A Case Study and Scientific Nexus of a Hybrid Solar and Wind Power Plant with a Heat Pump for Emission Decarbonization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present work presents a comparative analysis of methods for evaluating the efficiency of the techno-logical process, using the example of increasing the efficiency of the heat pump based on the heat produced by renewable energy installations. The paper is well organised and I recommend to be accepted directly.

Author Response

A corrected article are in the attached file.

The present work presents a comparative analysis of methods for evaluating the efficiency of the techno-logical process, using the example of increasing the efficiency of the heat pump based on the heat produced by renewable energy installations. The paper is well organised and I recommend to be accepted directly.

Reply:

Thank you for your attention to our article, thank you for the work done.

Best regards, team of authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper compares analytical methods for assessing efficiency and reducing process emissions through the example of a heat pump using renewable energy as an additional low-grade heat source. The environmental source analysis methodology is derived and validated by presenting two methods for analysing the operating cycle of a heat pump test bed using low-grade heat from solar panels and wind turbines, and by giving an example of calculating the efficiency of the system's fire use when commissioning a new technological solution. This article has academic significance for carbon emission reduction, but further refinement of the research details is needed.

1. It is recommended that the title be reorganised to focus on the research methodology.

2. It is recommended to add the experimental procedure to make it easier for the reader to understand.

3. It is recommended that the Components of the stand in “2. Materials and Methods” be analysed with diagrams or labelled in fig.1.

4. It is recommended that “3. Results and Discussion” corresponds to the analysis of “2. Materials and Methods”, supplementing the presentation of the study cases, and the number of the two study cases is insufficient.

5. A brief introduction of the mathematical model of Fig. 3.

6. It is recommended to combine “3. Results and Discussion” with “4. Discussion”.

7. It is recommended that the conclusion section be supplemented with additional content, such as next steps and scientific value.

Author Response

A corrected article are in the attached file.

This paper compares analytical methods for assessing efficiency and reducing process emissions through the example of a heat pump using renewable energy as an additional low-grade heat source. The environmental source analysis methodology is derived and validated by presenting two methods for analysing the operating cycle of a heat pump test bed using low-grade heat from solar panels and wind turbines, and by giving an example of calculating the efficiency of the system's fire use when commissioning a new technological solution. This article has academic significance for carbon emission reduction, but further refinement of the research details is needed.

1. It is recommended that the title be reorganised to focus on the research methodology.

According to your comment, the title of the article has been corrected to A Case Study and scientific nexus of a Hybrid Solar and Wind Power Plant with a Heat Pump for Emission Decarbonization.

2. It is recommended to add the experimental procedure to make it easier for the reader to understand.

The work in this paper focused on a theoretical study of methods for assessing the efficiency and reducing process emissions of a renewable energy source heat pump. Experimental studies are planned to be carried out in the following works.

3. It is recommended that the Components of the stand in “2. Materials and Methods” be analysed with diagrams or labelled in fig.1.

The components of the stand are marked in Figure 1. The diagram below shows the names of the corresponding components.

4. It is recommended that “3. Results and Discussion” corresponds to the analysis of “2. Materials and Methods”, supplementing the presentation of the study cases, and the number of the two study cases is insufficient.

In this work, we examined only two freons, due to their availability on the market. In future research, we plan to expand the range of freons, as well as improve the automation of the system.

5. A brief introduction of the mathematical model of Fig. 3.

In accordance with your recommendation, we have added a small preface.

6. It is recommended to combine “3. Results and Discussion” with “4. Discussion”.

We agree with your comment and have combined 3. Results and Discussion” with “4. Discussion

7. It is recommended that the conclusion section be supplemented with additional content, such as next steps and scientific value.

We agree with the recommendation and have added a description of future work and scientific significance.

Thank you for your attention to our article, thank you for the work done.

Best regards, team of authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors In this paper, the authors present a comparative analysis of methods for evaluating the efficiency of the technological process, using the example of increasing the efficiency of the heat pump based on the heat produced by renewable energy installations. This work is interesting, and I have just one minor question: The motivation of the current work should be improved, the authors should clarify the difference between the present work and previous ones. In addition, some necessary references should added in Sect. 2.1. Comments on the Quality of English Language Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

А corrected article are in the attached file.

In this paper, the authors present a comparative analysis of methods for evaluating the efficiency of the technological process, using the example of increasing the efficiency of the heat pump based on the heat produced by renewable energy installations. This work is interesting, and I have just one minor question: The motivation of the current work should be improved, the authors should clarify the difference between the present work and previous ones. In addition, some necessary references should added in Sect. 2.1.

According to your comment, links to modern research have been added to the article [3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10]. The cited works substantiate the relevance of the problem raised in our article.

Thank you for your attention to our article, thank you for the work done.

Best regards, team of authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have conducted a comparative analysis of heat pump efficiency based on an experimental stand involving renewable energy. The main purpose is to select a proper refrigerant with the necessary thermophysical parameters. Some comments are listed below:

1.        In the introduction part, the latest research about the heat pump applications in similar systems are absent.

2.        Although the authors have conducted analysis using thermodynamic methods, which are mostly conventional. The specific concerns in the current system are not clear.

3.        The current study is mainly based on constant temperature conditions. However, in the operation of renewable energy systems, the temperature should be changing all the time. The unsteadiness is not taken into consideration, which makes the current conclusion untrustworthy.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The english writing is fine. 

Author Response

A corrected article are in the attached file.

The authors have conducted a comparative analysis of heat pump efficiency based on an experimental stand involving renewable energy. The main purpose is to select a proper refrigerant with the necessary thermophysical parameters. Some comments are listed below:

1. In the introduction part, the latest research about the heat pump applications in similar systems are absent.

According to your comment, links to modern research have been added to the article [3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10]. The cited works substantiate the relevance of the problem raised in our article.

2. Although the authors have conducted analysis using thermodynamic methods, which are mostly conventional. The specific concerns in the current system are not clear.

The analysis of thermodynamic methods is a popular research topic. Existing assessment methods are not always effective. The main objective of the work was to compare analytical methods for assessing the efficiency and reduction of process emissions of a heat pump using renewable energy sources.

3. The current study is mainly based on constant temperature conditions. However, in the operation of renewable energy systems, the temperature should be changing all the time. The unsteadiness is not taken into consideration, which makes the current conclusion untrustworthy.

The calculation used the average temperature values of the solar panel during the day. We believe that in countries located in mid-equatorial latitudes, solar activity can be considered as a more or less stable parameter (most of the year).

Thank you for your attention to our article, thank you for the work done.

Best regards, team of authors.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors present research on hybrid solar and wind power plants with a heat pump. The results presented in the work are aimed at improving the energy efficiency of the described system. However, in the course of reading, I noticed several flaws:

1) In my opinion, there are very few references in the work. The authors need to add links to the latest relevant research in this field.

2) Figure 1 shows a diagram of the experimental stand, which displays a 3D model of the installation. I think that the authors need to make footnotes in this figure to indicate the names of the installation elements.

3) Have the authors considered the case when the solar panel is in different weather conditions, where one of the experimental parameters, such as temperature, may change? How can the results change when the temperature changes by 15-20 degrees?

4) In Figure 4, on the time axis, specify the dimension (hours).

Author Response

A corrected article are in the attached file.

In this paper, the authors present research on hybrid solar and wind power plants with a heat pump. The results presented in the work are aimed at improving the energy efficiency of the described system. However, in the course of reading, I noticed several flaws:

• In my opinion, there are very few references in the work. The authors need to add links to the latest relevant research in this field.

According to your comment, links to modern research have been added to the article [3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10]. The cited works substantiate the relevance of the problem raised in our article.

2) Figure 1 shows a diagram of the experimental stand, which displays a 3D model of the installation. I think that the authors need to make footnotes in this figure to indicate the names of the installation elements.

In accordance with your comment, we have added captions to Figure 1.

3) Have the authors considered the case when the solar panel is in different weather conditions, where one of the experimental parameters, such as temperature, may change? How can the results change when the temperature changes by 15-20 degrees?

The calculation used the average temperature values of the solar panel during the day. We believe that in countries located in mid-equatorial latitudes, solar activity can be considered as a more or less stable parameter (most of the year).

4) In Figure 4, on the time axis, specify the dimension (hours).

Thank you, we have added dimension on the X axis.

Thank you for your attention to our article, thank you for the work done.

Best regards, team of authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Since the comments have been well addressed, the current version is recommended to be accepted. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time devoted to our work! 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have added some references in the revised version. However, it can't be accepted for publication in its current form. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English writing is fine. 

Author Response

We have partially revised the article to meet your requirements. The connection between this study and modern work in this area is explained. Some clarifications have been added during the explanation of the research methods and materials for better understanding. The conclusion of the article has been revised to better fit the results obtained. Thank you for your attention.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf