Energy Storage Potential Needed at the National Grid Scale (Poland) in Order to Stabilize Daily Electricity Production from Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The chosen topic can be considered relevant; however, the following corrections should be made before publishing the final version of the manuscript:
1) In the Abstract, not only the topic and its purpose should be mentioned, but also the research questions and/or hypotheses, what scientific gap is planned to be filled by the research, and some of the most important results should be highlighted as well.
2) The Introduction chapter is very short compared to the other chapters. A more detailed explanation of the topic would be welcome, especially in relation to the research questions.
3) The Materials and Methods chapter is too fragmented. The formulas used need to be explained in how they relate to the methods of the research. The methods used should be briefly introduced at the beginning of the chapter.
4) In the Results chapter, it is difficult to find a logical link between the figures presented and their analysis. It is also necessary to write about their deeper context in addition to descriptive statistical analyses.
5) In the Discussion chapter, the results obtained need to be compared with other research results carried out by other scientists. This would also further strengthen the number of references. You can consider adding other MDPI references, as examples:
a) https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/17/6243
b)https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/9/3826
6) The References section is not formally appropriate. This should be corrected as described by the MDPI.
The topic of the article is certainly well suited to the Energies journal, so I recommend its publication after correcting the suggestions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
1) In the Abstract, not only the topic and its purpose should be mentioned, but also the research questions and/or hypotheses, what scientific gap is planned to be filled by the research, and some of the most important results should be highlighted as well.
Ad. 1. In abstract there is “In the case of Poland, energy storage has been estimated to require as median value approximate-ly 6 GWh of additional storage capacity, which is equivalent to twice the planned capacity of the MÅ‚oty Pumped Storage Power Plant.”
2) The Introduction chapter is very short compared to the other chapters. A more detailed explanation of the topic would be welcome, especially in relation to the research questions.
Ad. 2. Introduction part has been improved.
3) The Materials and Methods chapter is too fragmented. The formulas used need to be explained in how they relate to the methods of the research. The methods used should be briefly introduced at the beginning of the chapter.
Ad. 3. Explanation has been added.
4) In the Results chapter, it is difficult to find a logical link between the figures presented and their analysis. It is also necessary to write about their deeper context in addition to descriptive statistical analyses.
5) In the Discussion chapter, the results obtained need to be compared with other research results carried out by other scientists. This would also further strengthen the number of references. You can consider adding other MDPI references, as examples:
- a) https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/17/6243
b)https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/9/3826
Ad. 5. References have been added.
6) The References section is not formally appropriate. This should be corrected as described by the MDPI.
Ad. 6. Corrected
Reviewer 2 Report
Good paper which after the following modifications are completed, then I recommend for publication.
a) Please improve Figure 1: reduce its size.
b) please include bullet points at the end of section 1. These will summarize the novelties of the paper
c) In section2, please fix the indentation of the text. So that they are aligned well.
d) In section 4, the discussion is short. Please include a paragraph with a bit more analysis. Also use of bullet points to summarize novelty is recommended
e) In section 4 you refer to future work. I highly recommend you add the following papers in your future work section .
Paper1: The paper below presents a novel methodology for the Quantification of the Energy Storage contribution to Security of Supply. This paper can be includes in your references section or in your Future Work section.
Giannelos, S.; Djapic, P.; Pudjianto, D.; Strbac, G. Quantification of the Energy Storage Contribution to Security of Supply through the F-Factor Methodology. Energies 2020, 13, 826. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13040826
2) Your paper refers to Poland. Another paper referring to India is the following and you can include it.
Giannelos, S.; Jain, A.; Borozan, S.; Falugi, P.; Moreira, A.; Bhakar, R.; Mathur, J.; Strbac, G. Long-Term Expansion Planning of the Transmission Network in India under Multi-Dimensional Uncertainty. Energies2021, 14, 7813. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14227813
3) This may be used for future work:
M. Kermani, E. Shirdare, G. Parise, M. Bongiorno and L. Martirano, "A Comprehensive Technoeconomic Solution for Demand Control in Ports: Energy Storage Systems Integration," in IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 1592-1601, March-April 2022, doi: 10.1109/TIA.2022.3145769.
4) The paper below can be used for future work also.
X. Li, L. Wang, N. Yan and R. Ma, "Cooperative Dispatch of Distributed Energy Storage in Distribution Network With PV Generation Systems," in IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 1-4, Nov. 2021, Art no. 0604304, doi: 10.1109/TASC.2021.3117750.
5) Finally: please try to include more text in the paper ,in the graphs section, to facilitate all reviewers to accept your paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
- a) Please improve Figure 1: reduce its size.
Ad. a. Corrected
b) please include bullet points at the end of section 1. These will summarize the novelties of the paper
c) In section2, please fix the indentation of the text. So that they are aligned well.
Ad. Corrected
d) In section 4, the discussion is short. Please include a paragraph with a bit more analysis. Also use of bullet points to summarize novelty is recommended
Ad. d Corrected
Reviewer 3 Report
Title: “Energy storage potential needs at the national grid scale in order to stabilize daily electricity production from fossil fuels and nuclear power.”
Abstract. With the increasing share of renewable sources in the energy mix, there is a need to balance energy production from weather-dependent sources, mainly such as wind turbines and photovoltaics. This is also a current global trend associated with climate policy. In Poland, there is a significant increase in energy production from renewable sources, leading to a duck curve phenomenon mainly in the case of photovoltaics, which requires balancing their production through various measures. One of the possible actions is energy storage installation. The article identifies the need for energy storage to ensure the stability of electricity production from low-flexibility sources like coal-based power plants. For this purpose, a methodology has been developed to determine the daily minimum energy storage capacities, which would also allow for the integration of other stable (though less flexible) energy sources, such as nuclear power. In the case of Poland, energy storage has been estimated to require as median value approximately 6 GWh of additional storage capacity, which is equivalent to twice the planned capacity of the MÅ‚oty Pumped Storage Power Plant.
Dear Authors,
The paper has a sufficient level of scientific novelty and practice recommendations. The topic is relevant. The methodology is adequate. The results clearly present the problem. However, the sections “literature review,” “discussion,” and “conclusions” are poor.
I would like to suggest to the authors to widen and improve the sections “literature review,” “discussion,” and “conclusions.”
I will recommend this article for publication in Energies after major revision.
Best regards,
The reviewer
Minor editing of the English language required
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
the sections proposed for improvement have been corrected
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is a study of energy storage needs in Poland in order to balance electricity production from renewable and conventional sources. The paper uses the data of PSE website to develop a method to calculate the daily energy storage capacity, and carries out some case studies and sensitivity analysis. There are some issues needed to be addressed in the current version. The major comments are as follows:
1. The title of the paper could be more specific, such as identifying which country or region has energy storage needs.
2. In line 125 of the method section, what is the basis for calculating the support deviation value?
3. The introduction of the paper can be more perfect, such as introducing the classification and characteristics of energy storage systems, as well as relevant domestic and foreign research status and development trends.
4. The discussion part of the paper can be more in-depth, such as analyzing the relationship and influencing factors between energy storage demand and renewable energy installed capacity, and putting forward some policy recommendations or technical solutions.
5. It is recommended to read through the full text to see if there are problems with sentences, like the description of the deviation on line 129.
Author Response
- The title of the paper could be more specific, such as identifying which country or region has energy storage needs.
Ad. Title has been improved
- In line 125 of the method section, what is the basis for calculating the support deviation value?
Ad. Corrected
- The introduction of the paper can be more perfect, such as introducing the classification and characteristics of energy storage systems, as well as relevant domestic and foreign research status and development trends.
Ad. Corrected
- The discussion part of the paper can be more in-depth, such as analyzing the relationship and influencing factors between energy storage demand and renewable energy installed capacity, and putting forward some policy recommendations or technical solutions.
Ad. Corrected based on other reviewer specific commentd
- It is recommended to read through the full text to see if there are problems with sentences, like the description of the deviation on line 129.
Ad. Improved
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
It is really great to see that you applied the suggestions. The corrected version of your manuscript has improved a lot; therefore, I can accept it in its present form.
As a reviewer, I recommend the article for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for your efforts in revising your paper.
I recommend your paper for publication in Energies.
Best regards,
The reviewer
Minor editing of the English language required
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have been addressed the manuscript according to my comments.
