Unraveling the Characteristics of ESS Fires in South Korea: An In-Depth Analysis of ESS Fire Investigation Outcomes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The paper can be accepted in the present form.

none

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

10-12 Remove the first two sentences. The notion of global warming is controversial and the authors in their paper have not made any useful contribution to this subject.

27-37 Again, must remove comments on global warming, since the present paper does not give any useful research on this topic.

96 Remove “in order to reduce GHG emissions.”

Figure 2: remove this figure, since it does not help in providing an understanding of the problem.

172 Need to explain why absence of shock protection should result in a fire. These do not seem to be related, so if there is a relationship, need to explain this.

197 The authors seem to use the word “shock” in some unusual way, and this is hard to understand. Normally electric shock means the unintended passage of electricity through the human body, leading to potential injuries. Presumably parts of human bodies have not been mechanisms for fire ignition. A short circuit is something entirely different, it is passage of an electric current along an unintended path.

199-203 Cannot understand this, the authors need to re-word. What is their basic premise? Is it that an external short will cause an internal short to the battery??

217 Need to explain that “ESS fires occurred IN THE EXPERIMENTS due to…”

Figure 5 caption: This is not battery defects, but experiments creating a fire due to salt water activity

Figure 6: Need to make the circles more clear, it is hard to see them

Table 3: Need to better explain what the authors mean by “SOC Upper limit”. What is this? Is it some setting on the control equipment, or how is this value obtained?

333 What doe “at the end” mean?

346 How is SOH measured?

349 “magnitude of this drop was observed to be below the maximum cell voltage of 4.2” Please explain this. It would seem that any drop always has be a drop below the maximum, so what are they saying??

Figure 9: I think the authors are trying to say “voltage spikes” not “voltage noise”. Noise is normally some small amount added to the intended signal, but these values are bigger than the signal itself.

English is adequate

Author Response

Thank you for your review,

please review the file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reference 2 is missing most of the relevant details to access the reference

Reference 7 still doesn’t work

Reference 8 is just the general website of Rosatom (a Russian energy company), it is unclear what content they are referencing

Reference 12 didn’t work

Still have 12 references related to nuclear safety, many of them are the design regulations/standards.

2.1: instead of using "considering the types of ESS links..." it would be more consistent with other literature to use a phrase like "considering the ESS use cases..." or "considering the ESS applications..." 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper can be accepted in the present form.

The revision done by the authors suits the suggestions made by this reviewer, therefore the paper can be accepted in the present form.