A Novel Decision-Support Framework for Supporting Renewable Energy Technology Siting in the Early Design Stage of Microgrids: Considering Geographical Conditions and Focusing on Resilience and SDGs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) The organization of this paper is not appropriate. I suggest you organize the "Introduction" section into four subsections: "Motivation", "Literature Review", and "Contribution and Paper Organization".

(2) I'm confused about the consistency between the title and the contents of this paper. Based on the statements in the "Introduction", the main study interest is the microgrid, however, you have not mentioned the word "microgrid" in the title of this paper.

(3) According to the title, I think "Resilience" and "Sdgs" are the two main concerned topics in this paper. However, the authors have only used two sentences in lines 40-44. You may say you have provided Figure 1 to illustrate them. However, the presence of Figure 1 is too sudden as most of the contents in this figure have not been defined or mentioned in this paper. The readers may not understand why should study this work, and what these words in Figure 1 mean.

(4) As pointed out in my comment (3), the writing style is not clear. I have this conclusion again when I have read the words "site selection" in line 48 since these words have not been discussed before, the readers may not know the significance of studying the mentioned point.

(5) All sections 2, 3, and 4 are simple combinations of the existing studies. I have not found the key contributions from these sections.

(6) Actually, this paper has not proposed any toolbox because a toolbox should be a computational package including code. This paper only simply combines the existing criteria for the microgrid area.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable time and constructive feedback on our manuscript.

Your detailed comments have significantly contributed to improving the clarity and structure of our paper, making us consider a few additional flaws in our past submission.

Please find details in the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The manuscript presents a well-considered approach to renewable energy source selection via a Multicriteria Decision-Making (MCDM) model, addressing resilience limitations and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Enhancing the methodology section by providing more detail on the scoring method, as well as further quantifying the results-both qualitative and quantitative-would add rigour to the study's findings. Additionally, a comparative analysis between the developed approach and existing or similar methods for renewable energy source selection could substantiate its value.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable time and constructive feedback on our manuscript.

Your detailed comments have significantly contributed to improving the clarity and structure of our paper, making us consider a few additional flaws in our past submission.

Please find details in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is quite detailed Classifiation and Division of Criteria for Microgrid Renewable Energy Selection. Based on Multicriteria Decision-Making method and tools to select suitable renewable energy sources it would be expedient to specify in which geographical zones certain renewable energy sources appropriate and also to compare the costs of their installation.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable time and constructive feedback on our manuscript.

Your detailed comments have significantly contributed to improving the clarity and structure of our paper, making us consider a few additional flaws in our past submission.

Please find details in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article describes the decision-making tools for optimizing renewable energy options under different geographic conditions, the article as a whole is more complete and very good, but I have the following comments:

1. The graphs and tables in this paper are quite beautiful, which is a good point to attract readers to read on.

2. I think the following articles may be helpful for your article: (1) H. Sun, T. Zhang and J. Jiang, “Zero-Vector-Reconfiguration Based SVPWM Technique for ZVZCS and Voltage Spike Suppression High-Frequency Link Three-Phase AC-DC Converter,” in IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 5536-5546, May 2024, doi. 10.1109/TPEL.2024.3368345. (2) M. Zhang, M. Yuan and J. Jiang, “A Comprehensive Review of the Multiphase Motor Drive Topologies For High-Power Electric Vehicle: Current Status, Research Challenges, and Future Trends,” in IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification, doi: 10.1109/ TTE.2024.3443926. (3) Wei, Y., Sun, H., Zhang, T. et al. Study of inductively coupled fuel cell DMPPT converters. Electr Eng 106, 4765-4777 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00202-024-02255-5. (4) Sun, J., Sun, H. & Jiang, J. An improved modulation method for low common-mode current non-isolated series simultaneous power supply dual-input inverters for new energy generation applications. Electr Eng 106, 5153-5163 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00202-024-02285-z. I would suggest that the authors read these articles and I would appreciate it if the authors could cite them if they feel the need to do so.

(3) The authors should provide further explanation in the introduction section for the optimization decision of new energy sources at this stage.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English expressions can be further modified.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable time and constructive feedback on our manuscript.

Your detailed comments have significantly contributed to improving the clarity and structure of our paper, making us consider a few additional flaws in our past submission.

Please find details in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your kind revision of this paper. However, I still find some issues with this paper. Some comments are listed as follows:

(1) The literature review is not enough, only 2 works (ref. [2]-[3]) have been reviewed. Ten to fifteen existing studies should be included in the literature review to verify further that your work is comparable to these existing ones.

(2) I notice that you have employed a few abbreviations. The same word, such as SDG, has been interpreted repeatedly in different lines, for instance, in lines 57, 85, and 94. I suggest using a nomenclature section at the beginning of the main body of this paper to define these abbreviations thoroughly.

(3) Only the core contributions need to be included in the main body of the paper. Detailed preliminaries, such as the content in Section 2, can be moved to the appendix. Please reorganize your content to better highlight the main novelty and contributions of this paper.

Author Response

Rev1

Thank you for your kind revision of this paper. However, I still find some issues with this paper. Some comments are listed as follows:

(1) The literature review is not enough, only 2 works (ref. [2]-[3]) have been reviewed.

Ten to fifteen existing studies should be included in the literature review to verify further that your work is comparable to these existing ones.

Authors' reply round2:

Thank you for your valuable feedback.

We appreciate your suggestion to expand the literature review for further verification of our work. In response, we have re-organized our references and the way we originally mentioned them, as suggested. These references, starting from line 39, were initially scattered throughout the paper and have now been properly organized and consolidated within the "Literature Background" section. This enhancement ensures a clearer comparison of our contributions with respect to the current state of research.

 

(2) I notice that you have employed a few abbreviations. The same word, such as SDG, has been interpreted repeatedly in different lines, for instance, in lines 57, 85, and 94. I suggest using a nomenclature section at the beginning of the main body of this paper to define these abbreviations thoroughly.

 

Authors' reply: Thank you for highlighting the repeated interpretation of abbreviations like SDG in multiple sections.

In response, we have introduced a nomenclature section (called Abbreviation)

at the beginning  of the main body (pag.2), where all abbreviations are listed and defined.

We agree that this adjustment ensures consistency throughout the manuscript and improves readability by reducing repeated explanations of the same terms.

 

 

 

 

(3) Only the core contributions need to be included in the main body of the paper. Detailed preliminaries, such as the content in Section 2, can be moved to the appendix. Please reorganize your content to better highlight the main novelty and contributions of this paper.

 

Authors' reply:

Thank you for your suggestion on reorganizing the paper to better highlight our main contributions. In response, we have relocated the detailed preliminaries from Section 2 to an appendix (Section 7), and from line 246 onward, we provide a comprehensive explanation of the main contributions and novelty of our research work. This approach emphasizes the core innovations in the main body while ensuring that all supporting details are accessible in the appendix. We appreciate your guidance and hope this revision effectively addresses your concerns.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

The revised manuscript has effectively addressed the major comments provided during the previous review. Overall, the methodology, results, and discussion sections are now presented in a more comprehensive and coherent manner.

Author Response

Rev2

The revised manuscript has effectively addressed the major comments provided during the previous review. Overall, the methodology, results, and discussion sections are now presented in a more comprehensive and coherent manner.

 

Authors reply: Thank you for your positive assessment and for noting the improvements in the manuscript. We appreciate your feedback and the time you invested in reviewing our work.

 

 

 

 

 

The Authors: Thank you all for your valuable feedback. In response, we have made two key improvements to the manuscript. First, we revised the conclusion section by improving the clarity and impact of our findings. Specifically, the results of the criteria weights, which were previously discussed briefly, are now thoroughly explained in the main body before the conclusion (line 348). These changes aim to enhance the readability and coherence of the manuscript from the beginning to the end.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revision. All my comments have been well addressed. I have no any further comment for this version.