Optimization of Interconnected Natural Gas and Power Systems Using Mathematical Programs with Complementarity Constraints

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article's mpcc-based approach significantly reduces the Weymouth approximation error while balancing the optimality of approximation fidelity, problem complexity, and solution, which can support the effective optimization of electricity and gas interconnection networks. In order to further improve the content of the article, the following suggestions can be referred to:

1. There is an error character in line 131 on page 3, please check it by the author.

2、There are formatting problems in the formula numbering of the article, and the authors are suggested to make modifications, for example, the formula (2) on page 5 and the formula (4) on page 6, and so on.

3、The Figure coordinates in the article suggest the author to add units to prevent the meaning of unknown.

4, the article provides support for the effective optimization of electricity and gas interconnection networks, but does not consider the privacy of different subjects, and it is hoped that the authors can add this challenge to future research, which can be found in: Doi:org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.123275.

5. The article mentions the future extension of the MPCC framework to stochastic optimization under gas demand uncertainty, why is stochastic optimization considered as an approach? Should other uncertainties besides gas demand uncertainty be considered?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We truly appreciate the valuable comments. After a careful review, we have adopted all the observations in our
revised manuscript. 

Please find attached the point-by-point answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Comments for authors:

 

I have comments that contribute to improving the paper.
1.    The abstract is somewhat lengthy. Try condensing it into a shorter and more concise paragraph while still covering all key points.
2.    The introduction can be condensed as: The introduction addresses the rising demand for natural gas and its significance, followed by challenges in modeling pipeline networks and current approaches. Specific details from relevant studies can be incorporated into the literature review section, allowing for a more concise introduction.
3.    You've defined the term "Karush-Kuhn-Tucker" as "KKT" on page 3, row 115, but on page 7, row 241, you've used the full term again. Please double-check this and similar instances.
4.    In the introduction, on page 3, row 131, what has been inserted instead of "??"?
5.    I believe "cost function" could be used instead of "objective function cost."
6.    Why have parameter uncertainties not been taken into account in the modeling?
7.    There is a significant overlap between this manuscript and the paper with the DOI 10.3390/engproc2023039091. Therefore, the theoretical and scientific contribution needs improvement.
8.    In the text, both "8/9" and "9/8" have been used in different instances. Please review to determine if this is a typographical error.
9.    In conclusion, some sentences could be shortened for better readability.
10.    This version needs professional proofreading to address the minor grammatical errors and writing mechanics. Comments on the Quality of English Language

This version needs professional proofreading to address the minor grammatical errors and writing mechanics.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We truly appreciate the valuable comments. After a careful review, we have adopted all the observations in our
revised manuscript. 

Please find attached the point-by-point answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author answered my comments well and I have no further suggestions

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While I expected the parametric uncertainties to be addressed in this work, I do not have any further technical comments.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback regarding our manuscript. We have revised the English language and form following your suggestion. The manuscript has been externally checked and edited for clarity, grammar, and overall language quality.

We hope that these revisions meet your standards and look forward to your further evaluation.