A Scenario-Based Simulation Study for Economic Viability and Widespread Impact Analysis of Consumption-Side Energy Storage Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The introduction sets the stage for the research well but could better highlight the research gap being addressed. Specify how this study uniquely contributes to the field.
- Include more recent references to establish the context and importance of residential energy storage systems (RESS) globally.
- The methodology is comprehensive; however, some technical terms need clearer explanations for broader accessibility (e.g., details about LiFePO4 batteries and their selection).
- Include a diagram or flowchart explaining the simulation workflow for better understanding.
- The results are detailed but would benefit from visual aids like bar graphs or pie charts to complement the large tables.
- Highlight key insights in bullet points for clarity, particularly in the comparison of energy costs and economic feasibility across scenarios.
- The discussion is detailed but could integrate more critical analysis, especially on the limitations of implementing RESS in different grid regions or regulatory environments.
- Address environmental implications of RESS adoption more explicitly, including potential challenges like battery recycling or energy losses.
- The conclusions align well with the objectives but could better emphasize broader implications for global energy policy beyond the USA.
- Suggest actionable next steps or policy recommendations based on the findings.
- Improve the readability of tables by using consistent formatting (e.g., decimal points, units).
- Ensure all figures and tables have self-contained captions explaining the context and findings.
- The references are relevant but should be updated with more recent studies on energy storage systems.
- Add missing citations where external data or tools (e.g., ChatGPT) have been referenced.
- If statements like "data with the assistance of ChatGPT" are included (as in your paper), a citation or acknowledgment is needed to specify:
How ChatGPT was used (e.g., generating data, summarizing information).
A proper attribution format, such as:
OpenAI ChatGPT, version [specify version if applicable]. Available at [link to the tool].
- Simplify technical jargon and ensure grammatical accuracy throughout the paper.
- Use active voice more consistently to improve readability.
- Provide more detail on the assumptions made during the simulation, particularly regarding economic and environmental parameters.
- Justify the choice of 5M, 10M, 20M, and 40M consumer adoption scenarios with real-world data or projections.
- Include sensitivity analyses to evaluate how changes in key factors (e.g., energy costs, battery prices) affect RESS viability.
- Address long-term challenges such as the sustainability of funding models for EPCs and government subsidies.
- Discuss potential downsides of large-scale battery adoption, such as resource extraction and disposal challenges.
- Quantify the potential environmental benefits of reduced peak energy consumption and deferred infrastructure investments.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
My answers to your comments are below.
Please find the file shows the corrections on the article as attached file (I have highlighted the parts I have made changes in yellow and highlighted the parts I have removed in red).
I uploaded the last version of my article as well.
Thank you again
Vedat KIRAY
-------------------------
The introduction sets the stage for the research well but could better highlight the research gap being addressed. Specify how this study uniquely contributes to the field.
INTRODUCTION PART HAS BEEN UPDATED.
Include more recent references to establish the context and importance of residential energy storage systems (RESS) globally.
THIS DETAIL WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN UPDATE THE INTRODUCTION PART
The methodology is comprehensive; however, some technical terms need clearer explanations for broader accessibility (e.g., details about LiFePO4 batteries and their selection).
WHY LIFEPO4 BATTERIES ARE PREFERRED AMONG LI-ION BATTERIES AND LIFEPO4 BATTERIES, WHICH ARE TWO IMPORTANT OPTIONS, IS SUPPORTED WITH A COMPARISON TABLE.
Include a diagram or flowchart explaining the simulation workflow for better understanding.
A FLOWCHART HAS BEEN ADDED (Figure-1). ALSO A PARAGRAPH INTRODUCING THE FLOW CHART WAS ADDED. THE SHIFTS IN THE FIGURE NUMBERS WERE CORRECTED
The results are detailed but would benefit from visual aids like bar graphs or pie charts to complement the large tables.
FIGURES WITH GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONS OF THE RESULTS OBTAINED FROM DIFFERENT SCENARIOS WERE ADDED (Figure 7-8)
Highlight key insights in bullet points for clarity, particularly in the comparison of energy costs and economic feasibility across scenarios.
THE EXPLANATIONS AFTER TABLE-8 AND TABLE-10 HAVE BEEN RE-ARRANGED IN ITEM FORM.
