Implementation of Different PV Forecast Approaches in a MultiGood MicroGrid: Modeling and Experimental Results
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper proposed and implemented a two-layer hierarchical EMS for islanded photovoltaic microgrid. However, no significant theoretic novelty can be found, most of techniques used experiments have been published. Besides, the following issues should be further clarified:
- The methods of PV forecast should be discussed and the results should be compared.
- The formulas of optimal UC should represented and solution methods should be discussed. Besides, the results should be compared with other methods.
- The control schemes of BESS should be discussed in detail and the formulas and control should be given and compared.
- Experimental results can only be used to make sure that the lab platform can be operated but cannot be used to verify the validity.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of the paper is interesting and fits the scopes of the Journal. Nevertheless, the manuscript requires extra efforts to improve its quality and presentation. After a careful revision, a set of comments are given below.
- Regarding the format of the document, some suggestions are as follows.
In line 27 “unit” should be plural for a better reading. In a similar sense, in line 70, “methodologies” is more appropriate than “methodology”
In line 93, the abbreviation PV should be used instead of Photovoltaic.
The acronym ANN is defined twice, in lines 101 and 138. Only the first one is required.
The acronym PLC stands for Programmable Logic Controller, this decomposition must be given.
Figures 7, 9 and 11 lack the indication of the magnitude in the axes.
Figure captions and titles of tables lack the terminal period (punctuation).
In lines 296 and 297 the terms “Maltab” and “MODUB” must be revised.
References must be revised taking into account the template of the Journal. For instance, the abbreviated names of journals must be used.
References 11 and 19 seem incomplete.
- About the content of the manuscript, these issues are commented.
“Photovoltaic energy” and “Mixed Integer Linear Programming” could be added as keywords, if the authors agree, in order to increase the visibility of the paper.
The concept of microgrid and its evolution is well expounded in the Introduction. However, it can be enhanced if similar concepts are also mentioned given their similarities. For instance, “energy hub”, “hybrid power system”, “polygeneration sytems” or even “energy networks” can be found in literature. In addition, the integration of the hydrogen carrier is also a challenging trend since years. A common approach consists on using batteries for short-term energy storage whereas hydrogen generated mainly from PV energy, acts as long-term storage. For an enhanced contextualization of microgrids, these aspects could be commented.
Why has the grid search method been used for determination of the hyperparameters? This choice should be commented.
In the description of the Experimental setup, there is some missing information that could be interesting for the reader and to enhance the presentation. What type of solar charger is used? PWM or MPPT? What is the technology of the PV modules (monocrystalline or policrystaline)? Does the Lithium-ion battery include a battery management unit of the manufacturer? What is the network for communication among the PLCs (PROFIBUS, PROFINET, MODBUS TCP, etc.)? What is the software suite for monitoring the microgrid?
Even more, a schematic diagram of the microgrid would be illustrative of the experimental setup.
In line 270, the expression “SOC measure” is found; however, the SOC is an estimated value, not a measurement. In order to avoid misleading to the reader, such expression should be modified.
Even more, regarding the experimental setup, where the SOC comes from?
A discussion section or subsection is desirable to highlight the main achieved results in comparison with previous literature as well as to emphasize the main contributions to the body of knowledge. The novelty of the presented work must be explicitly commented.
Also, in the discussion, the main limitations of the presented research should be commented in a brief manner.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No further comment!
Reviewer 2 Report
The provided suggestions have been addressed and the paper has gained quality.
