Optimal Scheduling of Virtual Power Plant Based on Latin Hypercube Sampling and Improved CLARA Clustering Algorithm
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. In the Introduction, need more elaboration and deep discussion and analysis for the 22 references.
2. Discuss the limitations of the proposed model
3. Figure 1. Flow chart of improved CLARA algorithm: The flow chart is not clear how to decide that the sum of distances minimum to stop the iteration!
4. The cluster validity need to be part of the flow chart process. Author ignored this essential process.
5. Author my use fuzzy cluster to compare the result with another method
Author Response
Dear reviewers
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for the constructive comments, which greatly helped us to improve the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comments(The changes have been marked in red in the modified version of the manuscript).And a point-by-point response to the comments, please see the uploaded attachment for details.
Corresponding author
Cao Wensi
Wang Shuo
School of Electric Power, North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Zhengzhou 450045, China
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The resolution of the graphs in the article is low and the quality of the graphs needs to be improved.
2. Most of the figure notes in the article are too simplified, not clearly described and do not provide specific information, for example, the legends and figure notes of the four curves in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 are not reflected.
3. The conclusions and information obtained from Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 are not enhanced in the article, i.e. there are no relevant references and correspondences between the figures and the text.
4. The title of the figure does not need to be written twice e.g. Fig. 5 and Fig. 6.
5. The conclusions of Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 are also not reflected in the text and the key information is not stated.
Author Response
Dear reviewers
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for the constructive comments, which greatly helped us to improve the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comments(The changes have been marked in red in the modified version of the manuscript).And a point-by-point response to the comments, please see the uploaded attachment for details.
Corresponding author
Cao Wensi
Wang Shuo
School of Electric Power, North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Zhengzhou 450045, China
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic of power management in systems featuring various power sources is relevant and up to date. The authors provide good background information. They mention model types that are relevant to the topic, as well as identify flaws of the models.
In general, I think that the paper is well written. Though I might have some comments:
Equation 5: I would suggest the authors to place the description of the symbols right under the formula - It would improve the reading comfort.
Line 233: Something is missing in the sentence "Where denotes the net income.."
Line 274: ".. carbon emission factor per kWh is about 0.997." - I would recommend placing here the whole unit. Is it kg of Co2 per kWh?
Section 5: The nominal powers of the simulated power plants seem to be far from reality.. I mean the amount of power related to green energy sources is five times higher than that of the combustion turbine. What if the relation was reversed? What would be the results? I would like the authors to justify such a choice.
Table 6: In my opinion, it would be good to provide a percentage gain of the RMB and a percentage drop in carbon emission. It can be done in the conclusions.
Author Response
Dear reviewers
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for the constructive comments, which greatly helped us to improve the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comments(The changes have been marked in red in the modified version of the manuscript).And a point-by-point response to the comments, please see the uploaded attachment for details.
Corresponding author
Cao Wensi
Wang Shuo
School of Electric Power, North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Zhengzhou 450045, China
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Point 1: In the Introduction, need more elaboration and deep discussion and analysis for the 22 references, not only reference number 22.
Other Points is covered.
Author Response
Dear reviewers
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for the constructive comments, which greatly helped us to improve the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comments(The changes have been marked in red in the modified version of the manuscript).And a point-by-point response to the comments, please see the uploaded attachment for details.
Corresponding author
Cao Wensi
Wang Shuo
School of Electric Power, North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Zhengzhou 450045, China
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
- The problems mentioned have been revised.
Author Response
Dear reviewers
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for the constructive comments, which greatly helped us to improve the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comments(The changes have been marked in red in the modified version of the manuscript).And a point-by-point response to the comments, please see the uploaded attachment for details.
Corresponding author
Cao Wensi
Wang Shuo
School of Electric Power, North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Zhengzhou 450045, China
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