The discussion is detailed but could integrate more critical analysis, especially on the limitations of implementing RESS in different grid regions or regulatory environments.
I DID NOT ADDRESS THIS SECTION IN DETAIL BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS SUBJECT IN A SEPARATE ARTICLE. I HAVE STATED IN THE FUTURE STUDIES SECTION THAT I WILL ADDRESS THESE DETAILS IN ANOTHER STUDY.
Address environmental implications of RESS adoption more explicitly, including potential challenges like battery recycling or energy losses. NECESSARY ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO TABLE-1 AND TO THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH IMMEDIATELY BEFORE TABLE-1
The conclusions align well with the objectives but could better emphasize broader implications for global energy policy beyond the USA.
SOME ADDITIONS AND REMOVAL TO THE INFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS SECTION ACCORDING TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS DONE.
Suggest actionable next steps or policy recommendations based on the findings.
ADDED POLICY REGULATION SUGGESTIONS TO DISCUSSIONS SECTION ACCORDING TO RECOMMENDATIONS
Improve the readability of tables by using consistent formatting (e.g., decimal points, units).
NECESSARY REGULATIONS MADE ACCORDING TO RECOMMENDATIONS
Ensure all figures and tables have self-contained captions explaining the context and findings.
NECESSARY ACCORDING TO RECOMMENDATIONS REGULATIONS WERE MADE. UNITS WERE MOVED TO THE TITLES, TWO DIGITS WERE USED AFTER THE POINT IN THE NUMBERS
The references are relevant but should be updated with more recent studies on energy storage systems.
REFERENCES WERE EDITED ACCORDING TO SUGGESTIONS AND NEW REFERENCES WERE ADDED
Add missing citations where external data or tools (e.g., ChatGPT) have been referenced. If statements like "data with the assistance of ChatGPT" are included (as in your paper), a citation or acknowledgment is needed to specify:
How ChatGPT was used (e.g., generating data, summarizing information).
A proper attribution format, such as:
OpenAI ChatGPT, version [specify version if applicable]. Available at [link to the tool].
THE ATTRIBUTION FORMAT HAS BEEN CHANGED AS SEEN BELOW. I asked this to ChatCPT. It wanted me to talk about him like that.
"OpenAI ChatGPT (Version GPT-4) was employed to assist in summarizing and organizing data"
Simplify technical jargon and ensure grammatical accuracy throughout the paper.
AN ATTEMPT WAS ATTEMPT TO SIMPLIFY TECHNICAL JARGON. THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR GRAMMAR AND SPELLING RULES
Use active voice more consistently to improve readability.
ACTIVE VOICE WAS ATTEMPTED TO BE USED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. BUT IN SOME PLACES, NO INTERVENTION WAS MADE TO PREVENT THE ORIGINALITY AND MEANING
Provide more detail on the assumptions made during the simulation, particularly regarding economic and environmental parameters.
NEW EXPLANATIONS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN WERE ADDED TO TABLE-1 AND THE CONCLUSION SECTION. NEW INFORMATION ABOUT ECONOMIC PARAMETERS ADDED (EXPLAINED WHY REACHING 40 M CONSUMERS IS IMPORTANT).
Justify the choice of 5M, 10M, 20M, and 40M consumer adoption scenarios with real-world data or projections.
HOW MANY CONSUMERS NEED TO USE RESS FOR A SIGNIFICANTLY WIDESPREAD EFFECT TO OCCUR IS EXPLAINED UNDER THE TITLE 5.2.3
THANK YOU
VEDAT KIRAY
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author,
After reviewing the manuscript with the title “A scenario-based simulation study for economic viability and widespread impact analysis of consumption-side energy storage systems” and number energies-3400317, it was found that the manuscript can be accepted after taking the following notes:
Please arrange the keywords alphabetically.
Please add an alphabetically arranged abbreviation table, define the abbreviation the first time in the text, and then use it, noting that there are also cases where the abbreviation was placed before the explanation (lines 254 and 318).
Lines 37-42 are results that do not belong here.
Lines 113-125 and also 154-176 are not appropriate here.
Line 205 has a result without explaining where this came from, this was demonstrated in line 246.
