Delay Compensation Control Strategy for Electric Vehicle Participating in Frequency Regulation Based on MPC Algorithm
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors are suggested to improve the manuscript by considering following points:
1) The beginning of the abstract is a bit distracted/disjointed/confused. Please rewrite that part to ensure a smooth flow of information.
2) It is better to refer the papers in the form of Author et al when referring in the paper. Calling every paper “literature”, though technically not wrong, is perhaps not the best way to do it.
3) There is a typo in Figure 2
4) Considering the following points, does it still make sense to claim the use of EVs for delay compensation control strategies in power grids? Perhaps the focus of the paper can be changed to battery banks rather than EV clusters.
a. There is no guarantee that when the EVs are needed either to draw extra load from the grid or to resupply load back to the grid, they will actually be connected to the grid. The main purpose of EVs is to be on the road, not being always tethered to the grid. How can this problem be solved?
b. The owners of EVs may not be ready to discharge their EVs to supply the grid when the frequency starts falling. Again, EVs are made to store energy which can be used to move around; not for resupplying the grid. Most EV owners will probably refuse to let the charge level of their EVs to fall by any margin. What is an acceptable solution to this? Public outreach? Government incentives?
c. The frequent charge-discharge of the batteries of an EV will no doubt affect its life. This will not be looked upon kindly by the owners of the EVs. How do we solve this?
5) Line 188: Isn’t it better to write than saying “the number of and equals 1”?
6) Line 154-161 statement regarding frequency response coefficient Kev and a first-order inertial system described with eq 6, needs a suitable reference. I encourage to cite a latest report https://doi.org/10.1002/aisy.202000084 on the topic which has been used in different machine learning and AI algorithms lately.
7) Line 248-249 are not clear. Please rephrase.
8) Section 4 gives many parameter values used for simulations. Is there a valid basis for selecting these particular values?
9) Please provide a clearer and sharper image for Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13. Some of the text is so blurry that it is completely not readable.
10) Figure 11 caption may be missing a word or two.
11) Line 376: Unnecessary capitalization?
12) Line 377: Non-uniform spacing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presents an interesting topic of a control strategy for the frequency response of electric vehicle participation based on model predictive control. The manuscript is mostly well structured and written. The theoretical aspects and the simulation's analysis and results are well described and discussed. I recommend publishing this work in its current form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Some comments and suggestions are given here:
1) The main contribution and originality should be explained in more detail.
2) Before section 2, a paragraph should be added to explain what will be discussed in each of the following sections, e.g., "The remainder of this paper is arranged as follows. In section 2, we provide literature review …".
3) What is the limitation of the proposed approach in practical applications?
4) Improve the quality of figures.
5) Compare your results with others published recently.
6) The future work should be explained in conclusion section or separately after conclusion as section 5.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
accept in present form
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have improved the article according to the recommendations. The article can be accepted for publication.
