Research on Economic Operation Strategy of CHP Microgrid Considering Renewable Energy Sources and Integrated Energy Demand Response

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

All the changes suggested have been wisely incorporated. Some minor comments:

Figure 3 caption can be improved to emphasise the stippling/shading. Figure 11 labels (a) and (b) at the top would be ideal.

Author Response

(1)Please emphasize the shading parts in Figure 3.

The shading part indicates that after the implementation of IEDR, the user load can be transferred from peak period to valley period to reduce peak-valley gap, thus making the user load curve smoother and conducive to the stable operation of the power system.

(2)Please modify the label of Figure 11.

According to the comments of reviewers, we have revised the label of Figure 11.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have taken almost all suggestions from this reviewer and made revisions in accordance. However, Table 1 still lists out both first and last names of authors in previous literature.  In the 1st round review, this reviewer has suggested that only the last names should be cited in the table (as well as the text). The formats of the references have been adjusted in the new version.  However, they are still inconsistent.  Please follow this journal's format requirements to make them consistent.

Author Response

(1)Please revise the citation format of the documents in Table 1 and references.

According to reviewers, the citation format in Table 1 only retains the last name and the year of publication. References format have been revised follow this journal's format requirements.

Reviewer 3 Report

Acceptable now.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your careful review of this article.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors propose an optimized heating and power microgrid system with several parameters from energy, economy and environment. The current manuscript is hard to follow and may require significant rewriting considering grammar and style. The literature review is insufficient and also lacks in articulating the motive of the study. Section 2.2 needs to be shortened. The methodology and datasets used should be aptly described. There is no sensitivity analysis conducted for the optimized model and the quantification of uncertainties has been left out. The results require further discussion. Overall, the current results cannot be generalized and may require further testing with multiple scenarios.

Reviewer 2 Report

1.     This paper is generally well written and organized.  The novelty and justification of mathematical modeling needs to be very much further elaborated.  The case study is interesting and informative.  Some minor problems remain to clarify or improve.

2.     In addition to Table 1 as a comparison of the variables taken into account in relevant papers, it is not clear how the mathematical model on pp. 5-11 differs from the previous literature.  A mathematical model cannot show up without the development of the previous efforts by other authors.  It is suggested that the source of each major equation of a group of equations should be cited and indicated.

3.     The last two papers in Table 1 are the major references to compare with in this article.  However, it is not clear whether or not the mathematical models among these three papers are actually very close or quite different.  For instance, are they using the same or different major equations?  Are they suing different functional forms for objective function and constraints?  How different is this paper from these two major references in mathematical modeling?

4.     Usually in a table summarizing the previous literature, only the last names of authors will be shown.  Meanwhile, the year of publication should be also shown.

5.     As Figure 4 indicates, the whole model is a stochastic optimization problem.  It is still not clear how the stochastic process in this model is set up and justified.  What if the functional form of the stochastic process is changed to another one?  Will the numerical results drastically change?

6.     It is not clear how this stochastic optimization problem is solved.  Do the authors do the coding of computer programs by themselves?   What kind of mathematical package is used to solve this problem?

7.     It should be five scenarios instead of five cases in the case study, since the case area is still the same.  It is still not clear what kinds of criteria are used for the comparison (or ranking) of these five scenarios.

8.     Some sentences are not clearly shown.  For instance, line 458 is partially covered.  Please check if the format of the MS WORD file is appropriately set.

9.     The references are still in Chinese journal formats.  For instance, there are notations such as [J].  In reference #26 some authors are omitted while all authors should be listed.

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript, authors have studied the combined operation of CHP, PV, wind turbine, storage and loads. While the premise of the paper is good, and the research is presented well, the novelty is not clear. Many papers have looked at similar optimization methods. Some examples that are not referenced are listed below:

Optimization of a grid-connected hybrid solar-wind-hydrogen CHP system for residential applications by efficient metaheuristic approaches

Analysis of the economic feasibility and reduction of a building's energy consumption and emissions when integrating hybrid solar thermal/PV/micro-CHP systems

Environmental impacts of microgeneration: Integrating solar PV, Stirling engine CHP and battery storage

Optimal operation of a grid-connected hybrid PV/fuel cell/battery energy system for residential applications

A cost-emission model for fuel cell/PV/battery hybrid energy system in the presence of demand response program: ε-constraint method and fuzzy satisfying approach

 

Additionally, the paper is full of typographical and grammatical errors. "Denotes" is repeatedly written as "donates"; period (".") is missing at various spots; CAPITAL LETTERS are used at random places and the format keeps changing between double spaced and single spaced paragraphs. See attached file that indicates some of the errors. A thorough review for language is required.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf