Economic Optimization Dispatch Model of a Micro-Network with a Solar-Assisted Compressed Air Energy Storage Hub, with Consideration of Its Operationally Feasible Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very interesting research work on a novel solar-assistant compressed air energy storage hub. The topic is very interesting and the manuscript well-presents the feasibility of the proposed system. It seems that the proposed system has a strong potential to contribute to both academia and the industry. The structure of the manuscript is clear and has higher readability. Here are some comments on the authors’ information:

1. The study has well-discussed the development and the framework of the proposed system. However, it would be ideal if it could clearly describe both advancements and the potential limitations of the system in the discussion section.
2. Although the study lists the assumption in the case study and analysis, the research would benefit from developing some useful scenarios and conducting a sensitivity analysis to test the operating cost and benefits in different working conditions.
3. Please detail the calculation in section 4.2.2.
4. It would be helpful if the author(s) can discuss the operating cost and economic benefit, and discuss the payback of the proposed system. This would provide the (potential) readers with more direct and clear information about the performance of the system from the financial perspective.

Some minor reminders follow.

1. The authors should revise the reference error in section 3.3. See line 155 to 156 (Error! Reference 155 source not found.,Error! Reference source not found).

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

thanks for your valuable and constructive comment. We have carefully revised the manuscript and addressed all the comments in attachment file.

Best Wishes

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-presented manuscript that proposes a model for an energy hub SA-CAES. It also integrates PDN, DHN model formulation. 

Although the manuscript cites reference [33] in section 3.4 would be nice if a few more details were provided on how the models fit a MINLP and, as a consequence, a MILP problem.

Some minors:
Line 155 - Fix references
Line 218 - Space after "Figure"

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

thanks for your valuable and constructive comment. We have carefully revised the manuscript and addressed all the comments in attachment file.

Best Wishes

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper entitled « economic Optimization Dispatch of Micro-network with Solarassistant Compressed Air Energy Storage Hub Considering Its Operational Feasible Region », discusses the assistant Compressed Air Energy Storagehub, and flexible supply multi-energy by connecting between the power distribution network and the district heating network. . Globally the paper is well written and has a significant contribution to the field. However, some weaknesses still exist, and working on these points can improve this scientific paper.

1- I can't see where and how it is improved. Authors must clarify if the algorithm is improved or if the optimized problem is extended.

2-what authors mention with "for supplying heat and power was proposed". we need plus clarification and explanation.

3-Actually the main part of this paper is in sections 2 and 3. It is very hard to follow what the author tries to explain. it's strongly recommended to add a flowchart that classifies and explains the various steps and this must be in relation to what is inside sections 2 and 3.

4-Where is the PDN and DHN improved algorithm? we need to see how it is improved and what is the difference with the basic solution.

5-The results in figure 7, are not understandable. Can the authors explain clearly this part.

6-The conclusion of this paper should point out the result in more precise way and show the whole contribution for this research.

7-The main contribution of this paper should be described in detail, such as the improved mathematical model and a novel schematic of the SA-CAES design, do not just list the basic formula without deduction and calculation, do not just show the basic topology of part of the  SA-CAES,PDN and DHN  without showing the connecting details.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

thanks for your valuable and constructive comment. We have carefully revised the manuscript and addressed all the comments in attachment file.

Best Wishes

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It is believed that the authors have well addressed the points listed in the first round review and therefore, the reviewer would like to recommend an acceptance decision.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have responded adequately to my comments. The changes introduced have notably improved the quality of the manuscript.

In my opinion, the work can be published in Processes.