Next Article in Journal
Tidal Turbines
Next Article in Special Issue
Optimal Capacity of a Battery Energy Storage System Based on Solar Variability Index to Smooth out Power Fluctuations in PV-Diesel Microgrids
Previous Article in Journal
Estimation of Electric Arc Incident Energy in Electric Power Distribution Grids
Previous Article in Special Issue
Influence of Environmental Factors on the Intelligent Management of Photovoltaic and Wind Sections in a Hybrid Power Plant
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Modelling and Validation of Typical PV Mini-Grids in Kenya: Experience from RESILIENT Project

Energies 2023, 16(7), 3203; https://doi.org/10.3390/en16073203
by Khalid Hanbashi, Zafar Iqbal, Dimitri Mignard, Colin Pritchard and Sasa Z. Djokic *
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Energies 2023, 16(7), 3203; https://doi.org/10.3390/en16073203
Submission received: 14 February 2023 / Revised: 24 March 2023 / Accepted: 28 March 2023 / Published: 2 April 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please address the following comments:

1. The literature review is inadequate. Describe relevant works and identify the research gap.

2. Clearly highlight the originality and contributions of this work.

3. Is the uncertainty of photovoltaic generation considered? If not, how does it impact the output?

4. Fig 15 is not readable. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

A well-organized paper is presented to show the modeling and validation of Typical PV Mini-Grids in Kenya. My only comments are:

1. The paper should justify, which part of the model is new compared to previous similar modeling works for the mini-grid system. 

2. Both Fig.23 and 24 show that the measured results have a delayed behavior compared to simulation results. What is the reason for this?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In the paper, the analysis and validation of the outputs of the RESILIENT project in Kenya were carried out. The study will contribute to the literature and guide the researchers. I think it would be better to study with the corrections presented below. 

1. What is in your work that has not been in previous studies? It should be stated at the end of Heading 1.1. 

2. When referring to figures in the text, instead of writing “Figure 19. Average annual and seasonal posho mill daily load profiles (with percentile ranges). shows that.” “Figure 19 shows........ should be written directly. This should be fixed for all figures. It gets complicated for the reader as it is. 

3. Line 199 has reference 89. This fault should be fixed. 

4. Error in reference on Line 532. It should be corrected. 

5. In the paper, in which so much information is used, 14 references seem scarce. For example, no reference is given for table 1. There are no references in many chapters. This information should be referenced. 

6. It would be more understandable if the discussion and conclusion sections were written separately. It gets complicated for the reader as it is.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This reviewer is satisfied with the revised draft and recommends its acceptance.

Back to TopTop