Improved Performance of Bifacial Photovoltaic Modules with Low-Temperature Processed Textured Rear Reflector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Improved Performance of Bifacial Photovoltaic Modules with 2 Low Temperature Processed Textured Rear Reflectors" was reviewed, but I have the following observations that should be considered:

 

- The document should consider including the sections on Methodology and Review of Previous Work. As it is presented, it seems to be a technical report and not a research paper. The topic presented promises a lot and can become a substantial contribution.

 

- I have serious doubts about the experiments. Every light beam has three components, the incident, reflected and transmitted, in this sense it is not understood how the Current vs Voltage values ​​are obtained in Figure two only knowing the reflection levels. Even graphs are shown in different conditions. To prevent the reader from having these doubts, it is important to present a subsection referring to the formulation, it must be scientifically demonstrated.

 

- In the measurements, precision parameters, equipment characteristics, etc. must be considered. We do not know these details to attest that the measurements can be reproduced under these same conditions. I insist that it is important to know the percentage of light transmitted to the panel, which ultimately has a direct impact on energy production. What happens above the surface of the panel is not directly linked to energy production, unless it is addressed with what has been previously indicated. I repeat, it is an interesting topic, but it must be addressed with the rigor of the case.

 

- The conclusions are very basic, here is where the essential is shown, it must highlight relevance and be compact, it can be a great work, but if it is not synthesized in the end, it leaves me unsatisfied at the end. Metaphorically, they promote a great topic to me, they make me sit at the table and they do not offer me the promised banquet, in the end I have to get up and leave the place.

 

- Include in the conclusions the limitations of the study and the future work that can be carried out based on the final analysis.

 

I repeat, it is a very interesting topic, but it needs to be greatly deepened, I hope for a lot of encouragement from the authors to give a complete turn by addressing the essential as a true scientific article. I'm really looking forward to seeing your substantial improvements again. Good luck!!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The level of English is quite good.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for valuable comments on our paper, which allowed us to improve the quality of the paper significantly. Particularly, we appreciated the reviewer's considered that our paper is interesting. We address this in our point–by–point replies below. The change of manuscript is highlighted with blue letters for your convenience. The details of revision are described with reason in the attached file. Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Song et al. demonstrated improved efficiency of PVs by using rear reflectors. The results are interesting. Here is my evaluation.

1.    Introducing the rear reflectors is a unique approach; however, does it have any negative effect on the other properties, such as heating or heat dissipation?

2.    Also, using the rear reflectors could be problematic in cleaning those PV cells. Authors should comment on this

3.    Does the shape and size of the reflectors have any effect on the performance?

4.    The efficiency stability of the PV cells after integrating with rear reflectors should be included.

5.    What is the purpose of using ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA)?

6.    In the introduction, authors should emphasize the importance of Bifacial Photovoltaic Modules over conventional cells such as DSSC, QDSC, etc.  Authors should also refer some related articles such as 10.1016/j.renene.2020.12.024 , 10.1088/2053-1591/ab1a0f, 10.3390/en13174389, 10.1002/ese3.1497 and 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.2c02350 etc.

Author Response

We are thankful to this reviewer for a high opinion of our work and his/her comments. Especially, we appreciate him/her to recognize that “ The results are interesting”. Following reviewer’s comment, we carefully ironed out the manuscript, which allows us to improve the quality of our paper significantly. Please see the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The new version of the manuscript "Improved Performance of Bifacial Photovoltaic Modules with Low Temperature Processed Textured Rear Reflector" has been reviewed.

The authors have sufficiently addressed the comments made by this reviewer so I suggest its publication. Congratulations!!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have addressed all the queries and thus could be considered for publication.