type of software platform is used by the authors? write the features and purpose of using that software for this case study and how the simulation is carried out, simulation time, penetration of Rnewable generation, introduction of power disturbances etc.
12. what is the limitation of proposed assessment method in estimating inertia and primary frequecy response strategy and futre research of related work in detail
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish, minor spell checks and grammatical errors need to be checked and fixed
Author Response
Thank you very much for your hard review and scientific, reasonable and pertinent suggestions! After careful consideration of the review opinions, the author made further improvements to the full paper and revised it according to the requirements of the review experts.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper focuses on an exciting topic; however, the contributions of this paper are not valuable. The methodology and the case study sections are too simple.
The author needs to improve the entire content of this research.
1. The figures' quality is very bad: Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 4.
2. The structure of the methodology section is not clear. The presentation must be more straightforward so the reviewer can see the author's contribution to this research field. In the current version, the authors simply present knowledge at an overview level without clearly showing further development, such as calculation models or case studies.
3. In section 2.5. the authors should show references to equations (10) and (11)
4. This article needs more references
5. and a lot of editing errors, etc
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Moderate editing of the English language required
Author Response
Thank you very much for your hard review and scientific, reasonable and pertinent suggestions! After careful consideration of the review opinions, the author made further improvements to the full paper and revised it according to the requirements of the review experts.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper provides a practical evaluation tool for inertia and primary frequency response.
My main concern is the description of the method. If the intention is to establish a methodology that can be generally implemented in electricity systems with high penetration of renewables, the data used, the analysis algorithms and the actions to be taken should be defined.
Introduction describes it as (page 1 line 15) actual system data, but not much data provided.
System in figure 3 is insufficient described.
In my opinion, the wording of the article needs a thorough revision.
There are paragraphs and sentences from the template that have not been deleted.
As an example, 2.2.4 Subsubsection or from Page 15 line 557 to 571.
Words missing: Page 2 line 76, consideration of … and
Also, quotation marks in places they shouldn't be (page 3 line 115), missing spaces, world undeleted (5.2.2, InertiaImpact) etc.
Headers of Table 3 are difficult to read.
Regarding style, impersonal language in preferred in academic writing. This may involve avoiding the use of “I”, “my”, “you”, “your”, “we” and “our”.
There are other ways of introducing references better than Literature [xx]
Pag 10 line 374 must refer to Figure 3, not 4.
Figures are of poor quality and in Figure 2, equation 16 does not exist.
5.2.3 refers to Figure 6 and it is 8 (page 14 Line 512)
Author Response
Thank you very much for your hard review and scientific, reasonable and pertinent suggestions! After careful consideration of the review opinions, the author made further improvements to the full paper and revised it according to the requirements of the review experts.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRegarding Authors response report, not satisfactory and need to provide the addressed points clearly in the authors reply statement (cover letter),
1. As example, authors, mentioned ("For the comments (1)-(8), the author has supplemented the relevant chapters and added references. Please see the revised paper for details"), refer manuscript, its not acceptable, try to provide details of your addrssing points as per the review comments in authors response letter too.
2. Some of the review comment, like providing main contributions of your work as bullet points in Introduction section also missing,
3. Authors need to provide some experimenatal validatiion results to justify the simulation results in their work
Comments on the Quality of English Language
need to check english language some spells and grammatical
Author Response
Thank you very much for your hard review and scientific, reasonable and pertinent suggestions! After careful consideration of the review opinions, the author made further improvements to the full paper and revised it according to the requirements of the review experts.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors improved the article. They also provided accurate responses to the questions and comments. So, I can suggest an article for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you very much for your hard review and scientific, reasonable and pertinent suggestions! After careful consideration of the review opinions, the author made further improvements to the full paper and revised it according to the requirements of the review experts.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsImprovement has been made on the paper. Case have been described.
Some figures have improved but others still not good quality.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Text needs revision. Mistakes as: Page 10 Line 383 "source type and current source type and current source type current source type ...,"
Or at conclusions: focusing on high-penetration renewable penetration power systems.
Only two examples. These kind of mistakes made some parts of the paper difficult to understand. Please review.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your hard review and scientific, reasonable and pertinent suggestions! After careful consideration of the review opinions, the author made further improvements to the full paper and revised it according to the requirements of the review experts.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript fulfils the suggested comments. Please notedown some minor changes required in that manuscript as follows:
1. Figure 4,5 need provide with more clarity
2. Table 7, need to be standardised (Table is not in correct form)
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor corrections for grammatical and spells
Author Response
Thank you very much for your hard review and scientific, reasonable and pertinent suggestions!
The author has improved quality of Figure 4&5, and has corrected the form of Table 7, please see the revised paper for details.
The author made further improvements to the full paper and revised grammar and spell according to the requirements of the review experts.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
