Dynamic Calculation Method for Zonal Carbon Emissions in Power Systems Based on the Theory of Production Simulation and Carbon Emission Flow Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors describe in detail the steps in the development of a simulation model to optimize a resource-network load-storage system based on the lowest system cost. The effectiveness of the proposed flow computation method and dynamic computation method has been verified using IEEE 14 bus system and provincial power grid, while adhering to conservative and sustainable energy consumption. The presented analysis shows that it is clear that it improves the accuracy of carbon emission measurement compared to the previous techniques and clarifies the enhancing effect of new power generation on the carbon emission of the neighboring areas. The proposed method is suitable for the coordinated optimization scheduling of power systems and dynamic measurement of regional carbon emission. The calculations performed and the evaluation of the results obtained are correct and the conclusions are valid. The organisation and structure of the article is orderly and logical, the results are well presented and analysed, and the figures are appropriate to the presentation of the topic. Precise work of high quality. The article language is understandable, traceable, free of errors.

My only suggestions for improving the quality of the article are as follows:

Line 187: "...price of the national carbon market on June 20, 2022, was 59.25 yuan per ton12."  In the sentence, I think CO2 would be correct instead of 12.

Line 468, Table4 : The two Results columns have the same data, but there is a difference of 0.01 in the total, I suggest correcting the subresult that causes this difference.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Dear reviewer:

 

I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for the opportunity to revise and improve our manuscript, titled "Dynamic calculation method for zonal carbon emissions in power systems based on the theory of production simulation and carbon emission flow theory", in response to the thoughtful and constructive comments provided by the reviewers. Your insightful feedback has been invaluable in identifying areas where our work can be further strengthened and clarified.

 

I have carefully reviewed each of the comments and suggestions, and I am pleased to report that we have addressed all points raised to the best of our abilities. In this revised version, we have made substantial revisions to enhance the clarity, accuracy, and overall impact of our findings. Specifically listed as follows:

 

1. Line 187: "...price of the national carbon market on June 20, 2022, was 59.25 yuan per ton12." In the sentence, I think CO2 would be correct instead of 12.

Thank you for your careful review, the author has corrected the above clerical error to:

For reference, the closing price of the national carbon market on June 20, 2022, was 59.25 yuan per ton CO2.

 

2. Line 468, Table4 : The two Results columns have the same data, but there is a difference of 0.01 in the total, I suggest correcting the subresult that causes this difference.

Thank you very much for your careful review and for pointing out the issue. Your understanding of the error in Table 4 is correct. Due to the retention of a higher number of decimal places in the original calculations (for example, up to 8 decimal places), we only retained two decimal places for the Load Carbon Emission Rate in Table 4 for simplicity and readability, which led to minor discrepancies in the totals.

To more accurately reflect the calculation results and avoid misinterpretation, the authors have adjusted the values of Load Carbon Emission Rate in Table 4 to three decimal places. This modification should resolve the issue you pointed out and make the table data more precise and consistent.

 

Once again, thank you for your valuable suggestions, which are extremely helpful in improving the quality of our paper. If you have any further suggestions or require clarification, please feel free to let us know.

 

Sincerely, Xin Huang, Keteng Jiang, Shuxin Luo, Haibo Li, and Zongxiang Lu

 

Keteng Jiang

Tsinghua Sichuan Energy Internet Research Institute

[email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.

 

 

Because there is similarity in the methods, it would be necessary to add the necessary references in each case, as revising the content.

Also in “3.1 Establishment of the target function”

Or “3.2 Constraint Conditions 3.2.1 Power Balance Constraint”

Or “3.2.7 System Reliability Constraint”

And others…

Make sure that the lack of references means complete originality in all cases…

 

Captions need to be revised; this is not a similarity…

“Figure 1 Calculation of Carbon Emission Flow in Coordinated Source-Grid-Load-Storage Optimi- zation.”

 

References are required… There is similarity

“Table 1 The typical carbon emission factors for various types of power generation units”

 

Full similarity:

“The charging and discharging process of the energy storage system (ESS) must con- sider physical constraints such as energy storage charging and discharging efficiency, power constraints, and rated capacity constraints. That is, the charging and discharging power of the energy storage cannot exceed the rated installed capacity of the energy stor- age, and at the same time, the energy balance of the energy storage must be satisfied.”

 

There is similarity here too…

“4. Instance Application Results”

 

There is no point in % next to each value or to have a column with the same value… to be removed… and mentioned in the text or notes…

 

Authors need to indicate a subcaption per letter, after the main caption:

“Figure 4. Nodal active power flux and nodal carbon intensity of IEEE 14- bus system”

 

Supplementary information should not be addressed in the text…

“of wind and photovoltaic power at each node is shown in Figure 6, and the system pa- rameters are shown in Tabel A 1 to Tabel A 3”

 

Again, the captions need to be improved…

“Figure 10.Power Output of Each Node at 14:00”

 

The number of figures presented is extensive and authors should consider this point, as the style used (outdated…) in some cases

 

Please remove the “list” from conclusions.

Start by context, methods, results, implications, limitations and future prospects…

 

There is some similarity in the methods too…

I would say that  the number of references is extremely scarce, potentially unacceptable…

 

It needs to more than double including much more recent, relevant and international references

 

 

Authors transformed this manuscript into a  mathematical one, less adequate to the structure of this journal..

Think about it…

 

The manuscripts needs to be adapted to this specific journal, in both style and scope

Comments on the Quality of English Language

moderate

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Dear reviewer:

 

I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for the opportunity to revise and improve our manuscript, titled "Dynamic calculation method for zonal carbon emissions in power systems based on the theory of production simulation and carbon emission flow theory", in response to the thoughtful and constructive comments provided by the reviewers. Your insightful feedback has been invaluable in identifying areas where our work can be further strengthened and clarified.

 

I have carefully reviewed each of the comments and suggestions, and I am pleased to report that we have addressed all points raised to the best of our abilities. In this revised version, we have made substantial revisions to enhance the clarity, accuracy, and overall impact of our findings. Specifically listed as follows:

 

1. Because there is similarity in the methods, it would be necessary to add the necessary references in each case, as revising the content.

Also in “3.1 Establishment of the target function”

Or “3.2 Constraint Conditions 3.2.1 Power Balance Constraint”

Or “3.2.7 System Reliability Constraint”

And others…

Make sure that the lack of references means complete originality in all cases…

Thank you for your suggestion! The author has added corresponding references.

 

2. Captions need to be revised; this is not a similarity…

“Figure 1 Calculation of Carbon Emission Flow in Coordinated Source-Grid-Load-Storage Optimi- zation.”

 

Thank you for your suggestion! The author has revised it to "Carbon emission factors and carbon emission calculation process for multi node systems."

 

3. References are required… There is similarity

“Table 1 The typical carbon emission factors for various types of power generation units”

Full similarity:

“The charging and discharging process of the energy storage system (ESS) must con- sider physical constraints such as energy storage charging and discharging efficiency, power constraints, and rated capacity constraints. That is, the charging and discharging power of the energy storage cannot exceed the rated installed capacity of the energy storage, and at the same time, the energy balance of the energy storage must be satisfied.”

There is similarity here too…

Thank you for your suggestion! The author has added citation information.

 

4. Instance Application Results

（1）There is no point in % next to each value or to have a column with the same value… to be removed… and mentioned in the text or notes…

 

Thank you for your suggestion! The author has added explanations in the text——“To verify the accurate calculation of system power flow and carbon potential by the algorithm proposed, a comparative analysis was conducted with the IEEE 14-bus system and the literature [9], and present the calculation deviation percentage of key parameters in flowing table.”

 

（2）Authors need to indicate a subcaption per letter, after the main caption:

“Figure 4. Nodal active power flux and nodal carbon intensity of IEEE 14- bus system”

 

Thank you for your suggestion! The author has been modified to “Figure A3. Nodal active power flux and nodal carbon intensity of IEEE 14- bus system: (a) Comparison of active power flux; (b)Comparison of carbon intensity”

“Figure A4. The relevant boundary curves of the provincial-level system: (a) Typical Daily Wind Power Output Curve; (b) Typical Daily Solar Power Output Curve; (c) Typical Daily Imported Electricity Curve; (d) Typical Daily Load Curve”

“Figure 4. Analysis of Output Characteristics of Typical Power Supply Units: (a) Coal-fired Power Units; (b) Gas-fired Power Units”

“Figure 5.  Carbon Potential and Carbon Emissions at Nodes of a Provincial-level System on a Typical Day: (a) Case 1; (b) Case 2”

 

（3）Supplementary information should not be addressed in the text…

“of wind and photovoltaic power at each node is shown in Figure 6, and the system pa- rameters are shown in Tabel A 1 to Tabel A 3”

 

Thank you for your suggestion! According to the template requirements provided by sustainability:

Appendix B

All appendix sections must be cited in the main text. In the appendices, Figures, Tables, etc. should be labeled starting with “A”—e.g., Figure A1, Figure A2, etc.

