P2P Optimization Operation Strategy for Photovoltaic Virtual Power Plant Based on Asymmetric Nash Negotiation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments to the Authors
sustainability-3090195-peer-review-v1: "P2P Optimization Operation Strategy for Photovoltaic Virtual Power Plant Based on Asymmetric Nash Negotiation ", Xiyao Gong et al.The authors have proposed an interactive operation strategy of virtual power plants based on asymmetric Nash negotiation to realize the complementary advantages of renewable energy in virtual power plants with different load characteristics and improve the consumption rate.
The review paper will be improved if the following problems are solved.
1. Abstract
Some results and basic conclusion have been shown in the last sentence, however key findings should be pointed out for the simulation results. So that it will be helpful for the subsequent construction of protype of “Photovoltaic Virtual Power Plant”.
2. Results
How the initial load data are determined? From real plant or based on authors’ experience?
Virtual power plants 2 and 3 are all photovoltaic power generation units, but the outputs in figure 8 and 9 are different tendency? It’s suggested that a table is introduced in order to compare or explain the key factors.
3. Conclusion
3 items for conclusion are adequate. However, No.2 is not the conclusion for simulation but process results. The author should summarize the results to indicate the typical findings and give instruction for the following test-rig or other types of research.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We have carefully considered the suggestion of the Reviewer and made some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes to the manuscript.The yellow sections address grammatical and formatting changes, and the green sections address the content of the manuscript in light of the revisions.
Comment 1:
Some results and basic conclusion have been shown in the last sentence, however key findings should be pointed out for the simulation results. So that it will be helpful for the subsequent construction of protype of “Photovoltaic Virtual Power Plant”.
Response 1:
Thank you for your attention, dear reviewer. Green is modified.The description is as follows:
Under the guidance of "dual-carbon" target, the utilization and consumption demand of renewable energy has been growing rapidly. In order to realize the complementary advantages of renewable energy in virtual power plants with different load characteristics and improve the consumption rate, an interactive operation strategy of virtual power plants based on asymmetric Nash negotiation is proposed;Firstly, the PV virtual power plant is modeled to establish the optimal scheduling model for the operation of the virtual power plant, and then an asymmetric Nash negotiation method is used to achieve a fair distribution of the benefits. Finally, in the solution algorithm, ADMM is used to solve the proposed model in a distributed manner. The simulation results show that the revenue enhancement ratios are 28.27%, 1.09%, and 12.37%, respectively, and the benefits of all the participating subjects are effectively enhanced through P2P power sharing, and each subject is able to obtain a fair amount of benefit distribution according to the size of its power contribution.
Under the guidance of the "dual-carbon" target, the demand for renewable energy utilisation and consumption is growing rapidly. In order to achieve the complementary advantages of renewable energy in virtual power plants with different load characteristics and improve the rate of consumption, an interactive operation strategy for virtual power plants based on asymmetric Nash negotiation is proposed; firstly, the photovoltaic virtual power plant is modelled to establish the optimal scheduling model for the operation of the virtual power plant, and then asymmetric Nash negotiation method is adopted to achieve the fair distribution of benefits. Finally, in the solution algorithm, the ADMM distribution is used to solve the proposed model. The simulation results show that the revenue enhancement rates are 28.27%, 1.09% and 12.37%, respectively, and the revenues of all the participating subjects are effectively enhanced through P2P power sharing, and each subject can obtain a fair distribution of benefits according to the size of its power contribution, which effectively improves the enthusiasm of the PV virtual power plant to participate in P2P interactions, and thus promotes the development and consumption of renewable energy.
Comment 2:
How the initial load data are determined? From real plant or based on authors’ experience?
Virtual power plants 2 and 3 are all photovoltaic power generation units, but the outputs in figure 8 and 9 are different tendency? It’s suggested that a table is introduced in order to compare or explain the key factors.
Response 2:
Thank you for your suggestion, dear reviewer. The data were obtained from Ref. doi: 10.11930/j.issn.1004-9649.202308065. The sources of their data were three virtual power plants and microgrids in a county in China.
Figure 8 shows the PV output of virtual power plant 2 and Figure 9 shows the PV output of virtual power plant 3, set up for different reasons:
The power side outputs are different in the 3 virtual power plants, setting up the difference in the type of power supply as well as the difference in the load provides the possibility of energy P2P interaction between the 3 virtual power plants. If they are exactly the same there is no need for P2P electrical energy interaction. Therefore, in this paper, the PV outputs of virtual power plant 2 and virtual power plant 3 analysed in the examples are different.
This has been explained in section 6.1 of the original text. Green is modified.The description is as follows:
Virtual Power Plant 1 relies mainly on wind power generation, which is stable during the day and is not capable of achieving local energy self-sufficiency, and it acts as an energy-purchasing type of role in the virtual power plant; The virtual power plant 2 mainly relies on photovoltaic power generation, and from its load characteristics, it can be seen that this area is a residential area, with a low demand for electricity during working hours, while the morning and evening hours are the peak periods for electricity consumption, which acts as both the supplier and the receiver in the virtual power plant;Virtual Power Plant 3 relies mainly on photovoltaic power generation, which acts as a supplier of electrical energy in the virtual power plant. Due to the difference in the setup power supply side, thus ensuring the possibility of power interaction between the virtual power plants.
Comment 3:
3 items for conclusion are adequate. However, No.2 is not the conclusion for simulation but process results. The author should summarize the results to indicate the typical findings and give instruction for the following test-rig or other types of research.
Response 3:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion. The conclusions have been revised and a vision for the future has been developed. Green is modified and red is deleted.
(1) The model of microgrid and its infrastructure equipment is established, and the operation strategy of virtual power plants with different load characteristics for power interaction and cooperation is proposed and the interaction operation model is constructed, so as to realize the efficient use of renewable energy and improve the utilization rate.
(2) The iterative calculation of global power interactions using the ADMM method realizes the scheduling scheme of the PV virtual power plant after 53 iterations, which reduces the dependence on the higher-level grid and protects the privacy of each participant as well as improves the efficiency.
(3) The constructed asymmetric bargaining-based revenue sharing model between virtual power plants can greatly increase the revenue of each virtual power plant in the process of power sharing and promote the enthusiasm of the park to par-ticipate in energy cooperation.
(1) The model of microgrid and its infrastructure equipment is established, and the operation strategy of virtual power plants with different load characteristics for power interaction and cooperation is proposed and the interaction operation model is constructed, so as to realize the efficient use of renewable energy and improve the utilization rate.
(2) In the P2P optimal operation model of photovoltaic virtual power plants based on asymmetric Nash negotiation constructed in this paper, each virtual power plant is able to sell electricity to the rest of the virtual power plants at a price higher than the renewable feed-in tariffs, which improves its own revenue.
(3) The constructed asymmetric bargaining-based revenue sharing model between virtual power plants can greatly increase the revenue of each virtual power plant in the process of power sharing and promote the enthusiasm of the park to par-ticipate in energy cooperation.
In the future, further research can be conducted on the gaming of electricity and heat to explore more accurate and fairer methods of distributing benefits. Carbon capture devices in virtual power plants can also be studied to minimise carbon emissions.
We have done our best to revise the manuscript and have highlighted the changes without affecting the content or framework of the manuscript. We express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their enthusiastic work and hope that the revisions will be recognized.
Once again, we sincerely thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Corresponding author: Xiyao Gong
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA P2P optimal operation strategy for photovoltaic virtual power plants based on asymmetric Nash negotiation is proposed. An optimal scheduling model for the independent operation of the virtual power plant is established to achieve a fair distribution of benefits using the asymmetric Nash negotiation method, and the ADMM algorithm is used to perform a distributed solution to the proposed model.The paper is well structured, clear, with specific descriptions of process and methodology, and the authors are advised to respond to the following questions:
1.Line 93-95:Virtual Power Plants the author's proposal? If not, please cite the reference.
2.Line 123: "shown in Figure 1 below" is changed to "shown in Fig.1 below".
3.Line 123: Which country's energy authority, please specify.
4. Unify the font throughout the text (29 lines, 34 lines, 59 lines, 6 lines, 6 lines, etc.).
5.Line 126:The full name of peer-to-peer (P2P) has been given in the previous text, and it only needs to be abbreviated when it occurs again, so check the whole thing and correct it.
6. Line 153: Do not use abbreviations in the title, check all and correct.
7. Line 338-342: The formatting here is too confusing, make it easier for the reader to read.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We have carefully considered the suggestion of the Reviewer and made some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes to the manuscript.The yellow sections address grammatical and formatting changes, and the green sections address the content of the manuscript in light of the revisions.
Comment 1:
Line 93-95: Virtual Power Plants the author's proposal? If not, please cite the reference.
Response 1:
Thank you for your attention, dear reviewer. Relevant references have been cited.
Gao, Hongchao, et al. "Review of virtual power plant operations: Resource coordination and multidimensional interaction." Applied Energy 357 (2024): 122284.
