Hybrid Pumped Hydro Storage Energy Solutions towards Wind and PV Integration: Improvement on Flexibility, Reliability and Energy Costs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper studies “Hybrid pumped hydro storage energy solutions towards wind and PV integration” . The research content is innovative and can attract readers' interest.  However, there are some problems in the structure, writing method and performance of the paper, and the readability is poor. Therefore, I personally suggest that the paper reconsider after major revision. Specific opinions are as follows:

1 Abstract needs to be modified and improved. Abstract is the summary of the main work of the paper, which should reflect the innovation of the research work.

2 The content of the frontier is too few. It is necessary to describe the research background and the existing achievements. In addition, the main structure and content of this paper should be included.

3 The pumped storage part shown in Figure 1 uses independent turbine and pump. However, the reversible pump-turbine units are widely used at present. Can the author consider using them.

4 The figure is not clear, the formula format is relatively disordered, and the font of formula does not need to be bold.

5 The structure of the article is not standard and the readability is poor. The meaning of the symbol is best in the text. At the same time, the article lacks the conclusion chapter “Conclusion”.

Author Response

In attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract should contain more results.

line 64 " This work aims to address" It is not clear if this part is about Author's paper or manuscript [5]

Title of 2.1. should be changed and this part of chapter 2 reorginized.

Formulas 3-7 need corrections (superscripts in units, adding all units, correction of format to put number of equ. the same line  etc.)

What in fact present tables 2 and 3? Authors' results or literature review?

What are conclusions?

Generally manuscript needs many improvements, reorganization and clarification of its aim before can be considered for publication 

 

Author Response

In attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This study presents hybrid pumped hydro storage energy solutions for wind and PV integration. While the topic is not new, the study is good and the results are clearly presented. I do recommend this paper for publication, but I just have some minor comments that should be considered before publication. Here are my comments:

1- When using abbreviations for the months please use English abbreviations. For example, in Figures 3 and 4, August is abbreviated as "ago" and December is abbreviated as "dez". Those are not English abbreviations. Please correct that at all the necessary locations in the manuscript.

2- More that 50% of the references are old. Try to cite newer references from 2016-2020.

3- In the results section, the figures and the tables are too much compared to the text. You need to add more discussion and interpretation of the figures and tables presented in the results section.

Author Response

in attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors improved the paper significantly.

Formulas need some corrections - as now - part is in bold, different size and numbers of Equ. are not in the same line.

After it the manuscript can be published.

Author Response

Thank you to the Reviewer. There seems to be a problem when submitting, however the authors tried to reformat the article in order to remove the bold and to correct the different size and numbers of Equations.