A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Methodology for Solving the Sustainable Dispatch Problem

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to the manuscript sustainability-879838: A hybrid multi-criteria methodology for solving the sustainable dispatch problem

The present manuscript deals with the effect of implementation of wind farms in combination with a conventional thermal power plant to get an energy mix with lower economical and ecological costs. The mathematical approaches were clearly described. The topic fits to the manuscript and should be published. However, before publishing, the following revisions should be taken into account:

• Line 9: …This allows the generation of a representative…
• Line 20: The relevance should be underlined be actual values of installed wind power by these countries or by a global value.
• Line 27ff: The first name of the authors of different literature references should be named.
• Line 32: ….environmental…. social …. and technical…
• Introduction in general and Lines 45, 55 and 132ff in details: In lines 45 and 55 the conventional sources and the problem of emissions/ goal of minimization of emissions were shortly addressed. Some more sentences should be included addressing alternatives of energy production by wind like conventional thermals processes based on coal, oil, gas.., biogas processes, solar energy, geothermal energy… as a first aspect. Secondly, pros and contras of these alternative technologies should be addressed in short. As an example for biogas processes, pros are to use agricultural residual as energy source, continual energy production, small decentralized plants are possible affecting the landscape very locally…, while contras are that a couple of biogas plants use energy crops as power source with corresponding poor carbon finger print balancing, loss of agricultural fields for food production, higher use of fertilizers, lack of crop circulation and enhanced emissions – especially of formaldehyde. In case of the example of biogas as energy source the reference https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.258 should be taken into account dealing with the problems of emissions of pollutants and the minimization of emissions by changes in technical processes. Please do the same for the other types of power production.

In this context it might be very helpful to add a new short chapter 2, where these pros and contras are comparable listed. At least these pros and contras are the input parameters for the mathematical models used in chapter (old 2) and the following ones. Actually, these input parameter are not clearly addressed (see line 142 and 143: economic objective and environmental objectives). Hence, quality of the manuscript could be improved by the comparable collection of these parameters, addressed for wind energy and alternative/conventional forms of energy production. For presentation of these parameters and direct comparability / qualitative grading, a table would be adequate.

• Line 407: The right table should be addressed
• Line 410-413: Based on text it is not clear whether the same thermal generators where used for all four cases and the wind farms were an additional add-on. It is also not clear whether wind farm unit 1-3 describes one to three wind parks / generators of a defined power output or different constructive alternatives.
• Figure 2-5: The qualitative trend in these figures is clear, i.e. at high economic costs low environmental costs can be achieved and the other way around. It would be very helpful to use the same scaling in all figures and to introduce an overlapping of the rights figures of all four figures to see a clear difference between these four cases. Having a look on different single points no clear trend can be seen, i.e. an increase in wind energy has no clear effect on environmental and economic costs as expected.
• Line 426ff: The values given in the text do not correlated with the values of table 1 as suggested in Line 424.
• Table 2: Please explain why emission reduction is lower in case of 3 wind plants than in case of 2 plants. In this context it might be very helpful to give informations about the power output of the thermal plant and the wind plants separately for all four cases – not only 283.4 MW as sum and fix value. If 1-3 correlates to different types of wind power plants or location, then differences are clear. But this aspect is not clearly addressed in the text.

Author Response

Dear Rewiever,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.
To attend your requests, we put atached a file containing our responses, corections and modifications in the paper's text.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

The topic of the manuscript “A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Methodology for Solving the Sustainable Dispatch Problem” in my opinion will very interesting for readers of this Journal. The manuscript was written in good English. Methodology is well explained, but I think the manuscript needs significant revision in order to reach the standard quality for publication.

General comments:

Abstract: Abstract presents summary, include key findings and the length of this part of the manuscript is appropriate. However, I have one comment:

The abstract does not contain the most important conclusions from the work. In my opinion, at least two sentences of conclusions are needed. The introduction part can be shortened.

Introduction: I consider that the structure of this section was well designed. Literature Review is adequate. Is effective, clear and well organized, but

Lines 132-140 in my opinion is not needed

What is the research hypothesis? Who is this research for? Who will be interested in the results? - please explain

Is your novelty technics is in line with the principles of circular economy / for sustainable development? - please specify. Please provide some literature sources

Material and methods: The methodology is well thought through.

Figure 1 is not needed.

Sections 2 and 3 can be combined into one.

Results

Line 407 - which tables did you mean?

If it is possible, the appendix should provide weights from w1 to w4 for specific case studies.

Conclusion

This is the weakest part of this article.

It needs to be rebuilt.

Do not include the purpose of your research here, but only the most important conclusions - if possible, then in points.

This part is too long.

Author Response

Dear Rewiever,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.
To attend your requests, we put atached a file containing our responses, corections and modifications in the paper's text.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript employed various techniques and methods (mathematical models) to show how the inclusion of wind turbine can help to minimise greenhouse gas emissions and improve the economic health of a typical thermal power generation system. 

I find the manuscript well-structured. The authors also discussed the previous works sufficiently. However, I would like to advise a few suggestions for improvement.

1. Source of input data, adequacy of cases (samples) and justification need to be provided.
2. Discussion of the results in plain language (with minimal use of technical words) would be helpful.
3. Practical implications( e.g., design and management aspects)of the findings need to be discussed.
4. It is quite ovious that wind power has enviornmental and economic benifits over thermal plants. The novelty of the research finding in term of investment, power reliability/security would help to increase the interest of readers and industry leaders. Therefore, the authors need to state those aspects in the conclusion. 

Author Response

Dear Rewiever,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.
To attend your requests, we put atached a file containing our responses, corections and modifications in the paper's text.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors
Thank you for considered all my comments.
In my opinion this manuscript can be accepted to print.