Barriers to Peer-to-Peer Energy Trading Networks: A Multi-Dimensional PESTLE Analysis
, Kaveh Khalilpour 1,*, Alexey Voinov 2 and Jonathan Paul Marshall 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe PESTLE analysis proposed by the Authors, rather than a unifying framework, is a literature review of the single thematic aspects related to the development of P2P systems. The approach is largely qualitative.
The paper is well-written and reads well.
The degree of novelty is limited. However, the literature cited provides a large (even if not exhaustive) amount of references that may form a useful basis for research in this area.
In the revision, the Authors should discuss more in detail the quantitative results contained in several articles and related to key issues such as
-the estimation of NPVs in the economic feasibility of P2P energy networks (e.g. Nikolas Spiliopoulos et al., Peer-to-peer energy trading for improving economic and resilient operation of microgrids,, Renewable Energy, 199, 2022)
-the use of LCA techniques in the environmental assessments (e.g. Gandiglio et al., Life cycle assessment of a renewable energy system with hydrogen-battery storage for a remote off-grid community, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 47, 77, 2022
-the game theoretic models contained in the references cited by the Authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review investigates the challenges and barriers facing P2P energy trading developments based on previous academic and industry studies, and provides a comprehensive multidimensional barrier analysis through a PESTLE approach to assess the barriers from a variety of perspectives. The review is very comprehensive and the discussion is detailed. The writing language has strong readability. Given this, I believe this review can be accepted as the present form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article discusses the increasing interest in 'sharing economy' concepts in the electricity sector, including peer-to-peer (P2P) energy trading, as a way to provide mutual benefits, promote renewable energy, and enable democratic control over local energy resources, while highlighting the slow development and limitations of these platforms and providing a comprehensive analysis of barriers across various perspectives using the PESTLE approach.
The article is well-written and suitable for publication, but requires the following clarifications and improvements:
1. In Figure 1, the transformer symbol is incorrect. It suggests that the current flows through the core. Please either take the transformer in a square or use an alternative symbol with two circles.
2. The idea of P2P connections (e.g., Blockchain) is the absence of a data center, so I have doubts whether Figure 1b is correct. The concept of a cloud marketplace is just one of the options. The authors mention this, for example, in line 215.
3. A physical grid connection is always bidirectional. The energy meter may not measure energy in both directions, but this energy, without the use of limiters such as a power guard, can always flow in two directions.
4. In Figure 3, the PESTLE analysis is described and divided, but only as issues. There is a lack of a table (figure) in which the barriers and their mitigation methods will be presented. What was promised in the abstract.
5. The authors should clearly emphasize their results.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe article requires minor language correction.
Author Response
Please see the attachement.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
