Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work is balanced in terms of theory and numerical simulation. 

The forecast errors fall into normal confidence. However, it appears to be mainly an underestimation by 10%.

In practice, not only the wind speed is considered, but also the wind direction, 

The quality of figure 6 must be improved. The text on the abscissa is not visible. The problem is observed in all other figures.

Typesetting problems are visible in the whole manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We would like to thank you for your time and valuable comments. We have tried our best to modify the manuscript. We have addressed each comment carefully and made corresponding revisions in the manuscript.

 

All changes are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Sincerely,

Xiaodong Yu, Wen Zhang, Hongzhi Zang, and Hao Yang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

    In this paper Authors proposed a general method to determine the optimal interval forecast of wind power. Below I presented some remarks that came to my mind during reading. I divided my remarks into general remarks and editorial remarks.

 

General remarks:

1. Introduction must be improved. Hypothesis and objectives of the study need to be addressed, as well as a brief justification of the conducted methodology. Introduction should adequately represent the state of knowledge and clearly specify the purpose and motivation of taking up the topic. The introduction must be strongly quoted to show that the Authors have carried out an adequate “state of art” in the analyzed topic. The area of research must be introduced with details for unfamiliar readers. The Authors should state what has justified using the given method, what is special, unexpected, or different in their approach. I consider that the manuscript under review will benefit if the authors make all of these aspects as clear as possible to the readers starting from the first sentence of the paragraph in order to give them a clear idea of what the entire paragraph is about.

2. Line 150-153: Present this in the form of a flowchart and describe it.

3. Chapter 3 must be sorted out. The methodology must be clearly presented.

4. The paper should be written in an impersonal form. Correct this. 

5. Chapter 5: In my opinion, the results are presented too superficially. It is necessary to extend this chapter and discuss obtained results in more detail.

6. Unfortunately, the presented paper lacks confrontation of the obtained results with other recent research. I suggest adding confrontation of the obtained results with other recent research. Such comparison significantly raises the meaning of the presented paper. I recommend Authors to conduct suitable comparisons to solve this issue. This comparison will highlight even more the novel aspects that their paper brought in contrast to the existing studies. Consequently, in order to validate the usefulness of their research, within the discussion part of this section, the Authors should make a comparison between their method from the manuscript and other ones that have been developed and used in the literature for the same purpose.

7. The paper contains significant editorial deficiencies. The paper has been formatted in a carless and inconsistent with the Energies template. It is necessary to introduce significant editorial corrections (in accordance with the magazine format), because in current form the paper is not acceptable in this respect. Most of these errors are listed in the section "Editorial remarks". However, please remember that these are not all editorial errors. I suggest thoroughly read the article again and correct the mistakes. There are many such mistakes.

 

Editorial remarks:

1. Lines 22-24: The sentence repeats itself.

2. Line 43: It should be “interval [3,6]” instead of “interval.[3,6]”.

3. Line 46: It should be “obtained [7-11]” instead of “obtained[7-11]”.

4. Line 77: It should be “method [12]”. There are many such errors – correct this.

5. References should be cited according to the order in which they appear in the text.

6. Names of chapters and sub-chapters – each word is written with a capital letter (check in the Energies template how the names of chapters and subchapters should be described). Check this throughout the paper and correct this.

7. Equations should be centered. Check this throughout the paper and correct this.

8. Line 127, 134, 135, 137, etc.: Organize the text in these lines (use the same font and font size).

9. Do not place the Equations in sentences (place them in separate lines). Check this throughout the paper and correct this. To ins ert Equations, use the appropriate program, eg MathType. Correct this.

10. Use full names – Figure/Table/Equation.

11. Values and units should be written separately. Check this throughout the paper and correct this.

12. Figures should be placed after the paragraph in which they were first recalled. Check this throughout the paper and correct this.

13. All equations should be numbered. 

14. The numbering of the equations should be aligned to the right.

15. At the end of the description of Figures/Tables should be a dot. 

16. Figures 2-10: Increase the font size on the axes (values, key, axis captions).

17. Figure 5, 6: Add axle signatures.

18. Line 206: It should be “Figure 4”.

19. Tables 1-3: Headers should be bolded and centered.

20. Line 242: It should be “Table 1” instead of “Table 1”.

21. Parameters should be written in italics. Check this throughout the paper and correct this.

22. References should be prepared in accordance with the Energies template.

23. At the end of the paper, the Energies “footer” is missing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your time and valuable comments. We have tried our best to modify the manuscript. We have addressed each comment carefully and made corresponding revisions in the manuscript.

All changes are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Xiaodong Yu, Wen Zhang, Hongzhi Zang, and Hao Yang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript discusses a general method to determine the optimal interval forecast of wind power. Non-parametric Parzen window estimation method is used to evaluate the distribution of the point forecast error of arbitrary shape distribution. An optimal method is used to find the minimum confidence interval and also the optimal forecast interval. The simulation results presented in the manuscript support the proposed methodology to improve the quality of the wind power interval forecast.

The work presented in this manuscript is interesting and a significant contribution to the field and the community. I have no hesitation in recommending this manuscript to be accepted under the condition that the manuscript must be revised for the English language. There are numerous spelling, grammatical, and structural mistakes. Also, the quality of the images must be improved for better visualizations.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your time and valuable comments. We have tried our best to modify the manuscript. We have addressed each comment carefully and made corresponding revisions in the manuscript. A point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments can be found in the attachment.

All changes are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Xiaodong Yu, Wen Zhang, Hongzhi Zang, and Hao Yang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Manuscript ID: energies- 381968 In this manuscript, authors discussed in detail about the Wind Power Interval Forecast based on Confidence Interval Optimization. The manuscript has been discussed well about the system and it’s suitable for publication after completion of this minor revision. The authors should clarify the following points before acceptance, which is given below, 1. Authors should discuss in detail about power loss with some examples. 2. For better understanding authors can provide simulation parameters in the supplementary document. 3. Authors can discuss why Parzen window estimation method was used for this analysis. 4. In the introduction, authors can discuss recent energy scavenging technologies such as triboelectric nanogenerator, piezoelectric and solar, wave energy harvesters related reference to renewable energy (DOI: 10.1039 / C7NR00110J, DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b01561, DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b04769) 5. Authors can increase the quality of Figure 4, 5 and 6. 6. In conclusion, section authors need to conclude all their results briefly. 7. This manuscript contains quite a few language mistakes and needs to be carefully checked.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your time and valuable comments. We have tried our best to modify the manuscript. We have addressed each comment carefully and made corresponding revisions in the manuscript. A point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments can be found in the attachment.

All changes are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Xiaodong Yu, Wen Zhang, Hongzhi Zang, and Hao Yang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors have taken into consideration all my questions and comments. I recommend to accept the new version of the paper after editorial corrections.

Reviewer 3 Report

I recommend this manuscript for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors addressed all the comments. Now the manuscript can be accepted for publication.