Analysis of Cost-Optimal Renewable Energy Expansion for the Near-Term Jordanian Electricity System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper studies a cost-optimal configuration of Jordanian energy system, using an open source optimisation tool. The topic is interesting and important. The related literature is well-reviewed.
I have several suggestions regarding section 3 – Mathematical Model.
- The optimisation problem is defined by equation 1. However, the variables are not clearly defined, and a more detailed description is suggested; E.g., what is value/unit for T, U, S, I, P, C, e; This information could be provided using brackets following the variables.
- Equation 7 is not well explained. What is c_profile and how to obtain this information? If the renewable energy generation potential is estimated/limited by real-time weather condition as well?
- Equations 8-11, here a more detailed description on ‘lower/upper bounds’ is suggested. Eg., if ‘lower/upper bounds’ are different between renewables and fossil fuels?
- The logic for introducing equation 12 is not explained.
- Table 2, please consider using the same variable names to link the table column headings with the variables in Equations 1-12, for a better understanding.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thanks for reading the paper and providing feedback. We adapted the manuscript based on your comments (s. PDF for all changes).
The description of the equations has been improved and the link between the mentioned sets of the abstract model description (S,T,U, etc) and concrete scenarios has been made with additional information within the appendix.
Also the model description and the scenario parameters have been aligned and missing information has been added.You will also see changes made based on other reviewer comments.
Thanks again for the Feedback. I hope the adjusted version addresses all your concerns.
For all the authors,
Simon Hilpert
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper offers some ideas on how Jordan can generate electricity in the future to assure a steady supply and reduce its environmental impact. The paper may be of some interest to policy makers in Jordan and perhaps other countries that might want to follow similar strategies. Simulations like this always are simplified depictions of reality, and I am an economist and don't have a good feel for how realistic the simulations are.
Also, as an economist, I am only superficially familiar with the technologies the paper discusses. For example, it appears that combined cycle refers to a type of natural gas generation, but I don't know much about it. This shouldn't count against the paper's contribution, but it does suggest that some readers (like me) have insufficient knowledge to understand the various technologies the paper considers.
The paper is difficult to read because it uses too many abbreviations. For example, LCOE appears in the abstract and, as far as I can see, is only defined on page 11 of the paper, after several uses. The list of abbreviations at the end of the paper does not include this, but regardless, readers should be able to read the paper without having to consult that list. In particular, a paper's abstract, introduction, and conclusion should be able to be read on their own, without reference to other material. Read the paper's conclusion and see if it would make sense to a reader on it's own. (It also refers to PHS, another abbreviation not in the list of abbreviations, which is not defined until page 5.) The difficulty in wading through all the abbreviations will narrow the paper's audience to only those readers who are really interested in the paper's simulation exercise.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we agree that the paper can be difficult to understand for experts coming from other disciplines. We tried to improve the abstract and conclusion. Also, based on your comments abbreviations have been added to the list in the appendix and removed from mentioned sections.
We do not think, that it would be a good way to explain the technologies in depth and hope that the made changes are sufficient for a better understanding.
Please find attached the PDF with made changes (also with regard to other reviewer comments).
For all the authors,
Simon Hilpert
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
