Optimum Solar Panel Orientation and Performance: A Climatic Data-Driven Metaheuristic Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors write in good manner way for this paper. Just a minor mistake found in the text need to justify.
Line 174 and 175, some error on reference source need to update.
Author Response
We would like to thank this reviewer for his constructive comment. We modified the paper according to his comment. The followings are comments on how we modified the manuscript:
Line 174 and 175, some error on reference source need to update.
This error occurred because we use cross-reference for equations and references. Occasionally during conversions on the journals upload conversions errors related to cross-referencing occurs. We have removed the automatic cross-reference option such that this error does not happen in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
- Abstract, summarize the numerical results of proposed work, and discuss how it outperforms existing works
- Related work should be mentioned in a separate section by highlighting the comparative analysis. What are the unique features of this study compared to the existing works?
- As heuristic algorithms are greatly depend on the parameters selection, kindly discuss in detail which parameter selection process is utilized by the authors.
- Also summarize the utilized parameters in the tabular form
- Contributions should be highlighted in bullet points and justified
- A ‘Research Gap’ section should incorporate which will states the purpose of the study rather than pointing out the existing gap(s) in the relevant literature.
- In the presented manuscript constraints are not provided. Discuss what are the different constraints on which the proposed problem is utilized.
- Authors reported that the proposed method is novel, but there is no comparison with the existing literature. A detailed comparative analysis must be required to support the novelty of the work.
- Add organization of the manuscript at the last of the introduction section.
- Conclusion also required presenting in more quantitative manner
- References utilized by the authors are very old (only single paper from the year of 2021). Recent references required to support the novelty of the work.
Author Response
We would like to thank this reviewer for his constructive comments. We modified the paper according to his comments. The followings are comments on how we modified the manuscript:
1) Abstract, summarize the numerical results of proposed work and discuss how it outperforms existing works
The main purpose of this paper is to present a methodology that is easier to use than the traditional clearness index model. This advantage is clearly stated in lines two through four of the manuscript. This statement is: “Our optimization model is simpler to use than the clearness index model since there is no need to calculate the extraterrestrial insolation on a horizontal flat plate and the shape factor.” This statement clearly states who the present model outperforms the existing by requiring fewer data, i.e., no need for hourly clearness index, extraterrestrial insolation, and shape factor. We added a statement in the abstract regarding the comparison of the present results to the general rule of thumb. This statement is highlighted in red.
2) Related work should be mentioned in a separate section by highlighting the comparative analysis. What are the unique features of this study compared to the existing works?
All related works are presented in the Introduction of the paper. The unique features of the present approach are clearly stated in three parts of the manuscript; the second sentence in the abstract, the last paragraph of the Introduction section, and the last two sentences of section 1. All those statements are highlighted in red.
3) As heuristic algorithms are greatly depend on the parameters selection, kindly discuss in detail which parameter selection process is utilized by the authors.
We used the following parameters for the genetic algorithm used in the optimization process: function tolerance of 10-6, the maximum number of generations of 500, the population size of 50, and the crossover probability of 80%. To ensure consistency in our results, we repeated the GA at least 10 times.
We systematically studied the generation number, population size, and the number of GA runs. The values listed above for these parameters are selected such that GA runs efficiently, and consistently returns reproducible results.
4) Also summarize the utilized parameters in the tabular form
The parameters discussed in response to question 3 are listed in section 6, Optimization, of the Materials and Methods in the manuscript. In order not to over define these parameters, we added them in the text, not in a tabular form.
5) Contributions should be highlighted in bullet points and justified
Contributions of the present work are highlighted in the abstract and concluding sections of the manuscript. Contributions are highlighted in the keyword section of the revised manuscript.
6) A ‘Research Gap’ section should incorporate which will states the purpose of the study rather than pointing out the existing gap(s) in the relevant literature.
We don’t feel that there is a need to add a “Research Gap” section, since the last statement in the Introduction statement and Concluding Remarks (both highlighted) in red clearly state the shortcomings of the existing models Clear Sky and Clearness models. It will make the manuscript too long and repetitive.
7) In the presented manuscript constraints are not provided. Discuss what are the different constraints on which the proposed problem is utilized.
The main constraint of this platform is the availability of the climatic dataset at the location of interest. NREL provides the climatic data for several locations all around the world. However, the duration of data collection may vary from one location to another. The climatic data for the United States locations are available for more than twenty years. For other worldwide locations, we recommend using CDDOP when the NREL data is recorded at least for 3 years.
We included an explanation of this limitation in section 1 of the Materials and Methods in the manuscript to address this comment.
8) Authors reported that the proposed method is novel, but there is no comparison with the existing literature. A detailed comparative analysis must be required to support the novelty of the work.
Most of the published work compare their results with the rule of thumb for maximum annual irradiation, i.e., south-facing panels with tilt angle the same as the latitude of the location. Related published work, e.g., reference 10 in the manuscript by Rhodes et al. compare their model with the rule of thumb. Most of the models show slight, within a few percent improvements over the rule of thumb. Comparisons to the rule of thumb are made in the results and discussion section for the three locations discussed, which is highlighted in red in the manuscript.
9) Add organization of the manuscript at the last of the introduction section.
An organization of the manuscript is added in the last part of the introduction section.
10) Conclusion also required presenting in more quantitative manner
A sentence explaining the accuracy of the model is highlighted in the concluding remakes section. The details of these comparisons are given in the Results and Discussions section.
11) References utilized by the authors are very old (only single paper from the year of 2021). Recent references required to support the novelty of the work.
Most of the fundamental work related to solar energy has been developed starting during 1960s. The latest version of the textbook that most authors reference is published 2006 (reference 18 in the manuscript). Most of the references in the original manuscript are dated the mid or late 2010s. We have added two more related references that are dated 2017 and 2021 in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Lines 140-143 (Figure 2)
Vectors S, N and Z have the arrow only in the caption but not in the figure.
Since the definition of the different angles and vectors is very important to understand this work i suggest to improve the quality (better isometric view) of this figure.
Maybe the use of different colors or line styles for tilt and azimuth angles can improve the readability.
Lines 174-175
Some equations are missing in my version of the manuscript the error “Error! Reference source not found” is shown instead.
Line 315
“kWh/m2” the superscript is missing
Since many parameters are used in the algorithm a summary with of all the parameter symbols and their description would be helpful, nomenclature includes only some of the symbols and abbreviations.
It would be interesting to know the language and development platform for the algorithm implementation.
Is the code publicly available?
Author Response
We would like to thank this reviewer for his constructive comments. We modified the paper according to his comments. The followings are comments on how we modified the manuscript:
Lines 140-143 (Figure 2)
Vectors S, N and Z have the arrow only in the caption but not in the figure 2 Since the definition of the different angles and vectors is very important to understand this work i suggest to improve the quality (better isometric view) of this figure. Maybe the use of different colors or line styles for tilt and azimuth angles can improve the readability.
We modified Figure 2 according to this comment and incorporated it in the manuscript. We modified vectors S, N and Z.
Lines 174-175 Some equations are missing in my version of the manuscript the error “Error! Reference source not found” is shown instead.
This error occurred because we use cross-reference for equations and references. Occasionally during conversions on the journals upload conversions errors related to cross-referencing occurs. We have removed the automatic cross-reference option such that this error does not happen in the revised manuscript.
Line 315
“kWh/m2” the superscript is missing
This is corrected in the revised manuscript
Since many parameters are used in the algorithm a summary with of all the parameter symbols and their description would be helpful, nomenclature includes only some of the symbols and abbreviations.
We added all symbols’ definitions in the nomenclature section.
It would be interesting to know the language and development platform for the algorithm implementation. Is the code publicly available?
We used R for data preparation and MATLAB for Optimization. We added an explanation to the manuscript for more clarification in section 1 of the Materials and Methods. We may provide the code and data for regenerating the results per request.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors developed the Climatic Data-Driven Optimization Platform (CDDOP) and discussed the constraints in the theoretical way, but reviewer want to know that how this constraints mathematically introduced in the developed platform. Further, the comparative analysis still not provide the clear novelty of the work, it should be improved.
Author Response
The attached file is our response to the comment by reviewer 2
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors incorporated most of the comments raised by the reviewer.
