Optimal Configuration Strategy of PV and ESS for Enhancing the Regulation Capability of Electric Vehicles Under the Scenario of Orderly Power Utilization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The problem addressed in the paper is relevant and important to the current energy scene. 

However, some gaps are noticeable. 

DER is defined in lines 31-32; but what is the DRE found in lines 37,38 &39?

The assumption found in lines 114-116 is not indicative of the actual scenario. 

The statement:’ the travel characteristics of Ev users are fully characterized’ doesn't hold ground with respect to the previous equations. 

The pv power plant modeling presented in lines 141-143 is not required with reference to problem addressed. 

The unit of investment cost of ESS in table should be /kwh 

The scenarios mentioned in lines 224-228 do not represent the practical conditions. 

Is there sufficient reference data that supports figure 4(b)?

There are factors like the nature of work and personal traits along with the incentives that influence the user's charging and discharging patterns. A taxi driver may prefer to charge during lean hours and during rest if he's expecting a forthcoming   peak and probably would discharge at a premium price, if there's enough time to recharge at a discounted rate before the onset of the next peak. An office employee would probably like to charge/discharge when he's working /resting, depending on his next travel plan. Actually, the user's decision is more complex. Again, the availability of a bidirectional charger at his disposal and terms and conditions of the battery warranty will also influence. A survey of all these will throw some light on modeling, configuration and simulation. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article in general should have more clarity and should be concise.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The methodology lacks real-world experimental validation. The proposed configuration and incentive pricing strategies are tested via simulations, but experimental verification or real-case scenario testing would significantly strengthen the findings.
2. The study assumes that EVs follow specific driving behaviors and charging patterns, but it does not include sensitivity analyses on variations in user behavior, which can significantly impact results.
3. The paper needs clearer explanations of certain complex mathematical models, especially in Sections 2 and 3. Some equations require additional context to improve reader comprehension.
4. The results are presented in dense paragraphs with limited discussion of practical implications. The authors should elaborate on the policy and economic feasibility of their approach.
5. The figures and tables are informative, but some are not adequately explained. For example:

• Figures 3 and 6 should include more discussion on how different configurations affect EV behavior.
• Tables 3 and 4 require additional interpretation of numerical values.

6. The literature review lacks sufficient discussion of existing grid integration models for EVs and renewable energy sources. Many references discuss basic concepts but do not highlight gaps that this study aims to fill.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks