Electric Vehicles Charging Algorithm with Peak Power Minimization, EVs Charging Power Minimization, Ability to Respond to DR Signals and V2G Functionality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors/editor,

The paper presents the development and simulation verification of a charging algorithm applicable on an electric vehicle fleet consisting of 5 cars. The mathematical part of the algorithm is well described by characteristic equations and expected objectives.

The authors well argued the novelty of the paper by the increased number of optimized problems solved by the proposed algorithm compared to similar data found in the current literature.

Are considered 300 random scenarios and relevant simulation results are presented in graphical form (histograms) and well explained.

The conclusions are argued by the obtained numerical results.

Also, please consider the following specific suggestions/comments:

Page 2, lines 46-67: Correct the meaning of the sentence (reformulate): “According to this data [7], 100% of EV penetration will in most cases increase the peak system load by over 100%.”

Page 13, line 387: The title of figure 9.a. (above the graph) probably should be “Power utilization efficiency – uncoordinating charging”

Best regards,

A reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents high scientific, cognitive, methodical, and empirical values. The authors formulated the title fairly precisely, clearly, and comprehensively presented the outline of the study in the abstract, and they chose the keywords accurately.

The presentation of the research problem is accurate. The authors referred mainly to the current literature and also conducted a short narrative review in the introduction.

However, the most interesting part is the methodological part, which can be considered innovative. The authors also presented an algorithm procedure (flowchart) that adds value to the manuscript.

The results are also impressive; the authors have made an impressive number of iterations to obtain 300 random scenarios. They presented the multitude of results in an accessible way.

The research results are useful for economic practice, they carry a novelty.

The current conclusions are more of a discussion. I propose changing the title of the section and adding conclusions worded quite differently. The conclusions highlight your author's contribution, innovation, and future research directions, and describe the limitations. Also indicate the addressees of your research. The authors are modest, but should nevertheless make a strong point of their contribution and innovation.

Worth improving (Notes on cosmetic nature):

1. In the abstract, the first sentence should be: “A number”... or “The number”

2. The presentation style of the reference list must be adapted to the requirements of the MDPI.

3. In lines 182-183 there should be a space instead of an enter.

The manuscript presents high scientific, cognitive, methodical, and empirical values. The authors formulated the title fairly precisely, clearly, and comprehensively presented the outline of the study in the abstract, and they chose the keywords accurately.

The presentation of the research problem is accurate. The authors referred mainly to the current literature and also conducted a short narrative review in the introduction.

However, the most interesting part is the methodological part, which can be considered innovative. The authors also presented an algorithm procedure (flowchart) that adds value to the manuscript.

The results are also impressive; the authors have made an impressive number of iterations to obtain 300 random scenarios. They presented the multitude of results in an accessible way.

The research results are useful for economic practice, they carry a novelty.

The current conclusions are more of a discussion. I propose changing the title of the section and adding conclusions worded quite differently. The conclusions highlight your author's contribution, innovation, and future research directions, and describe the limitations. Also indicate the addressees of your research. The authors are modest, but should nevertheless make a strong point of their contribution and innovation.

Worth improving (Notes on cosmetic nature):

1. In the abstract, the first sentence should be: “A number”... or “The number”

2. The presentation style of the reference list must be adapted to the requirements of the MDPI.

3. In lines 182-183 there should be a space instead of an enter.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc