Design Optimization of a Grid-Tied Hybrid System for a Department at a University with a Dispatch Strategy-Based Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please refer to the attached file for my comments and suggestions. My comments are mostly editorial and intended to improve the papers' outreach and extent of policy implications.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English writing is generally fine, with only minor spelling corrections needed.

Author Response

Reviewer#1, Concern #1: Referee Report: Design Optimization of a Grid-tied Hybrid System for a Department at a University with Dispatch Strategy based Assessment Overall assessment. This paper provides an important assessment of a grid-tied hybrid system that uses different sources of energy. Given the paramount importance of exploring energy-efficient economically-viable power solutions, this paper provides a relevant contribution to the literature and I have no reservations with respect to the core analysis conducted by the authors.

 

Author response:  The authors would like to thank the respected reviewer for the valuable comments and time in reviewing the manuscript. The authors appreciate the valuable thinking and effort of the respected reviewer and have given highest priority to satisfy the issues raised by the honorable reviewer.

 

The authors have considered the comment of the respected reviewer with the highest priority and have corrected the manuscript accordingly. The authors do believe that the comments of the respected reviewer will definitely help enhancing the quality and acceptability of the manuscript.

 

The authors are grateful towards the learned reviewer for the appreciation. The kind words of the reviewer mean a lot to the authors.

 

Author action: The authors have divided the comment of the respected reviewer into several sections and have tried to provide satisfactory answers to the queries raised by the honorable reviewer.

 

Reviewer#1, Concern #2: Instead, my only reservation with the paper in its present form relates to its overall exposition, particularly the discussion provided and recommended applications. In a nutshell, I believe the authors are shying away from important policy discussions given that their exercise directly considers the costs and efficiencies of hybrid-grid systems. In doing so, the authors convey the idea that their results are only applicable to PUST department of EECE or other parts of the world with similar demand patterns and weather conditions. I appreciate that the authors take a conservative stance regarding policy implications. However, I believe the authors should provide a broader discussion along three lines: (i) technical applicability, (ii) demand, and (iii) financing.

Technical applicability. The core analysis of the paper is properly conducted, but the authors should provide a clearer/deeper contextualization of the findings beyond just saying that results apply to locations with similar weather.

⋄ For example, would a country like Brazil with an energy matrix mostly reliant on hydroelectric power also benefit from grid-tied hybrid systems? Would the economic viability change instead?

⋄ How exactly does weather affect the optimization parameters of the problem?

⋄ How would a system that relies on solar energy perform in a location such as California, given the recent trends in the hourly pattern of energy usage (https://www.cnet.com/home/energy-andutilities/the-duck-curve-what-is-it-and-is-it-a-problem/)?

 

 

Author response: The authors are grateful towards the learned reviewer for the appreciation and constructive comments. The author has already provided a brief discussion along with those three sections (i) technical applicability, (ii) demand, and (iii) financing through out the manuscript by articulating and arranging in introduction, methodological approach and results and discussion section.

The authors have provided a clearer/deeper contextualization of the findings in the methodological approaches, results and discussion and conclusion sections. The author clearly explained the reason why the proposed model can be used for similar meteorological conditions in the last part of the results and discussion section.

 

Author action: N/A

 

 

Reviewer#1, Concern #3: Demand for energy efficiency. A important aspect that the authors have not discussed is the fact that over the past decades, there was a massive increase in demand for projects related to renewable energy and the “green economy.” Specifically, the popularity of ESG investing increased substantially (Dantas, 2021), with the total assets under management held by institutional investors following ESG criteria skyrocketing in the past decade (Dantas, 2021). Hence, it is important to discuss that grid-tied hybrid systems are likely to be deemed attractive ventures by large investment management companies.

Funding availability. While the increase in demand for efficient grid-tied hybrid systems should naturally come from ESG investing (Dantas, 2021), international capital flows play a crucially important role in ensuring that efficient energy projects receive financing. Given that the analysis of the paper is recent and conducted in an emerging market economy, the authors should consider the abnormal capital flows stemming from monetary expansions and their effects on emerging economies such as Bangladesh (Cortes et al., 2022). Considering that recent monetary expansions were multilateral in nature, capital flows to emerging markets should be mostly benign (Cortes et al., 2022).

References

Cortes, G. S., G. P. Gao, F. B. Silva, and Z. Song (2022). Unconventional Monetary Policy and Disaster Risk: Evidence from the Subprime and COVID–19 Crises. Journal of International Money and Finance 122, 102543. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2021.102543.

Dantas, M. (2021). Are ESG Funds More Transparent? Available at SSRN 3269939. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3269939.

Author response:  The authors would like to thank the respected reviewer for the valuable comments and time in reviewing the manuscript. The author has revised the introduction section by introducing recent literature review according to the suggested manuscript by the reviewer. Demand for energy efficiency and funding availability have been described along with the technical feasibility of the proposed system. Further, the suggested papers by the respected reviewer has been incorporated in the reference list.

Author action: N/A

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research study designs and evaluates a grid-connected hybrid microgrid for the Electrical, Electronic and Communication Engineering department at Pabna University of Science and Technology that consists of a diesel generator, solar PV, battery storage, and wind turbine. The research is meaningful, but modifications need to be made to the following comments：

1.     The abstract section states too many specific numbers, and it is suggested simply stating the basic comparison results clearly. Furthermore, the ultimate significance of research should be stated, rather than simply stating what should be done.

2.     The authors stated: The results of the study fill up the previously mentioned research gap in this field. The authors should not make things so absolute, is the fact really like that? Suggest the authors to weaken this expression and conduct more thorough research on relevant research results from various countries in the introduction section.

3.     The authors should analyze and summarize the specific content of Figures 1 and 2, rather than just stating what Figures 1 and 2 are. If there are similar situations.

4.     Can the authors consider presenting and summarizing the defining description of DiS in the introduction section instead of starting in the third chapter.

5.     The description of Figures 3 to 7 should be refined and supplemented, as the current statement is too simplistic.

6.     Can the authors adjust the theoretical derivation in the Problem Formula to the front of the current Chapter 2 (this is just a suggestion, the author will verify the relevant logic).

7.     Is there too little description about Discussion on the result? In my personal opinion, since the authors are so positive about their research results and fills the gap, it is more important to focus on the discussion section. Especially state the relationship between one's research findings and other research findings, even if they are not directly related.

8.     The authors should verify the tense expression in the manuscript.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This research study designs and evaluates a grid-connected hybrid microgrid for the Electrical, Electronic and Communication Engineering department at Pabna University of Science and Technology that consists of a diesel generator, solar PV, battery storage, and wind turbine. The research is meaningful, but modifications need to be made to the following comments：

1.     The abstract section states too many specific numbers, and it is suggested simply stating the basic comparison results clearly. Furthermore, the ultimate significance of research should be stated, rather than simply stating what should be done.

2.     The authors stated: The results of the study fill up the previously mentioned research gap in this field. The authors should not make things so absolute, is the fact really like that? Suggest the authors to weaken this expression and conduct more thorough research on relevant research results from various countries in the introduction section.

3.     The authors should analyze and summarize the specific content of Figures 1 and 2, rather than just stating what Figures 1 and 2 are. If there are similar situations.

4.     Can the authors consider presenting and summarizing the defining description of DiS in the introduction section instead of starting in the third chapter.

5.     The description of Figures 3 to 7 should be refined and supplemented, as the current statement is too simplistic.

6.     Can the authors adjust the theoretical derivation in the Problem Formula to the front of the current Chapter 2 (this is just a suggestion, the author will verify the relevant logic).

7.     Is there too little description about Discussion on the result? In my personal opinion, since the authors are so positive about their research results and fills the gap, it is more important to focus on the discussion section. Especially state the relationship between one's research findings and other research findings, even if they are not directly related.

8.     The authors should verify the tense expression in the manuscript.

 

Author Response

Reviewer#2, Concern #: This research study designs and evaluates a grid-connected hybrid microgrid for the Electrical, Electronic and Communication Engineering department at Pabna University of Science and Technology that consists of a diesel generator, solar PV, battery storage, and wind turbine. The research is meaningful, but modifications need to be made to the following comments：

Author response:  The authors would like to thank the respected reviewer for the valuable comments and time in reviewing the manuscript. The authors appreciate the valuable thinking and effort of the respected reviewer and have given highest priority to satisfy the issues raised by the honorable reviewer.

The authors have considered the comments of the respected reviewer with the highest priority and have corrected the manuscript accordingly. The authors do believe that the comments of the respected reviewer will definitely help enhancing the quality and acceptability of the manuscript.

Author action: N/A

 

Reviewer#2, Concern # 1: The abstract section states too many specific numbers, and it is suggested simply stating the basic comparison results clearly. Furthermore, the ultimate significance of research should be stated, rather than simply stating what should be done.

Author response:  The authors thank the respected reviewer for the valuable comments. The authors have reviewed the abstract and have taken necessary actions according to the comment of the respected reviewer.

Author action: The mention of specific numbers in the abstract section is now reduced with the basic statement of the result. Further, the significance of the research has been clearly stated as a correction.

 

Reviewer#2, Concern # 2: The authors stated: The results of the study fill up the previously mentioned research gap in this field. The authors should not make things so absolute, is the fact really like that? Suggest the authors to weaken this expression and conduct more thorough research on relevant research results from various countries in the introduction section.

Author response:  The authors thank the respected reviewer for the concern. There are some research gaps in this domain of research. This present research work is intended for reducing the gap. But on the other hand, it is true that this can be presented in other ways rather than making things so absolute. According to the comment, the authors have worked on the statement and have changed it accordingly.

Author action: In the manuscript, the mentioned expression has been deleted and have incorporated some more thorough research results which are relevant in the introduction section.

 

Reviewer#2, Concern # 3: The authors should analyze and summarize the specific content of Figures 1 and 2, rather than just stating what Figures 1 and 2 are. If there are similar situations.

Author response:  The authors would like to thank the respected reviewer for the valuable comment and wonderful suggestion. A more detailed description on the mentioned figures are now presented within the manuscript.

Author action: The detailed summary and analysis of the mentioned figures are now placed within the manuscript.

 

Reviewer#2, Concern # 4: Can the authors consider presenting and summarizing the defining description of DiS in the introduction section instead of starting in the third chapter.

Author response:  The authors would like to thank the respected reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions.

Author action: According to the comment, now the manuscript contains the defining description of DiS in the introduction where DiS has been mentioned first.

 

Reviewer#2, Concern # 5: The description of Figures 3 to 7 should be refined and supplemented, as the current statement is too simplistic.

Author response:  The authors would like to thank the respected reviewer for the valuable comment. The figures mentioned in the comment are mainly diagrams and/or flow charts which are self-explanatory. So, further discussion on them would be redundant. So, the authors did not describe them in the first place. But now, according to the comment, the figures have been briefly described in their relevant sections.

Author action: As the respected reviewer has suggested, now the figures have refined and supplemented descriptions in the relevant sections.

 

Reviewer#2, Concern # 6: Can the authors adjust the theoretical derivation in the Problem Formula to the front of the current Chapter 2 (this is just a suggestion, the author will verify the relevant logic).

Author response:  The authors would like to thank the respected reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions.

As suggested by the respected reviewer, the manuscript is organized in such a fashion that, chapter 2 will describe the formation or modelling of the microgrid. On the other hand chapter 3 will discuss the methodological approach. One part of the methodology is the discussion of necessary formulations and mathematical derivations. So, the authors do believe that, the problem formulation section should stay under chapter 3. Hope this satisfies the learned reviewer.

Author action: N/A.

 

Reviewer#2, Concern # 7: Is there too little description about Discussion on the result? In my personal opinion, since the authors are so positive about their research results and fills the gap, it is more important to focus on the discussion section. Especially state the relationship between one's research findings and other research findings, even if they are not directly related.

Author response:  The authors would like to thank the respected reviewer for the valuable comment and constructive suggestion.

The discussion on the result section has now been modified with further elaborated discussion on the findings. As these microgrids have different configurations (i.e., different microgrid components, resource profiles, control algorithms, load demands, and geographical locations) and the performances of the systems largely vary upon these factors, it is hard to find suitable research for comparison purpose. If the configurations are not same, then the output parameters (i.e., costs, emissions, power system responses etc.) will vary inherently. So, there would be no significant meaning of the comparison. Moreover, according to a previous comment of the respected reviewer, (comment 2), the research gap related statement has been eliminated from the manuscript. So, the authors have decided to discuss the findings of the work more elaborately and have skipped the comparison with other works as a future work. Hope the respected reviewer is satisfied with the corrections made.

Author action: According to the comment of the respected reviewer, now, the discussion section has been updated with elaborated discussions on the research findings.

 

Reviewer#2, Concern # 8: The authors should verify the tense expression in the manuscript.

Author response:  The authors would like to thank the respected reviewer for the important comments and valuable suggestions. The authors have reviewed the manuscript again and checked the tense expression in the manuscript. Now, the errors have been corrected and hopefully the respected reviewer will be satisfied.

Author action: N/A

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for their revisions and additions to the paper. Personally, I consider it is acceptable