Comment 2:
Line 123: "shown in Figure 1 below" is changed to "shown in Fig.1 below".
Response 2:
Thank you for your suggestion, dear reviewer.
Comment 3:
Line 123: Which country's energy authority, please specify.
Response 3:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion. The energy authority of the country in this case is China's.
Comment 4:
Line 123: Unify the font throughout the text (29 lines, 34 lines, 59 lines, 6 lines, 6 lines, etc.).
Response 4:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion.
Comment 5:
Line 126:The full name of peer-to-peer (P2P) has been given in the previous text, and it only needs to be abbreviated when it occurs again, so check the whole thing and correct it.
Response 5:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion.
Comment 6:
Line 153: Do not use abbreviations in the title, check all and correct.
Response 6:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion.
Comment 7:
Line 338-342: The formatting here is too confusing, make it easier for the reader to read.
Response 7:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion.
We have done our best to revise the manuscript and have highlighted the changes without affecting the content or framework of the manuscript. We express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their enthusiastic work and hope that the revisions will be recognized.
Once again, we sincerely thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Corresponding author: Xiyao Gong
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe current research proposes a peer to peer optimal operation approach for virtual power plant based on asymmetric Nash negotiation. The authors found that the built asymmetric bargaining-based revenue sharing model between virtual power plants can greatly increase the revenue of each virtual power plant in the process of power sharing and promote the enthusiasm of the park to participate in energy cooperation. My comments are as follows:
· Despite the effort done by the authors, the work is repeated, and I cannot see a clear contribution by the authors. Authors should point out their contribution and how it is different from previous research in the same field.
· The fluctuations of the VPP cost per year in Figures 12, 13, 14 are not discussed. Authors should discuss them clearly.
· How did the authors obtain the Lagrangian value-added function in line 338?.
· In lines [272-273], the authors mentioned that an auxiliary variable vector is introduced for decoupling. Can the authors justify this?
· In line [302] Equation 22 is needed to be revised.
· In Figure 5, the VPP1 WT should be discussed further.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageØ The paper requires Major editing to correct the English mistakes. For Example:
· In line [13], the phrase “…is proposed;Firstly, the PV virtual power…” is grammatically incorrect. I suggest rewriting it as “…is proposed. Firstly, the PV virtual power …”. Rewrite the sentence to make it grammatically correct.
· In lines [24], the beginning of the sentence is needed to be rewritten as it looks grammatically incorrect (i.e. “…Vigorously developing renewable energy is an important way…” does not look grammatically correct).
· In lines [28-31], the sentence is very lone and not easy to follow. It should be broken into segments.
· In lines [32-38], the whole paragraph in written as one single very long sentence. This is not acceptable as the reader will be lost while reading and cannot follow the flow.
· In lines [39], the following “…Literature [7]…” seems incorrect. Authors can replace it by more common phrases. Similarly, in lines [41] and [56].
· In line [39] the authors talked about the past (For example, “Literature [7] constructed…”. However, in line [41] the authors talked about the present (For example, “Literature [8] proposes…”.). Authors should correct this mistake and avoid it throughout the manuscript.
· In lines [48-53], the whole paragraph in written as one single very long sentence. This is not acceptable as the reader will be lost while reading and cannot follow the flow. Also, in line [51], the phrase “…and it is difficult to balance the overall interests…” is not understandable. The whole paragraph should be rewritten with making it simpler to understand for the reader.
· Authors should leave space after the last word in the sentence. For example in line [56] “…trading [11].Literature [12]…” and line [41] “…power plants.Literature [8]…”. This mistake is repeated many times in the manuscript.
· In line [68], the following is grammatically incorrect “…The above mentioned literature, the proposed strategy ignores the different degree…”. It should be rewritten correctly,
· In lines [68-72], the whole paragraph in written as one single very long sentence. This is not acceptable as the reader will be lost while reading and cannot follow the flow.
· In lines [73-78], the sentence is very long and is grammatically incorrect. This will confuse the reader and not easy to follow. Authors should consider rewriting is in more than one sentence.
· In line [305], it should be “where…” not “Where…”
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We have carefully considered the suggestion of the Reviewer and made some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes to the manuscript.The yellow sections address grammatical and formatting changes, and the green sections address the content of the manuscript in light of the revisions.
Comment 1:
Despite the effort done by the authors, the work is repeated, and I cannot see a clear contribution by the authors. Authors should point out their contribution and how it is different from previous research in the same field.