The author has been modified to “of wind and photovoltaic power at each node is shown in Figure 6, and the system parameters are shown in Appendix A.”

 

（4）Again, the captions need to be improved…

“Figure 10.Power Output of Each Node at 14:00”

 

Thank you for your suggestion! The author has been modified to “Figure 6. Distribution of Power Output Across All Nodes at 14:00”

 

（5）The number of figures presented is extensive and authors should consider this point, as the style used (outdated…) in some cases

 

Thank you for your suggestion! The author has presented Figure 2, The steady-state power flow distribution of the IEEE 14 bus system -4 Nodal active power flux and nodal carbon intensity of the IEEE 14 bus system; Figure 6: The relevant boundary curves of the provincial-level system. Moved to the appendix.

 

（6）Please remove the “list” from conclusions.

Start by context, methods, results, implications, limitations and future prospects…

 

Thank you for your suggestion! The author has been modified to “This paper establishes a coordinated optimization operation simulation model for source-grid-load-storage systems with the objective of minimizing system costs. It introduces a power flow calculation method and a dynamic zonal carbon emission calculation method, both based on a linkage matrix and the theory of carbon emission flows. The power flow calculation method replaces traditional nonlinear constraints with linear ones, thereby avoiding the computational burden of invoking Matpower and not only reducing the complexity of model solving but also ensuring the accuracy of model solutions. The dynamic zonal carbon emission calculation method addresses the shortcomings of existing methods, which are too coarse-grained and unable to accurately determine the operational states of multiple units at a node. This method enhances the precision of carbon emission metering and clarifies the improvement effect of new energy output on the carbon emissions of adjacent regions. The effectiveness and practicality of the proposed methods are validated through case studies based on the IEEE 14-bus system and actual operational data from a provincial power grid. The results of this paper not only provide theoretical support for the coordinated optimization of power system operation and carbon emission management but also offer significant technical references and practical guidance for the sustainable development of future power systems. Although the methods presented in this paper demonstrate good feasibility and guiding value in practical applications, further validation and optimization are needed under broader system scales and more complex operational conditions. Future research could consider incorporating more real-world factors such as market mechanisms and policy elements into the model to enhance its adaptability and predictive accuracy.”

 

（7）There is some similarity in the methods too…

I would say that  the number of references is extremely scarce, potentially unacceptable…

It needs to more than double including much more recent, relevant and international references

Thank you for your suggestion! The author has increased the number of references. On the one hand, in the simulation calculation considering carbon emission flow, the basic calculation method of carbon emission flow can be referred to in reference[16], Common optimization objectives include system operation and maintenance costs[17,18]; low carbon and System Reliability Constraint[19]; power loss[20], considering Power Balance Constraint[21]; System Power Flow Constraints[22]; System Spinning Reserve Constraints[23]; Constraints on Power Generation Technology[24]; Constraints of an Energy Storage System[25], but it fails to consider System Generation Adequacy Constraint. On the other hand, The feature of carbon emission calculation methods in  other different literature is shown as Table 1.

Table 1 The carbon emission calculation methods in different literature

Literature	Simulation object	Simulation method	Merits	Deficiencies
[30]	Coupled transportation and power distribution networks	Multi-objective optimization	Achieve an optimal balance between economic efficiency and emission reduction	Without considering the carbon emission flow
[31]	Consumer-driven carbon intensities in power system	Carbon emission flow calculation method	Adaptive regression-based calculation framework	Unable to coordinate the output of various power sources
[32]	Carbon efficient power grid	The uplift payment scheme.	Enjoy the advantage of maximal flexibility	Lack of constraints on the actual output status of power generation units
[33]	Demand-side distribution networks	A spatial-temporal carbon response model based on geographically dispatchable loads	Emission target is embedded in the objective function via the exterior point method	Unable to coordinate the output of various power sources
[34]	Distribution networks considering the carbon emission allowance on the demand side	A multiagent-based bilevel operation framework	Transfer the responsibility for carbon emissions from generation to demand	Without considering the carbon emission flow
[35]	All datacenter clusters across Google’s fleet	A suite of analytical pipelines used to gather the next day’s carbon intensity forecasts	Minimizes electricity-based carbon footprint and by delaying temporally flexible workloads	Unable to coordinate the output of various power sources
[36]	A low-carbon optimal scheduling model with demand response based carbon intensity control	The carbon emission flow model	The storage emission and relevant dynamic impacts to the system are fully considered.	Without considering the renewable energy
[37]	The direct current transmission system	Direct current dynamic optimal power flow with carbon emission trading	Presents a distributed alternating direction method of multipliers approach	Without considering the renewable energy
[38]	Combined renewable and coal power system	Multi-objective optimization framework	Consider the carbon capture systems	Without considering the carbon emission flow
[39]	Power system from source-grid-load-storage	Bi-level alternating optimal scheduling model	Integrate the carbon emission flow with the power flow	Unable to coordinate the output of various power sources
[40]	Power system and demand-side response	Two-stage low- carbon optimization scheduling model	Stimulate the change of electricity consumption behavior on the demand side to reduce the carbon emissions.	Unable to coordinate the output of various power sources
[41]	Power system and demand-side response	Load aggregators participate in the demand response market framework	Meet the target of minimum carbon emissions with the lowest cost of power grid operation and best sharpening effect	Without considering the carbon emission flow

 

（8）Authors transformed this manuscript into a  mathematical one, less adequate to the structure of this journal..

Think about it…

The manuscripts needs to be adapted to this specific journal, in both style and scope

 

Thank you for your suggestion! The author learned from the official website of the journal：According to the scope of Sustainability, they encourage researchers to publish their experimental, computational, and theoretical research relating to natural and applied sciences, engineering, economics, social sciences, and humanities in detail to promote scientific and other understanding and to permit predictions and impact assessments of global change and development related to sustainability. This article is dedicated to exploring the dynamic calculation method of partitioned carbon emissions in power systems, helping scholars have a more complete understanding of the partitioned carbon emission dynamic calculation method based on production simulation and carbon emission flow theory. Detailed presentation of the mathematical theory of the calculation method is helpful for readers to understand the calculation method proposed in this article. The research results can guide the formulation of unit combination strategies that consider carbon emission factors and power flow constraints. The research purpose is highly consistent with the main theme of the journal and is in line with the areas and development goals of Sustainability, which should be in line with the journal's focus areas.

 

 

I am confident that these revisions will bring our manuscript closer to meeting the high standards of your esteemed journal. I look forward to your further consideration of our work and appreciate your continued support throughout this process.

 

Sincerely, Xin Huang, Keteng Jiang, Shuxin Luo, Haibo Li, and Zongxiang Lu

 

Keteng Jiang

Tsinghua Sichuan Energy Internet Research Institute

[email protected]

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Carbon emission dynamic calculation method is a very important problem. Power system is the main source of carbon emissions.  Power system carbon emissions measurement by overcoming the limitations of existing approaches is meaningful. The manuscript is well researched, but I think it still needs further improvement.

1.     Power systems are a major application area for this technology. It seems appropriate to reflect this in the title.

2.     In order to establish a strategy of a low-carbon target for the source-grid-load-storage system during the operational phase, before proposed a new method in the article, it is necessary to adequately compare the existing research strengths, weaknesses and shortcomings. It will make easier to show the strengths of the manuscript.

3.     Manuscript designed numerous symbols and formulas. Abbreviated lists are considered to be easier to understand the research.

4.     Equations (20)-(26) are all constraints, but the scope of the curly brackets seems too narrow.

5.     In “Table 4.Load carbon emission rate of IEEE 14- bus system”, double result look like same. Where Deviation come from?

6.     How to understand the base colour of Table 5.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some content hard to understand and need to be reworked

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Dear reviewer:

 

I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for the opportunity to revise and improve our manuscript, titled "Dynamic calculation method for zonal carbon emissions in power systems based on the theory of production simulation and carbon emission flow theory", in response to the thoughtful and constructive comments provided by the reviewers. Your insightful feedback has been invaluable in identifying areas where our work can be further strengthened and clarified.

 

I have carefully reviewed each of the comments and suggestions, and I am pleased to report that we have addressed all points raised to the best of our abilities. In this revised version, we have made substantial revisions to enhance the clarity, accuracy, and overall impact of our findings. Specifically listed as follows:

 

1. Power systems are a major application area for this technology. It seems appropriate to reflect this in the title.

--Thank you for your suggestion! The title has been changed to "Dynamic calculation method for zonal carbon emissions in power systems based on the theory of production simulation and carbon emission flow theory".

2.     In order to establish a strategy of a low-carbon target for the source-grid-load-storage system during the operational phase, before proposed a new method in the article, it is necessary to adequately compare the existing research strengths, weaknesses and shortcomings. It will make easier to show the strengths of the manuscript.

--I fully agree with your suggestion. The last two paragraphs of the introduction introduce the existing research methods, such as the collaborative low-carbon economic dispatch strategy of source-grid-load distribution considering the double-layer reward and punishment carbon trading mechanism in Reference [10], the two-stage low-carbon dispatch model of pre-scheduling and re-scheduling based on super carbon demand response in Reference [11], the calculation method of power system carbon emission flow based on power flow distribution matrix in Reference [12], and the low-carbon economic dispatch model of the electricity-gas interconnected system established with the goal of minimizing the total daily operating cost of the system in Reference [13]. And the author has further created a table to provide a more intuitive comparison of the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of the existing research methods.

3. 
   Manuscript designed numerous symbols and formulas. Abbreviated lists are considered to be easier to understand the research.
   
   

--Thank you again for your valuable advice. A table of abbreviations has been added at the end of the article to help readers quickly find the meanings of the variables.

 

4. Equations (20)-(26) are all constraints, but the scope of the curly brackets seems too narrow.
   
   

--There may be some misunderstanding here. The two inequalities in formula (21) are meant to represent the same constraint condition, rather than encompassing all constraint expressions.

 

5. In “Table 4.Load carbon emission rate of IEEE 14- bus system”, double result look like same. Where Deviation come from?
   
   

--Compared with the references, the main error in this paper comes from the equivalent calculation of power flow. The traditional method for calculating power flow between nodes is:

In the formula, P_ij and Q_ij represent the active and reactive power flows of branch ij, respectively; V_i and V_j represent the voltage magnitudes of node i and node j, respectively; G_ij and B_ij represent the mutual conductance and mutual susceptance between node i and node j, respectively; θ_ij represents the voltage phase angle difference between node i and node j. The proposed system power flow calculation method based on the node incidence matrix makes the following equivalent treatment for the angle calculation in the calculation process:

• The voltage of each node in a normally operating power system is usually close to the rated voltage, so it can be approximately considered that V_i = V_j = 1.
• The voltage phase angle difference between the two ends of the line is very small, so θ_ij ≈ 0, thus sin θ_ij = θ_ij ,and cos θ_ij = 1.
• In an extra-high voltage network, the line resistance is much smaller than the reactance, so the resistance can be ignored, r_ij = 0.

Thus, the power flow constraints between nodes can be equivalently expressed as:

In the formula, P_B represents the branch power flow distribution matrix; B_L represents the system admittance matrix; θ_L represents the system node phase angle matrix. Due to the above equivalent treatments made in the proposed method, some errors have arisen. The author has further modified the data in Tables 2, 3, and 4 to retain 3 decimal places, which can more intuitively reflect the errors when comparing with the literature.

6. 
   How to understand the base colour of Table 5.
   
   

--In Table 5, green represents the output of renewable energy sources (wind power and photovoltaic), yellow represents the output of various power sources, blue represents the power flow between nodes, and gray represents carbon emissions. The addition of background colors makes it easier and more intuitive to locate the data columns.

I am confident that these revisions will bring our manuscript closer to meeting the high standards of your esteemed journal. I look forward to your further consideration of our work and appreciate your continued support throughout this process.

 

Sincerely, Xin Huang, Keteng Jiang, Shuxin Luo, Haibo Li, and Zongxiang Lu

 

Keteng Jiang

Tsinghua Sichuan Energy Internet Research Institute

[email protected]

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.

 

 

 

WE need to see REF each time the content is not absolutely original…

“, specifically, it is a diagonal matrix expressed as P N ij ? 0，?i ? j ? , whose diagonal elements calculation methods are as follows:”

 

 

Still:

“Authors transformed this manuscript into a  mathematical one, less adequate to the structure of this journal..

Think about it…

 

The manuscripts needs to be adapted to this specific journal, in both style and scope”

 

I think the manuscript similarity is not “SOLVED” and in fact the compromise the whole paper, it is not a question of changing, it is a question if the originality is there…

Is it? I believe not.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

moderate

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your thorough review and the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We acknowledge that addressing concerns around originality and adapting the manuscript to better fit the scope and style of the journal are crucial aspects of the publication process. In response to your suggestions, we have the following responses:

 

(1) WE need to see REF each time the content is not absolutely original…

“, specifically, it is a diagonal matrix expressed as P N ij ? 0，?i ? j ? , whose diagonal elements calculation methods are as follows:”

The calculation method for carbon emission flow in the power system can be referenced from [16], as the author has stated in the first sentence of Chapter 2. However, beyond the theoretical basis provided in the reference, this paper further proposes a systematic approach to calculating carbon emissions that takes into account the interconnection of multiple power units. Additionally, while the reference employs matrix inversion (Equation (1)) to calculate the carbon potential at each node, it acknowledges the potential challenges of solving large matrices comprising multiple nodes, such as difficulties in computation and reduced accuracy. In contrast, this paper presents conventional numerical methods (Equation (2)) for solving the elements in the carbon potential matrix, thereby avoiding issues of insolvability and slow computation speeds.

                                                                     (1)

                                                         (2)

Therefore, to facilitate readers' direct understanding of the detailed process of this method, this paper briefly elaborates on the calculation method of system carbon emissions through Equations (1) to (4), which does not fully plagiarize other authors' work but demonstrates a certain degree of innovation and the necessity of its presentation.

Furthermore, in Section 3, "Simulation Models for New-Generation Power Systems Operation," traditional sequential operation simulation models primarily focus on constructing constraints such as power balance across multiple entities including thermal power, energy storage, and demand-side response，while some studies can further refine the multi-entity output at each node. However, it is difficult to account for the combined output of different units within the same power source type at each node. For example, given that the current thermal power, hydropower, and photovoltaic outputs at Node 1 are 10MW, 1MW, and 0.5MW, respectively, it is challenging to determine the optimal output combination of Thermal Power Units 1, 2, and 3 at this node under the constraints of dynamic carbon emissions, system economics, ramp rates, and start-stop operations. Should the output combination be [0.3, 0.3, 0.4]? Or [0.4, 0.4, 0.2]? Or perhaps another combination?

To propose a multi-node, multi-energy unit output combination strategy that balances economic low-carbon requirements with actual operational needs, this paper introduces a node-linking matrix to accurately represent the connection relationships between the minimum output units of multiple entities such as thermal power, energy storage, and demand-side response at each node. Therefore, to assist readers in quickly understanding the mathematical models presented in this paper, it is essential to detail the mathematical expressions of the relevant objective functions and constraints in the sequential operation simulation model after incorporating the node-linking matrix.

In conclusion, the mathematical formulas listed by the author are primarily intended to facilitate readers' rapid comprehension of the calculation methods of the proposed models. Additionally, the author has cited relevant references in a standardized manner, which complies with the originality requirements for paper publication.

 

(2)Regarding the concern about originality, we would like to clarify that our work presents novel insights and methodologies within the context of our research field. While mathematical formulations are inherent to our discipline, we have taken care to ensure that the application and interpretation of these formulations are unique and contribute to advancing the understanding of the subject matter. We understand the importance of proper attribution and have diligently cited all relevant prior work to maintain the integrity of our research.

In light of your feedback, we have re-examined our manuscript to ensure that the originality of our contributions is clearly communicated. We have revised the Introduction and Discussion sections to highlight how our findings differ from and build upon existing literature. Furthermore, we have included additional references to strengthen the connections between our work and the broader research landscape.

It can be seen that none of the mentioned studies offer guidance on the coordinated output combination for various types of units at individual nodes. Optimizing the coordinated output of diverse unit combinations directly impacts the size of carbon emission sources and is crucial for achieving safe and low-carbon operation in modern power systems. Therefore, analyzing the coordinated output combination of multiple types of units under each node is crucial.

This paper proposed a new power flow calculation method based on connectivity matrix theory and a new method for dynamic calculation of regional carbon emission based on connectivity matrix and carbon emissions flow, which improved the accuracy of carbon emission measurement.

 

(3) Regarding the need to adapt the manuscript to the journal's style and scope, we appreciate your guidance in this regard. We have carefully reviewed the journal's author guidelines and made adjustments to the structure, tone, and focus of our manuscript to better align with the journal's preferences. We have aimed to maintain the rigor and technical depth of our work while presenting it in a manner that is accessible and engaging to the journal's readership.

 

We hope that these revisions have addressed your concerns about originality and journal fit. We are committed to ensuring that our work meets the highest standards of academic integrity and journal requirements. If you have any further suggestions or require any additional clarifications, please do not hesitate to let us know.

 

Thank you again for your valuable input. We look forward to the opportunity to further refine our manuscript and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in our field.

 

Sincerely, Xin Huang, Keteng Jiang, Shuxin Luo, Haibo Li, and Zongxiang Lu

 

Keteng Jiang

Tsinghua Sichuan Energy Internet Research Institute

[email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the manuscript improved significantly after the author's revisions. I believe it is already suitable for published in Sustainability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and efforts in reviewing our manuscript, as well as for your kind and encouraging feedback. We are delighted to hear that the quality of our work has significantly improved after the revisions we have made. Your positive assessment is greatly appreciated and serves as a valuable affirmation of our efforts.

We are particularly grateful for your belief that the manuscript is now suitable for publication in Sustainability. This recognition motivates us to continue striving for excellence in our research endeavors. We would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation for your insightful comments and guidance throughout the review process. Your expertise and dedication have undoubtedly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript.

Once again, thank you for your invaluable contribution. We look forward to the next steps in the publication process and hope that our work can contribute positively to the field of sustainability.

Warm regards, Xin Huang, Keteng Jiang, Shuxin Luo, Haibo Li, and Zongxiang Lu

 

Keteng Jiang

Tsinghua Sichuan Energy Internet Research Institute

[email protected]

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.

 

This is clearly not the way to refer to the reference.

“The calculation method for carbon emission flow in the power system can refer to reference [16]. T”

Please acknowledge that similarity is significant in the methods section and references are presented once

 

Preferences are to be included in a separate column so that we know what comes from where

“Table 2 The typical carbon emission factors for various types of power generation units”

 

I would say that sometimes it becomes painful to look at the responses of the authors in to my original comments the manuscript has in fact been improved but I would ask authors to consider the problem of global similarity again and again and again, it affects us all

Comments on the Quality of English Language

moderate

Author Response

Dear Mr. Han Tan and Reviewers,

Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript titled "Dynamic calculation method based on the theory of production simulation and carbon emission flow theory." We have carefully considered all the comments and suggestions provided and have made the necessary revisions to our manuscript. Below is a detailed response to each of the points raised by the reviewers.

1. Highlighting Changes:

We have highlighted all the changes made in the revised manuscript in yellow, as requested.

2. Correct Referencing:

We acknowledge the issue with the way references were cited. We have now corrected the referencing format to ensure clarity and consistency throughout the manuscript. Specifically, we have revised the sentence to: "The calculation method for carbon emission flow in the power system [16], provides a comprehensive approach to our study."

3. Acknowledging Similarity in Methods Section:

We understand the importance of acknowledging the similarity in the methods section. We have now clearly stated the similarities and differences between our method and those presented in the literature, ensuring that our approach is distinct and well-explained.

4. Separate Column for Preferences:

As suggested, we have included a separate column in the revised manuscript to detail the preferences for each parameter. This will help readers understand the origin and basis of each preference clearly.

5. Table 2 Revision:

We have revised Table 2, "The typical carbon emission factors for various types of power generation units," to ensure that it is more informative and relevant to the content of the manuscript. We have also cross-referenced this table with the text to enhance its utility. The typical power generation carbon emission factors for various types of units are shown in Table 2 [42].

[42] Yaowang, L.; Yuliang, L.; Xiaobin, Y.; et al. Electricity Carbon Metering Method Considering Electricity Transaction Information. Proceedings of the Chinese Society for Electrical Engineering, 2024, 44(02):439-451.DOI:10.13334/j.0258-8013.pcsee.222323.

6. Addressing Global Similarity:

We have taken the reviewer's concern about global similarity very seriously. We have re-evaluated our manuscript and made additional revisions to ensure that our work is unique and contributes novel insights to the field. We have also ensured that all references are cited appropriately to avoid any issues of similarity.

 

We are confident that these revisions have improved the manuscript and addressed all the concerns raised by the reviewers. We appreciate the opportunity to refine our work and hope that the revised manuscript meets the expectations of the journal.

Thank you once again for your time and valuable feedback.

 

Kind regards,

Keteng Jiang Co-Corresponding Author E-Mail: [email protected]

Xin Huang Co-Corresponding Author E-Mail: [email protected]

Shuxin Luo E-Mail: [email protected]

Haibo Li E-Mail: [email protected]

Zongxiang Lu E-Mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx