A Cost-Effective and Efficient Electronic Design for Photovoltaic Systems for Solar Hot Water Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-Abstract: Few results/conclusions should be presented in the abstract.

-Introduction: While presenting the literature review, what is done in a particular paper has been written. However, critical analysis of each paper is missing. For example: what are the limitations of the study presented in the papers.

-Annotate the Figure 9b to explain the different components.

-How 300 litre capacity is chosen? Would it be possible to give any reference?

-Uncertainty in the values of solar irradiance will lead to uncertainty in the output variables. Have you performed an uncertainty analysis?

-Arrange the symbols alphabetically 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comments, they have been of great value to improve the article.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this work, F. J. Casares et al. have successfully simulated the water heating process using thermal electrical resistors powered by photovoltaic solar energy. Solar water heating system consists of a water tank with an electric resistance connected to photovoltaic modules employing a low-cost experimental electronic conversion system. The designed electronic system has avoided the need for inverters or batteries, typical of traditional photovoltaic solar installations. The results presented in this work are interesting, well-written, and provide new ideas for designing a proper functioning power heating system with technical feasibility and economic advantages.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors need to be very careful when they use novel word. This manuscript has utilized the existing PV module in-conjunction with solar hot water system. This has already been published. 

Authors need to re-write the title with a specific application, so the title has to be changed.

Authors, need to explain the Figure 20 PV power vs load power. It is not well presented. 

Authors need to provide the dataset, showing the original results so that the future authors could benefit from it.

The whole manuscript has to be edited and peer-reviewed, there are a number of ambiguous words that need to be deleted such as "geared". 

Authors need to provide the reference to Figure 13.

The Peak power in the rating of the PV module is 330W.In Figure 20, the PV power goes to at least 700 Watts. How it is possible?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments, they have been of great value to improve the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

You have rushed up with he responses and have not addressed my comments that are entirely beneficial for the integrity of the journal and authors.

I cannot repeat my comment but authors are advised to response with details, don't just pick up the words and claim that the comment was addressed. For example, the word novel should not be in the title since this research design has been published multiple times with much better systems integration. Therefore, authors should specifically mention what type of electronic design is proposed and should remove the word novel.

Authors were asked to peer-review and edit the whole manuscript. I gave an example of ambiguous word, there are many examples that authors have to identify themselves and correct it.

Comments not addressed, please spend time it is beneficial for you and for the reputation of the Journal Sustainability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Accepted. Thanks for incorporating necessary changes.