Next Article in Journal
Optimal Battery Storage Participation in European Energy and Reserves Markets
Previous Article in Journal
A Multifunctional Combination Incubator
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

Modelling the Integration of Residential Heat Demand and Demand Response in Power Systems with High Shares of Renewables

Energies 2020, 13(24), 6628; https://doi.org/10.3390/en13246628
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Energies 2020, 13(24), 6628; https://doi.org/10.3390/en13246628
Received: 18 November 2020 / Revised: 10 December 2020 / Accepted: 10 December 2020 / Published: 15 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Energy and Buildings)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

  • Interesting study which is very well written.
  • Line 127 – Sections not chapters.
  • Line 251- "The space heating demand profiles are aggregated in four clusters and the domestic hot water profiles are aggregated in five clusters, resulting in a number of 20 aggregated demands per house typology (40 in total)."
    Explain in detail.

  • Line 339 – All different demand vs supply scenarios should be listed specifically.
  • Section 3.3 - It is not clear whether the simulation results of the base case scenario were validated in some way or not. 

  • Figure 4 and all graphs – text too small and illegible.

  • Figure 7b and Fig 10 show variations which are very low. How (i) valid, (ii) accurate (iii) reliable are such values?
  • Was an uncertainty analysis carried out? 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1. Comments:

  • Line 127 – Sections not chapters.

         Corrected

  • Line 251- "The space heating demand profiles are aggregated in four clusters and the domestic hot water profiles are aggregated in five clusters, resulting in a number of 20 aggregated demands per house typology (40 in total)."
    Explain in detail.

A few more detailes were introduced regarding the methodology and references employed (lines 283-285).

  • Line 339 – All different demand vs supply scenarios should be listed specifically.

It was chosen not to list them specifically due to the high number of simulations (72).

  • Section 3.3 - It is not clear whether the simulation results of the base case scenario were validated in some way or not. 

No, it was not. The validation of the model is out of the scope of this paper.

  • Figure 4 and all graphs – text too small and illegible.

All plots were enlarged or the text dimension was increased (Figure 4 and 8).

  • Figure 7b and Fig 10 show variations which are very low. How (i) valid, (ii) accurate (iii) reliable are such values?

The results presented in figure 7b and 10 were better motivated. Since the accuracy of the solver is equal to 1%, variations lower then this value can be considered negligible. This aspect was better explained when presenting the results in the new version of the article.  

  • Was an uncertainty analysis carried out? 

No, it was not.

 

The new version of the article and the revisions can be found in the attached document.

Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper proposes a framework for modelling the integration of heat demand response in power systems. The proposed model is integrated into a unit commitment optimal dispatch model and is simulated for the case of Belgium. Overall, the paper is well written and its structure is easy to follow. The reviewer has some minor suggestions to improve the paper:
- Define all acronyms in the first use in the paper. E.g. COP in line 81
- Be consistent in using US/UK English in the paper. E.g. optimisation in line 346
- More details on problem formulation should be provided. If everything is given in [25] so what is the contribution of this paper?
- Define all parameters in lines 234-236

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2. Comments:

  • Define all acronyms in the first use in the paper. E.g. COP in line 81

Corrected (line 81-82). No other non-defined acronyms were found by the authors.

  • Be consistent in using US/UK English in the paper. E.g. optimisation in line 346

Corrected. The choice of UK English was adopted for the whole manuscript (See corrections for example at line 73, 84, 95, 247, 537, 545, 552).

  • More details on problem formulation should be provided. If everything is given in [25] so what is the contribution of this paper?

Section 2 (Methodology) was reorganised and Figure 3 was improved to allow the reader to better understand the differences between [25] and the integrated model presented in this work. 

  • Define all parameters in lines 234-236

A brief definition of the parameters introduced in lines 234-236 was added (lines 262-266).

 

The new version of the manuscript with the revisions applied can be found in the attachments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop