Optimal Energy Storage Configuration of Prosumers with Uncertain Photovoltaic in the Presence of Customized Pricing-Based Demand Response
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Revise and refine the abstract by highlighting the novelty more and adding the main quantitative findings.
2. What are the benefits and challenges of this paper to the field? Why is a new method needed?
3. The limitations and drawbacks of the existing methods should be discussed more clearly.
4. The contribution points should be rewritten concisely.
5. No reference has been cited as the origin of the equations throughout the manuscript. The authors should give references to the Equations and Figures if needed.
6. Literature review should be strengthened by adding few more papers focusing on the aspects of energy management of hybrid systems integrating energy storage to tackle the renewable energy sources uncertainty: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2022.2071504;http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.7611
7. The discussion of the results should be significantly expanded by comparing your research with existing research findings and highlighting novelty quantitatively.
8. Conclusion section is missing some perspective related to the future research work, quantify main research findings.
9. The authors need to add the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed method.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
We are thankful to the reviewer for spending time to review our work and for providing us with a very helpful set of comments and requests, which we believe have improved the strength of our manuscript and the presentation of our work significantly. We have endeavored to take all the remarks and requests strongly into account, and please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPan et al. proposed a pricing model to assist prosumers with uncertain photovoltaic power generation in optimizing their energy storage configuration and electricity consumption behaviors. However, the manuscript lacks important discussions and clarifications.
1. The paper employs numerous mathematical equations to elucidate the model, but these functions lack proper explanations, rendering many of them unclear and challenging to comprehend. For instance, Equation (15) introduces variables like S1^k, S2^k, B^k, and questions arise about their meanings. A clear, concise explanation for each function should be provided, rather than relying on readers to recall earlier explanations. Additionally, the reason behind squaring the variable G in Equation (15) needs clarification.
2. Emergency power supply is a crucial aspect of the model, yet its physical meaning and the real-world situations it represents are not adequately discussed. Authors should provide further clarification.
3. The assumption in line 247 that the forecast error follows a Gaussian distribution needs justification. Authors should explain the reasoning behind this assumption and consider whether it is reasonable.
4. The section from line 364 to line 366 presents a series of model prices. However, there is a notable difference in magnitude between the demand price, emergency power supply price, and demand response price compared to other prices. Authors should provide a clear explanation for this discrepancy.
5. The figures need reorganization, as some are left-aligned while others are right-aligned. Additionally, legends, such as in Figure 5, appear too small, and acronyms like SOC (State of Charge) should be defined. Moreover, all figures should include proper captions instead of only a title with a brief description.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
We are thankful to the reviewer for spending time to review our work and for providing us with a very helpful set of comments and requests, which we believe have improved the strength of our manuscript and the presentation of our work significantly. We have endeavored to take all the remarks and requests strongly into account, and please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis work is interesting. a two-layer iterative optimization customized pricing based model is proposed to describe the behaviors of prosumers with energy storage systems under uncertain PV. 4 strategies are considered, and the behaviors of prosumers under these strategies are analyzed, such as different energy storage configuration, different energy storage management methods.
I have some concerns:
Major issue:
The cost and size of the pv, energy storage systems may be given. And then the years to recoup the cost may be given.
The PV abandonment rate of 3 users may be given.
Minor issue:
The physical meaning of 2 Objective functions may be given.
In fig.4, the y axis may be pv power (kW), rather than pv energy (kWh). The characteristics of the pv power and procumer utility may be introduced briefly.
the algorithm to find the solutions may be given briefly.
The computation cost of the algorithms may be given.
The PV capacity increased from 7185.77 to 8196.97, an increase of 5 %. May be 10%, not 5%.
Author Response
We are thankful to the reviewer for spending time to review our work and for providing us with a very helpful set of comments and requests, which we believe have improved the strength of our manuscript and the presentation of our work significantly. We have endeavored to take all the remarks and requests strongly into account, and please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe reviewer's comments have been well addressed. The paper is improved and it can be published.
Author Response
We feel great thanks for the reviewer’s supportive comment on our paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised version addresses most of my concerns. I suggest a minor modification to the y-axis label in Figure 5. Add "(State of Charge)" after "SOC" to enhance clarity.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable comment on our paper.
As suggested, in the revised manuscript, we have modified the y-axis label of Figure 5 on page 14.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll my concerns are resolved, no further comments.
Author Response
We feel great thanks for the reviewer’s supportive comment on our paper.
