Flexible Regulation and Synergy Analysis of Multiple Loads of Buildings in a Hybrid Renewable Integrated Energy System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study by Mou Wu et al. has a number of interesting aspects that make an important contribution to the field of sustainable energy systems. Its creative solution to the flexibility issues with hybrid renewable integrated energy systems (HRIES) by creating adaptable load regulation models is one of its main advantages. This novel approach closes a gap in the literature and offers a workable framework for improving the sustainability and efficiency of building energy systems. A thorough case study that provides empirical support for the theoretical concepts put forward further enriches the work.

However, the following areas of improvement need to be considered:

1. A more thorough and critical examination of recent literature, including discussions of important topics, new developments in technology, and opposing viewpoints in the fields of sustainable building methods and renewable energy would be beneficial to the paper. 

2. A more comprehensive discussion of the research findings' policy implications and the provision of tangible implementation recommendations could enhance the paper's value to practitioners and decision-makers simultaneously.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. Those comments (in red font) are valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have carefully revised the full text in the revised manuscript. We also have responded to all of them and implemented corresponding revisions in the paper, which thus made it clearer and better.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript focuses heavily on the concept of flexible building management, but the approach feels like retrofitting existing models rather than innovative problem-solving. Although the integration of flexible load regulations is impressive, its real-world applicability seems constrained. It assumes ideal conditions and overlooks practical limitations, such as the variability of renewable energy sources and the adaptability of building infrastructures in diverse environments.

The manuscript lacks clarity in presenting the research objectives and methodology. The introduction should be more concise and focused on stating the problem addressed and the proposed solutions clearly. The paper could benefit from a more comprehensive comparison with existing literature to highlight how its findings contribute to or diverge from previously reported findings in the literature. The authors should comment on the practical limitations and challenges of implementing such systems on a large scale.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Can be improved. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. Those comments (in red font) are valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have carefully revised the full text in the revised manuscript. We also have responded to all of them and implemented corresponding revisions in the paper, which thus made it clearer and better.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This manuscript demonstrates the potential benefits of a flexible thermal load regulation model, the work is overall solid with clear presentations and workflows. I believe it meets the standard of the journal/issue, and I have some minor comments below:

 

 

 

 

• The abstract should be further polished in terms of language, ‘with a high proportion’,’unlocks’ these terms don’t seem very suitable for an abstract, and the word flexible is also overused.
• Figure 4, how is the typical hourly electrical load derived here? Please add simulation tool details and parameters if applicable.
• Please also elaborate on the data source on hourly electricity data from Figure 4, as these numbers will have a big impact on the final benefits analysis.
• Line 179, There is a typo of ‘TES’ which should be HES;
• Table 1, The term TES again appears please define TES or correct to HES;
• Please consider adding some uncertainty analysis on the weather scenarios; the current case study is solely based on one typical weather profile which eventually yields the contributions a bit limited. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See general comments

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. Those comments (in red font) are valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have carefully revised the full text in the revised manuscript. We also have responded to all of them and implemented corresponding revisions in the paper, which thus made it clearer and better.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a great job of improving their research article. 

All the best.