A Novel Energy Management Control Scheme for a Standalone PV System in a DC Nanogrid

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors propose in their paper a new energy management control scheme for a photovoltaic system in DC nanogrid. There are a few observations to be made in order to get the paper to be published.

First of all, the nanogrid keyword is used in the title and keyword section - it would be useful that the authors specify what makes the proposed system suitable to nanogrids (especially in the Conclusions section)

Secondly, figures 5 and 9 (taken from the PLECS models) could be improved - the title blocks are not readable - at least for the more relevant blocks. In Matlab/Simulink, the title of the blocks can be increased. I hope in PLECS too. Also, in figure 9, it would be best that Subsystem and Subsystem1 could be renamed to state exactly what they do.

Figure 13, which represents the flowchart of the MPPT algorithm, seems to contain multiple fonts. One for Start state, and something a little less readable for the others. It might be useful to redo the whole flowchart so it would not have so differently readable sections.

The observations related to English usage are made in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The observations related to English usage are made in the attached document.

Author Response

First of all, I want to thank the reviewer for the comments made as they allowed us to improve the article.

Below we indicate point by point what has been done to answer the questions raised:

1) A sentence about the importance of the work presented for nano grid has been added in the conclusions.

2) Figures 5 and 9 were revised as indicated.

3) The flowchart in Figure 13 has be revised with the text in the START block having the same font used for the other blocks.

4) We corrected the typos and improved the English.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper. Below you will find my comments: 

Please describe all symbols used in the formulas (for example in equation 8)

How do you choose the capacity of the battery 1 and battery 2? Can they have the same capacity? What if you choose too high or too low capacity? In my opinion, when you show a solution you should explain all of the aspects to the reader.

Is the solution you propose economically better than the existing solutions? What are the drawbacks?

Line 213: "The exploded" - I assume that you meant "explored"

Line 227: "During the first phase, the battery.." - which battery do you have in mind? Please identify the batteries in this part of the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality is ok. 

Author Response

Thank you for the notes made with the review of our article. In fact, it has now been improved compared to the version of the first submission.

The answers to your questions are the following:

1) Your opinion about the way to choose the batteries is right. Then we added a description of this (rows 109-115).

2) We added how to choose the batteries and something about the costs (see rows 115-120).

3) You are right, "exploded" was not correct. The right one is "expanded".

4) Now the battery has been specified.

 

Thank you again.