Please explain how to obtain the results in Tables 1 and 2 with equations (this is usually done in the method paragraph).
Please separate the results from the method.
Lines 297-312 are duplicates of the above.
Lines 105-112: The description here differs from the order of the paragraphs in the manuscript.
The researcher writes that he used ChatGPT and puts references, this is not allowed.
There is inaccurate information in lines 330 and 331.
Lines 324 and 332 have the same title and different content.
Please write GW in the table title and delete it from all cells (Table 5).
Lines 343 and 344 have two different titles behind each other without a subtitle or explanation. Please review the arrangement of the paragraphs completely so that they are introduction, reference study, method, discussion, results, and finally, the conclusion.
Line 347 is unclear.
Line 356: is it a result or based on a source?
Table 6 is numbered twice.
M and million were used; please unify them.
Leave a space between the number and the unit, for example, lines 481 and 482.
Please do not put more than one source together; I believe half of the sources are unnecessary.
Best regards,
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
My answers to your comments are below.
Please find the file shows the corrections on the article as attached file (I have highlighted the parts I have made changes in yellow and highlighted the parts I have removed in red).
I uploaded the last version of my article as well.
Thank you again
Vedat KIRAY
-------------------------
Please arrange the keywords alphabetically.
IT HAS BEEN CORRECTED
Please add an alphabetically arranged abbreviation table, define the abbreviation the first time in the text, and then use it, noting that there are also cases where the abbreviation was placed before the explanation (lines 254 and 318).
ABBREVIATION TABLE WAS PLACED AFTER THE INTRODUCTION SECTION. EXPLANATIONS AFTER THE FIRST EXPLANATION IN THE TEXT WERE DELETED.
Lines 37-42 are results that do not belong here.
THIS PART HAS BEEN REARRANGED
Lines 113-125 are not appropriate here.
THIS SECTION HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE INTRODUCTION SECTION. (REMOVED PARTS ARE INDICATED IN RED)
154-176 are not appropriate here.
THIS SECTION HAS BEEN REMOVED. SOME EXPRESSIONS IN THIS SECTION HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE INTRODUCTION SECTION
Line 205 has a result without explaining where this came from, this was demonstrated in line 246.
THE NEEDED PROOF WAS ADDED TO THE AND OF TABLE-1
Please explain how to obtain the results in Tables 1 and 2 with equations (this is usually done in the method paragraph).
TABLE 1 and 2 (BECOMES TABLE 2 and 3 WITH NEW REGULATIONS) HOW SOME RESULTS WERE OBTAINED WAS ADDED
--- Please separate the results from the method.---
YES, UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE SOME RESULTS IN THE METHOD SECTION. BUT SINCE THIS STUDY WAS A TWO-STAGE STUDY, I HAD TO PREPARE THE ARTICLE IN THIS FORMAT.
Lines 297-312 are duplicates of the above.
IT IS CORRECTED - (REPEATED PART WAS REMOVED)
Lines 105-112: The description here differs from the order of the paragraphs in the manuscript.
IT IS CORRECTED ( Rearranged taking into account section numbers)
The researcher writes that he used ChatGPT and puts references, this is not allowed.
I USUALLY MAKE MY ARTICLE SEARCHES FROM GOOGLE SCHOLAR. I PREFER CHATGPT TO ACCESS OTHER WEBSITE AND FORUM INFORMATION. BECAUSE I FIND CHATGPT SEARCHES MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN GOOGLE SEARCHES
There is inaccurate information in lines 330 and 331.
IT IS CORRECTED. IT WAS CHANGED WITH 2.4 kW
Lines 324 and 332 have the same title and different content.
THE TITLE (5.2.2.) IS REMOVES. THE FOLLOWING TITLES ARE CORRECTED
Please write GW in the table title and delete it from all cells (Table 5).
IT IS CORRECTED
Lines 343 and 344 have two different titles behind each other without a subtitle or explanation. Please review the arrangement of the paragraphs completely so that they are introduction, reference study, method, discussion, results, and finally, the conclusion.
THEY ARE CORRECTED
Line 347 is unclear.
THIS SENTENCE HAS BEEN REARRANGED FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING
Line 356: is it a result or based on a source?
THE CENTENCES REARRANGED FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING. AND THE RELATED REFERENCE REPLECED WITH BETTER ONE.
Table 6 is numbered twice.
TABLE NUMBERS AND REFERENCES MADE TO THOSE TABLES IN TEXT HAVE BEEN EDITED
M and million were used; please unify them.
THEY HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO M
Leave a space between the number and the unit, for example, lines 481 and 482.
THEY HAVE BEEN ARRANGED
Please do not put more than one source together; I believe half of the sources are unnecessary.
I TRIED TO FIX IT IN GENERAL AS YOU RECOMMENDED. BUT I LEFT IT AS IS BECAUSE I THOUGHT REFERENCES WERE NECESSARY IN A FEW PLACES.
Best regards,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THANK YOU
VEDAT KIRAY
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. (Lines 35 to 39) The introduction to the topic is somewhat generic and lacks specificity. While the benefits of consumption-side energy storage are listed, the paragraph does not provide enough context about the current state of energy systems or why these benefits are particularly relevant. Consider adding a brief background on the challenges faced by energy systems today (e.g., increasing energy demand, grid instability, or climate imperatives) to better frame the importance of implementing energy storage solutions.
2.Including the main conclusions as bullet points at the end of the introduction section diminishes the impact of the actual conclusion section later in the paper. These bullet points summarize the key findings prematurely, which can reduce the reader's curiosity and engagement with the rest of the article. It would be more appropriate to briefly hint at these benefits in the introduction without listing them in full detail.
3. (line 210) The section discussing battery types and their suitability for RESS applications lacks supporting references to substantiate the claims made about cost, lifespan, and feasibility.
4.The conclusion effectively captures the study's main objectives and findings, but its structure could be improved to enhance clarity and impact. Starting with a concise summary of the methodology would provide context and create a smoother transition to the conclusions. A brief overview of the simulation's two key sections—scenario-based analyses and impact assessments—would suffice, avoiding unnecessary detail.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
need a little improvement
Author Response
Thank you for your comments, My answers to your comments below.
Please find the attached file shows the corrections on the article. (I have highlighted the parts I have made changes in yellow and highlighted the parts I have removed in red).
I have attached the last version of my article after corrections as well.
Thank you again
Vedat KIRAY
-------------------------
- (Lines 35 to 39) The introduction to the topic is somewhat generic and lacks specificity. While the benefits of consumption-side energy storage are listed, the paragraph does not provide enough context about the current state of energy systems or why these benefits are particularly relevant. Consider adding a brief background on the challenges faced by energy systems today (e.g., increasing energy demand, grid instability, or climate imperatives) to better frame the importance of implementing energy storage solutions.
A SIGNIFICANT WORK WAS DONE TO FULFILL THIS RECOMMENDATION. ELEVEN CHAPTERS WERE ADDED TO THE INTRODUCTION SECTION.
2.Including the main conclusions as bullet points at the end of the introduction section diminishes the impact of the actual conclusion section later in the paper. These bullet points summarize the key findings prematurely, which can reduce the reader's curiosity and engagement with the rest of the article. It would be more appropriate to briefly hint at these benefits in the introduction without listing them in full detail.
THE SECTION IN MENTION WAS REMOVED FROM THE INTRODUCTION SECTION
- (line 210) The section discussing battery types and their suitability for RESS applications lacks supporting references to substantiate the claims made about cost, lifespan, and feasibility.
THE REFERENCES SEEN BELOW HAVE BEEN ADDED.
https://www.evlithium.com/Blog/lithium-ion-vs-lifepo4-battery.html?utm_source
https://www.anker.com/blogs/others/lifepo4-vs-lithium-ion?utm_source
https://ecotreelithium.co.uk/news/lithium-nmc-vs-lifepo4/?utm_source (There are prices)
https://www.vatrerpower.com/blogs/news/lifepo4-vs-lithium-ion-a-comprehensive-comparison?srsltid=AfmBOoqCPA5cjuYo4qHpA66-xPXPh5Jjm4HTi1CwtlMzR2-HVGfcGh57&utm_source (There are prices)
https://www.vatrerpower.com/blogs/news/lifepo4-vs-lithium-ion-a-comprehensive-comparison?srsltid=AfmBOoqCPA5cjuYo4qHpA66-xPXPh5Jjm4HTi1CwtlMzR2-HVGfcGh57&utm_source
https://greenly.earth/en-us/blog/ecology-news/the-harmful-effects-of-our-lithium-batteries?utm_source (environmental concerns)
I got this review for the conclution part of my article. Could you rearrange the conclution part given below
4.The conclusion effectively captures the study's main objectives and findings, but its structure could be improved to enhance clarity and impact. Starting with a concise summary of the methodology would provide context and create a smoother transition to the conclusions. A brief overview of the simulation's two key sections—scenario-based analyses and impact assessments—would suffice, avoiding unnecessary detail.
CONCLUTION PART HAS BEEN REARRANGED
THANK YOU
VEDAT KIRAY
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- While the discussion provides a solid foundation, it would benefit from more critical analysis of the challenges associated with implementing RESS in diverse grid regions and regulatory environments. While you have deferred this to a future study, briefly summarizing key challenges here would enhance the discussion's depth.
- The additions on environmental concerns are appreciated; however, more detailed discussion on battery recycling processes and potential energy losses during RESS deployment would further strengthen this section.
- The explanation of consumer adoption scenarios is helpful. Adding references to real-world data or projections (e.g., market reports or case studies) supporting the significance of these scenarios would add credibility.
- The added flowchart (Figure-1) is helpful, but consider making it more detailed by including key assumptions or parameters in the workflow.
- Figures 7 and 8 are clear, but captions could be expanded to highlight the main insights drawn from these visuals.
- Table-1 could include a footnote or additional column briefly summarizing environmental implications, such as recycling challenges or end-of-life considerations for batteries.
- Consistency in units across tables (e.g., $/kWh) is appreciated but ensure this is maintained throughout.
- Ensure that all figures and tables are thoroughly annotated so they are self-explanatory without needing additional text.
Author Response
While the discussion provides a solid foundation, it would benefit from more critical analysis of the challenges associated with implementing RESS in diverse grid regions and regulatory environments. While you have deferred this to a future study, briefly summarizing key challenges here would enhance the discussion's depth.
- I created a separate section for Discussion and added an explanation there as you described. Thanks
The additions on environmental concerns are appreciated; However, more detailed discussion on battery recycling processes and potential energy losses during RESS deployment would further strengthen this section.
- I added an explanation to the Discussion section as you described. Thanks.
The explanation of consumer adoption scenarios is helpful. Adding references to real-world data or projections (e.g., market reports or case studies) supporting the significance of these scenarios would add credibility.
-Since using RESS will be a new application, I have to act with some assumptions. For example, in the explanations I made in my article, I associated the adoption of RESS by 40 million consumers with reducing the load on energy transmission lines by around 10%. And I described the other intermediate user numbers as acceptances made for the observation of intermediate levels. I apologize for this. Even if I try to find some data, it will take a long time. and I think it will be a bit difficult to solve. Thanks.
The added flowchart (Figure-1) is helpful, but consider making it more detailed by including key assumptions or parameters in the workflow.
- For adding figures from simulation blogs in addition to the flowchart I thought the flowchart didn't need to be very detailed. But after making some additions, it became better. Thanks.
Figures 7 and 8 are clear, but captions could be expanded to highlight the main insights drawn from these visuals.
-I added explanatory paragraphs as you described after Figure 7 and Figure 8. Some changes were made to Figure 8 itself to make it more understandable. I did. Thanks.
Table-1 could include a footnote or additional column briefly summarizing environmental implications, such as recycling challenges or end-of-life considerations for batteries.
-I added the necessary explanations as you described at the bottom of the table. Thanks.
Consistency in units across tables (e.g., $/kWh) is appreciated but ensure this is maintained throughout.
- I have made the necessary corrections. (Especially in table 2) Thanks.
Ensure that all figures and tables are thoroughly annotated so they are self-explanatory without needing additional text.
-I updated the descriptions of all the Figures. We detailed them as you described. Thank you.
Vedat KIRAY
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you very much for making the changes.
I wish you success
Best regards,
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable advice and guidance.
Vedat KIRAY