Line 93-95: Virtual Power Plants the author's proposal? If not, please cite the reference.
Response 1:
Thank you for your attention, dear reviewer.
The potential contributions of this paper are as follows:
(1) An asymmetric Nash negotiation method is adopted and the model is solved using the ADMM algorithm, which achieves a fair distribution of the benefits of the virtual power plants and also ensures the privacy among the virtual power plants.
(2) A P2P optimal operation strategy for PV virtual power plants considering demand response is proposed, and the virtual power plants improve their economic and low-carbon performance through P2P.
Comment 2:
The fluctuations of the VPP cost per year in Figures 12, 13, 14 are not discussed. Authors should discuss them clearly.
Response 2:
Thank you for your suggestion, dear reviewer. Green is modified.
As can be seen from Fig. 11, the coalition cost minimisation solution for virtual power plant 1 has a significant increase in the first 20 iterations, while after 20 iterations it is iterated around 5878.32yuan and finally converges at 5878.32. As can be seen from Fig. 12, the coalition cost minimisation solution for virtual power plant 2 has a significant increase in the first 20 iterations and reaches the minimiser at the 3rd time, then the cost starts to increase. The cost starts to increase, this is due to the high cost of the remaining virtual power plants at the 3rd time and the total coalition cost is still at a high position. As can be seen from Figure 13, the coalition cost minimisation solution for virtual power plant 2 is decreasing in the first 20 iterations and finally converges to 2973.92yuan.
Comment 3:
How did the authors obtain the Lagrangian value-added function in line 338?.
Response 3:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion.
This Lagrangian function is constructed by introducing the Lagrangian multiplier and the penalty factor by equation (17).
The Lagrangian function for subproblem 2 is constructed by introducing the Lalangrangian multiplier and penalty factor by equation (22).
Comment 4:
In lines [272-273], the authors mentioned that an auxiliary variable vector is introduced for decoupling. Can the authors justify this?
Response 4:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion.
I have looked up a number of papers and have yet to find a proof of the introduction of auxiliary variables, limited by my ability to do so, and although the authors introduce auxiliary variable vectors for decoupling, not every reader will have to prove this individually. It is important to understand how the authors' methods improve the interpretability and performance of the model. We can focus on discussing how these methods apply to our specific situation without having to delve into the proof of every mathematical detail. Doing so allows for more effective discussion and application of the concepts.
The references are: Fan, Wei, et al. "Distributed transaction optimization model of multi-integrated energy systems based on nash negotiation." Renewable Energy 225 (2024): 120196.
Zhang, Wen-wei, et al. "Low-carbon optimal operation strategy of multi-park integrated energy system considering multi-energy sharing trading mechanism and asymmetric Nash bargaining." Energy Reports 10 (2023): 255-284.
Yuan, et al. "Research on the optimization of energy–carbon co-sharing operation in multiple multi-energy microgrids based on Nash negotiation." Energies 16.15 (2023): 5655.
Comment 5:
In line [302] Equation 22 is needed to be revised.
Response 5:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion. The s.t. in Eq. 22 represents the constraints from Problem 2 and is not incorrect. Thank you for the reminder.
Comment 6:
In Figure 5, the VPP1 WT should be discussed further.
Response 6:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion. The reason for setting VPP1's renewable energy source to wind power is:
The power side outputs are different in the 3 virtual power plants, setting up the difference in the type of power supply as well as the difference in the load provides the possibility of energy P2P interaction between the 3 virtual power plants. If they are exactly the same there is no need for P2P electrical energy interaction. Therefore, in this paper, the PV outputs of virtual power plant 2 and virtual power plant 3 analysed in the examples are different.
This has been explained in section 6.1 of the original text. Green is modified.The description is as follows:
Virtual Power Plant 1 relies mainly on wind power generation, which is stable during the day and is not capable of achieving local energy self-sufficiency, and it acts as an energy-purchasing type of role in the virtual power plant; The virtual power plant 2 mainly relies on photovoltaic power generation, and from its load characteristics, it can be seen that this area is a residential area, with a low demand for electricity during working hours, while the morning and evening hours are the peak periods for electricity consumption, which acts as both the supplier and the receiver in the virtual power plant;Virtual Power Plant 3 relies mainly on photovoltaic power generation, which acts as a supplier of electrical energy in the virtual power plant. Due to the difference in the setup power supply side, thus ensuring the possibility of power interaction between the virtual power plants.
Comment 7:
In line [13], the phrase “…is proposed;Firstly, the PV virtual power…” is grammatically incorrect. I suggest rewriting it as “…is proposed. Firstly, the PV virtual power …”. Rewrite the sentence to make it grammatically correct.
Response 7:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion.
Comment 8:
In lines [24], the beginning of the sentence is needed to be rewritten as it looks grammatically incorrect (i.e. “…Vigorously developing renewable energy is an important way…” does not look grammatically correct).
Response 8:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion.
Comment 9:
In lines [28-31], the sentence is very lone and not easy to follow. It should be broken into segments.
Response 9:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion.
Comment 10:
In lines [32-38], the whole paragraph in written as one single very long sentence. This is not acceptable as the reader will be lost while reading and cannot follow the flow.
Response 10:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion.
Comment 11:
In lines [39], the following “…Literature [7]…” seems incorrect. Authors can replace it by more common phrases. Similarly, in lines [41] and [56].
Response 11:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion.
Comment 12:
In line [39] the authors talked about the past (For example, “Literature [7] constructed…”. However, in line [41] the authors talked about the present (For example, “Literature [8] proposes…”.). Authors should correct this mistake and avoid it throughout the manuscript.
Response 12:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion.
Comment 13:
In lines [48-53], the whole paragraph in written as one single very long sentence. This is not acceptable as the reader will be lost while reading and cannot follow the flow. Also, in line [51], the phrase “…and it is difficult to balance the overall interests…” is not understandable. The whole paragraph should be rewritten with making it simpler to understand for the reader.
Response 13:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion.
Comment 14:
Authors should leave space after the last word in the sentence. For example in line [56] “…trading [11].Literature [12]…” and line [41] “…power plants.Literature [8]…”. This mistake is repeated many times in the manuscript.
Response 14:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion.
Comment 15:
In line [68], the following is grammatically incorrect “…The above mentioned literature, the proposed strategy ignores the different degree…”. It should be rewritten correctly.
Response 15:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion.
Comment 16:
In lines [68-72], the whole paragraph in written as one single very long sentence. This is not acceptable as the reader will be lost while reading and cannot follow the flow.
Response 16:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion.
Comment 17:
In lines [73-78], the sentence is very long and is grammatically incorrect. This will confuse the reader and not easy to follow. Authors should consider rewriting is in more than one sentence.
Response 17:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion.
Comment 18:
In line [305], it should be “where…” not “Where…”
Response 18:
Thank you for your attention and suggestion.
We have done our best to revise the manuscript and have highlighted the changes without affecting the content or framework of the manuscript. We express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their enthusiastic work and hope that the revisions will be recognized.
Once again, we sincerely thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Corresponding author: Xiyao Gong
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
As the authors have revised the manuscript properly according to the comments, it could be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We carefully considered the reviewer's suggestions and made some revisions. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes to the manuscript.
Thank you again for your comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors· The scientific content looks OK after editing. However, the English needs more proofreading. Following are some Examples of the English mistakes.
Comments on the Quality of English Language· In line [377], “The” with capital “T” came in the middle of the sentence. It should be “the” instead of “The”. Same thing in line [381]Since the semicolon is not a terminal punctuation mark, it shouldn't be followed by a capital letter unless the second clause's first word normally needs to be capitalized.
· The sentence in lines [374-384] is very long and confusing to the reader. It should be rewritten with breaking it into smaller sentences.
· In line [178] “Where” should be with small letter “where” not capital letter. Similarly in line [255].
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We have carefully considered the reviewer's suggestions and made some revisions. We have tried our best to improve and make some changes to the manuscript. The yellow part has been revised according to your comments. The revision notes, drawn by points, are as follows:
Comment 1: In line [377], "The" with a capital "T" appears in the middle of the sentence. It should be "the" instead of "The". The same thing also happens in line [381]. Since the semicolon is not a terminal punctuation mark, it should not be followed by a capital letter unless the first word of the second clause is usually capitalized.
Comment 2: The sentence in lines [374-384] is long and confusing to the readers. It should be rewritten to divide it into smaller sentences.
Response: Thank you for your concern and suggestions. I have revised the paragraph in combination with Comment 1 and Comment 2.
Comment 3: In line [178], "Where" should use lowercase "where" instead of capital letters. Likewise, in line [255].
Response: Thank you for your attention and suggestions.
We have done our best to revise the manuscript and highlight the changes without affecting the content or framework of the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' enthusiastic work and hope that these revisions will be appreciated.
Thank you again for your comments and suggestions.
