Experimental Analysis of a Novel PV/T Panel with PCM and Heat Pipes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with a relatively original compination of PV/T panels with PCM, whose internal heat transfer is enhanced by heat pipes.

The papers is interesting and provide useful information. It is still a preliminary analysis, yet worth of publication in this reviewer's opinion.

The analysis of the results is long and difficult to follow. Maybe a table summarizing the outcomes could be added.

Further suggestions to improve the paper:

• Define all acronyms at their first usage (e.g. HP, BIPV/T, etc.)
• In line 36, a 65% efficiency is questionable as different types of energy are mixed (electrical and thermal). An efficiency could be evaluated in terms of primary energy saved, or exergy, but not just summing (as it is often made) heat and electricity.
• Check lines 47 (unclear), 61 (idem), 143 (idem), 154 (amd insted of and), 161 (is before that),
• Add reference for data in tab. 3
• Provide some more details on the used heat pipes

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript investigates the operation of a novel PV/T panel with energy storage and heat pipes. It is a very interesting topic which would contribute to the renewable energy generation for the building sector and the low carbon technologies. However, the manuscript seems incomplete and it needs further development to provide the novelty and the originality in the area. 

The authors are suggested to proceed in a revision and resubmission taking into account the following:

New current references to argue about the better configuration of their research. The experiment needs further analysis of the error boundaries and the limitation. Is it a steady-state configuration of embraces a dynamic simulation The configuration of the resistors and the V-I curves need to be highlighted in orde The melting and solidification curves of the PCM, the storage capacity and the relationship with the loads and the diurnal climate conditions need a discussion to highlight the findings Accurate and robust description of the experimental procedure  Highlighting the new body of knowledge The title needs revision to be consistent with the context of the manuscript

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper title is " Novel design of a hybrid solar PV/T panel with energy storage and heat pipes ". The title of the article is relevant to its content.

The subject of the article is very current and fits well with the trends associated with sustainability. The article is well written but needs improvement and additions.

Detailed comments:

-line 19 it is worth writing whether the achieved efficiency is a satisfactory result,

-line 20 ‘Hybrid solar energy’ something like that doesn't exist, maybe you need to add the word ‘system’?

-line 60 lumped references should be avoided.. if articles [11-14] are important, you have to describe them at least one sentence,

-line 89 numbering of equations begins with the number (2),

-Fig.1 poor quality of the drawing,

-Fig.1. units should be given consistently in round, square or decimal places in the whole article,

-Eq. and Tab.2, 3  - a list of signs (Nomenclature) would be helpful or their exact description in the text,

-Fig.6 - add ‘ambient’ to the legend,

- Fig. 6 and subsequent - change the font on the charts to black - the charts will be more transparent,

- graphs with PCM temperature - thinner lines are clearer,

- line 306 Numerical tests are very briefly described,

- there is no discussion in the article with reference to the research of other teams.

In the reviewer’s opinion in present version the article is not suitable for publication and should be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have significantly improved the quality of the article.