Functional-Combination-Based Comprehensive Benefit Evaluation of Energy Storage Projects under Source-Grid-Load Scenarios via Super-Efficiency DEA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 This paper analyzes the functional combination of ESS under the source-grid-load scenarios, and proposes a comprehensive benefit evaluation method of energy storage projects based on fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) and super efficiency data envelopment analysis (DEA) model. This model considers the perspective of economic and social environment. After careful review, the following comments are required to be considered in the revised manuscript:

1. There are many long sentences in the manuscript. These sentences cause some confusion in delivering the idea and reduce the cohesion of the paper. For example, in the abstract between lines 12 and 17, in the introduction between lines 71 and 75, and so on. Please recheck the whole manuscript for similar cases and rephrase the long sentences to avoid this problem.

2. What is the meaning of the term “social environment” which was used in the abstract? Does it mean only taking the social side of the surrounding environment? If so, why do the authors present the motivation of this paper based on the aspects of economy, society, and environment as mentioned in the introduction? This is confusing.

3. The contributions of this paper must be reformed to be in 3 bullet points instead of only 2. Moreover, it is recommended to use the present tense (in passive form) when writing the contributions. Hence, no need to use the past tense, as in line 86 (was formed).

4. In fact, the whole writing of this paper must be improved in terms of language, format, and style.

5. The remaining sections of this paper must be presented at the end of the introduction section.

6. The format of table 1 must be corrected according to the journal’s template.

7. It is recommended to add a figure to visualize the functional combination schemes presented in 2.2. Moreover, it is unknown whether this subsection is innovated by the authors or taken from previous works.

8. Please add the references for the used equations.      

9. Within the context, the table is captioned as “Table” not “Tab.” as mentioned in line 371. Please check the whole manuscript for similar issues.

10. It is recommended to add a flowchart for the DEMATEL method presented in 4.2.

11. In the case study, how is the simulation carried out? What is the software used? Please provide all required parameters needed to perform the simulations.

12. What are the main differences between the proposed method and the methods presented in [31], [32], and [33]. Add remarks to emphasize the contribution added by the proposed algorithm.

 

13. Provide a figure or table to further visualize the comparative analysis presented in 5.3. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language, format, and style is required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1, our response to you is attached for your review!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper discusses the functional combination of ESS under source-grid-load scenarios and proposes a comprehensive benefit evaluation method for energy storage projects. This method is based on a fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) and a super-efficiency data envelopment analysis (DEA) model, considering economic and social environmental perspectives. The topic is interesting, and the simulations verify the efficiency of the suggested strategy. However, several points need to be addressed to improve the paper's quality:

 

1. Enhance the abstract to succinctly emphasize the existing challenges addressed and the solutions offered through the applied methodology. Include the most important findings of the quantitative analysis.
2. The introduction section requires enhancement. Improve the literature review by incorporating more recent papers.
3. The main research gaps are not clearly presented in the introduction section. It would be beneficial to include a table comparing this paper with others introduced in the literature.
4. Ensure all points discussed in sections 2.1 and 2.2 are supported with adequate references.
5. Ensure all equations presented in the paper are cited with adequate references.
6. The paper contains many symbols, making it hard to follow. Adding a nomenclature section would benefit readers.
7. The uncertainty modeling needs clarification.
8. Provide more description about the tested system and data used in the simulation.
9. Clarify what schemes 1-12 refer to.
10. Discuss the complexity of the proposed fuzzy-DEMATEL in comparison with other methods presented in the literature.
11. List significant results in the Conclusion rather than providing a generic statement. Additionally, extend the conclusions to present further implications for future research and discuss limitations.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2, our response to you is attached for your review!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, the efforts made to address all comments are appreciated. However, it seems that Comment 5 in the first report has not been understood correctly. The remaining sections of the paper (from Section 2 to Section 6) must be briefly presented and highlighted at the end of the introduction. This means a small paragraph (a few lines only) must be added here (line 95 in the revised manuscript). An example of that is as follows:

The rest of this paper is arranged as follows: Section 2 presents the functional combination analysis of energy storage, while Section 3 ..... etc.

I hope it is clear now. 

Moreover, in the revised manuscript, Figure 4 is empty. Please check and provide the correct figure in the final version of the paper.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1, our response to you is attached for your review!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you, authors, for your efforts. The authors have addressed the majority of comments. However, more clarification about the uncertainty modeling strategy should be included. The paper will benefit if a section describing the uncertainty handling strategy is added.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2, our response to you is attached for your review!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf