Analyzing the Impact of Volatile Electricity Prices on Solar Energy Capture Rates in Central Europe: A Comparative Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I consider the topic of the article to be highly relevant. Nowadays, we encounter negative electricity prices on the exchange, which can be observed almost daily during sunny days. Negative prices bring significant problems. The article discusses the current situation on the electricity market in four countries, comparing the situations in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland. I have several comments that need to be included in the article: 1. I am missing information on whether a similar analysis can be performed for another renewable energy source, such as wind energy. 2. The article lacks crucial information about the data used to calculate the values for Average Day-Ahead Price, Capture Price for Solar, and Capture Rate Solar. Was this calculated based on 15-minute intervals, hourly intervals, or daily intervals? 3. I recommend adding an analysis of the market in Germany. 4. In the conclusions of the study, I expect an analysis and comparison of results between countries that have nuclear energy in their energy mix and those that do not. 5. The manuscript contains a duplicate description of Table 1 – on lines 60 and 297 – please correct this. 6. In line 258, the authors refer to Table 1, but it should reference Table 2 since it states, “While the highest prices in Poland were also recorded in 2022, comparing the maximum prices (Table 1) shows differences among the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland. In Poland, the price in August 2022 was 269 €/MWh, whereas in Slovakia, it was 492 €/MWh—a difference of 223 €/MWh.” 7. The abstract should also partially include the results from the article to engage the reader. A reader who does not want to read the entire article should be able to learn at least a small portion of the results from the abstract. 8. The conclusions and discussion should also mention other renewable energy sources – this comment is related to point 1. The authors should clearly state whether this analysis can also be applied to other renewable sources. They should also take a position on whether this analysis can be applied to sources such as nuclear energy in some countries, and similar sources, or if this research can only be applied to solar energy. This information is missing in the article. It is quite significant and should be included in the manuscript. 9. The manuscript lacks information on whether this research can be used to predict electricity prices – this is a highly debated topic. 10. For better visualization, I would suggest creating a graph of the Capture Price for Solar values for all countries from 2020 to 2024. These graphs could better demonstrate the results shown in the tables.

Author Response

Hello

We send you a document with your comments and our answer. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary of the Article

The article analyzes how the volatility of electricity prices affects the capture rates of solar energy in Central Europe. It uses parameters such as Capture Price for Solar (CPS) and Capture Rate Solar (CRS) to evaluate the economic effectiveness of photovoltaic (PV) plants in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland.

General Comments

The article addresses a relevant and timely topic for the scientific community, tackling a relevant issue in the transition to renewable energy sources. However, significant revisions are needed in several sections to improve the clarity, depth, and coherence of the study. The current version does not meet the minimum requirements of research papers, since it shows serious flaws, especially due to its low quality, lack of interest and impact, lack of state of the art analysis and poor structure among other issues.

Review and Suggested Improvements

1. Introduction

Problem: The introduction lacks a literature review and does not clearly establish the research gap or the specific objectives of the study. There is no structure for this section and there is no clear introduction for the paper and proposed structure for the remaining sections.

Suggestions:

• Literature Review: Include a comprehensive review of relevant previous research to provide the necessary context. At least several dozen references to related previous works should be included.
• Identification of the Research Gap: Clearly state the gap in the research that this study aims to fill.
• Establishment of Objectives: Define the specific objectives of the study clearly and concisely.

2. Methodology

Problem: The methodology section needs more details and justifications to ensure the validity and reliability of the results. Actually, there is no materials and methods section.

Suggestions:

• Methodological Details: Provide a more detailed description of the methods used, including data collection, analysis, and tools employed.
• Justification of Methods: Explain why certain methods were chosen and how they ensure the validity and reliability of the results.

3. Analysis of Results

Problem: The analysis of results could benefit from greater depth and comparison with previous studies. Also, a better structure is needed to show the results of the presented work.

Suggestions:

• In-Depth Analysis: Explain not only the results but also their significance and relevance in the context of the study.
• Comparison with Previous Studies: Compare the findings with results from previous studies to place the results in a broader context. Clarify their impact and alignment with literarure.

4. Discussion

Problem: The discussion needs a more critical interpretation of the results and an exploration of their practical implications. It should be a separated section of the conclusions.

Suggestions:

• Interpretation of Results: Discuss the results in detail, exploring their implications and possible explanations.
• Practical Implications: Discuss the practical implications of the findings for the industry and policymakers.

5. Conclusions

Problem: The conclusions should better summarize the key findings, provide clear recommendations, and suggest directions for future research.

Suggestions:

• Summary of Key Findings: Concisely summarize the key findings of the study.
• Recommendations: Provide clear recommendations based on the study's results.
• Future Directions: Suggest directions for future research, based on the limitations and findings of the current study.

6. Acronyms and Terminology

Problem: The use of repetitive terms without acronyms can make the text redundant.

Suggestions:

·         Incorporation of Acronyms: Use acronyms for frequently repeated terms, such as Capture Price for Solar (CPS) and Capture Rate Solar (CRS). Other possible acronyms include Photovoltaic (PV), Average Market Price of Electricity (AMPE), Day-Ahead Price (DAP).

• Definition of Acronyms: Ensure each acronym is defined the first time it is used in the document and then used consistently in any other case.

7. Major concerns

There are several major concerns with the article. On the one hand, the lack of impact and novelty points in the direction of rejection. The topic, while relevant, does not present new insights or methodologies that significantly advance the field. Furthermore, the methodology and analysis are not sufficiently innovative or in-depth to warrant publication.

Conclusion

The article addresses a scientific topic with a relevant focus but requires significant revisions to improve its clarity, depth, and scientific rigor. Implementing these suggestions could enhance the quality of the manuscript and increase its impact on the academic and professional community. After these suggestions, the manuscript could be ready for a thorough revision, but in its current state, it does not deserve publication in my honest opinion.

Author Response

Hello

We send you a document with your comments and our answer. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main issues are as follows。

 

1. The abstract lacks clear logic and fails to systematically introduce the main research content and significance of the paper. Especially in the part discussing the research significance, the logic is rather confused.

 

2. In the introduction section, it would be better to align the sequence of the research background introduction with that of the corresponding part in the abstract.

 

3. Similar issues in other parts of the article should also maintain consistency in the sequence of introduction.

 

4. I suggest thoroughly revising the overall logic of the paper. For example, in Section 2, 'Analysis of Electricity Price Trends,' there are many analyses that are unrelated to electricity price trends.

 

5. Many formats need to be properly revised, such as the format of author names in References 13 and 14, which differs from other references. There are also many inconsistencies in the format of other references.

 

6 . Please delete or modify some discussions unrelated to the main theme of this paper to ensure clarity in the research framework.

Author Response

Hello

We send you a document with your comments and our answer. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript provides a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the impact of volatile electricity prices on solar energy capture rates in Central Europe. The study spans multiple countries (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland) and covers data from 2018 to 2024, providing valuable insights into the efficiency and economic viability of photovoltaic power plants in these regions. The methodology is robust, and the use of CPS and CRS parameters is well-justified and clearly explained.

The analysis is thorough and the results are significant, highlighting the influence of geopolitical events and climatic conditions on electricity prices.

The comparative approach across several countries adds depth to the study, making it relevant for policymakers and investors in the energy sector.

Minor Corrections Needed:

Line 35:

Original: “Geopolitical situation, such as the war in Ukraine, have had”

Suggested Correction: “The geopolitical situation, such as the war in Ukraine, has had”

 

Line 277:

Original: “Average Day Ahead prices”

Suggested Correction: “Average DAP”

Additional Notes:

 

The authors should make the above minor corrections.

It is recommended to review the manuscript for any other minor mistakes or typographical errors before final acceptance.

 

Conclusion:

The new version of the manuscript is well-prepared and provides significant contributions to the understanding of solar energy capture rates in the context of volatile electricity prices. With the minor corrections suggested and a final and thorough revision, the manuscript will be ready for acceptance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The errors identified are in the main report. The authors should review completely the manuscript to identify any other mistakes.

Author Response

Thank you again for the comments. Your first review helped us improve our manuscript and highlighted gaps in its preparation. We also appreciate the second review. We have incorporated the feedback. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx