Next Article in Journal
Impact of Particle Sizes, Mineralogy and Pore Fluid Chemistry on the Plasticity of Clayey Soils
Previous Article in Journal
A Novel Handover Mechanism of PMIPv6 for the Support of Multi-Homing Based on Virtual Interface
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Demand Side Management Techniques for Home Energy Management Systems for Smart Cities

Sustainability 2021, 13(21), 11740; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111740
by Muhammad Majid Hussain 1,*, Rizwan Akram 2, Zulfiqar Ali Memon 3, Mian Hammad Nazir 1, Waqas Javed 4 and Muhammad Siddique 5
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Sustainability 2021, 13(21), 11740; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111740
Submission received: 16 September 2021 / Revised: 16 October 2021 / Accepted: 21 October 2021 / Published: 24 October 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a useful article on the topic of energy management that is important and timely. The authors have given a survey on the applications of demand side management in the optimization of electricity cost, improvement of efficiency and reduction of carbon footprint based on recently published works. The authors have introduced their models of home energy management systems, where they have proposed four configurations of energy management with the integration of solar power and wind energy resources. The authors have modeled their proposed scenarios using a commercially available software package with a clear explanation of the procedure and discussion of the results. It is well written manuscript, but I have a few suggestions and questions.

S= Suggestion

Q=Question

 

(S) Please capitalize the words such as table, figure, flowchart, etc. when you are refereeing to a specific table, figure, and flowchart, respectively. For example: ‘Flowchart 1’ instead of “flowchart 1

(S) Page 1\Abstract\Line 2: please define ‘DSM’ here as it is being introduced for the first time in the manuscript.

(S) Page 5\Table 1\Caption: ‘Typical UK domestic load values averages [32].’ è Typical UK average domestic load values [32].’

(S) Page 7\Table 4: Please clarify the figures given in the last row of the table, maybe, by adding “Total” to the last row. It makes it clear for the readers.

(Q) Page 8\Line 6: Would you please explain what you mean here by “right-hand rule”?

(S): Please insert equation numbering throughout the manuscript; it makes it easier for the readers to refer to them.

(Q) Page 18\Line 4: “…The wind turbines are both separately generating 2kW prior to being stepped down to 1995kW at the 11kV bus3…,” Do you mean 2 MW here (instead of 2 kW)?

 

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the editor for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript and resubmit it. We would like also to thank the reviewers for their thorough work in assessing our manuscript, and their detailed comments that contribute significantly to its improvement. We explain, in the following sections, how the comments were addressed in the revised paper. More specifically, in this note, we summarize the revisions made to the paper as requested, whereas minor errors, omissions, typos, etc., are fixed in place. Taking these comments into account, we have tried our best to revise the manuscript. The revision has clearly improved both the results and the presentation of the manuscript, and we hope that the reviewers will now find our manuscript ready for publication. All changes made in the manuscript are highlighted in CYAN color for this reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper describes management techniques for residential sector.

One of the main remarks to this article is that the title does not match the content. In my opinion, the Authors interpret the concept of DSM in a peculiar way. In fact, it is a management strategy that consists of measures for energy efficiency and demand response, then, when the results are achieved, and it is clear how and in response to which signals the load is controlled in the optimal way, the required amount of renewable generations is integrated. Thus, the research presented in this article does not correspond to a certain logic.

Regarding some particular parts of the paper:

  • It is necessary to give a clearer understanding of the difference between DER and RES. Also check all other abbreviations
  • The models should be explained in more details.
  • Typical UK domestic loads need to be explained in details, what is the reason for such a large consumption in a high profile (and almost 3 times the difference from low profile). The source of information [32] should be more precise.
  • the paper should be framed so that there is no free space on pages 10 and 11.
  • Section 2, first sentence. It is not clear what it refers to.

The article needs clearer structuring, logical consistency and highlighting the most important points that reflect the stated objective.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the editor for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript and resubmit it. We would like also to thank the reviewers for their thorough work in assessing our manuscript, and their detailed comments that contribute significantly to its improvement. We explain, in the following sections, how the comments were addressed in the revised paper. More specifically, in this note, we summarize the revisions made to the paper as requested, whereas minor errors, omissions, typos, etc., are fixed in place. Taking these comments into account, we have tried our best to revise the manuscript. The revision has clearly improved both the results and the presentation of the manuscript, and we hope that the reviewers will now find our manuscript ready for publication. All changes made in the manuscript are highlighted in PURPLE color for this reviewer.

Response to Reviewer:

The paper describes management techniques for residential sector.

One of the main remarks to this article is that the title does not match the content. In my opinion, the Authors interpret the concept of DSM in a peculiar way. In fact, it is a management strategy that consists of measures for energy efficiency and demand response, then, when the results are achieved, and it is clear how and in response to which signals the load is controlled in the optimal way, the required amount of renewable generations is integrated. Thus, the research presented in this article does not correspond to a certain logic.

Response: In general, DSM strategies are categorized into energy-efficient strategies and demand response (DR) strategies. In this research work authors prefer energy-efficient strategies to investigated three proposed modules i.e., 1. incorporation of load shedding, 2. reduction of grid penetration with renewable energy systems (RES) and implementation of home energy management systems (HEMS). Furthermore, in this research article  authors not focused on demand response(DR), so no need to control any load. Respected reviewer, as highlighted above about techniques, authors believe that title responding objectives and proposed methodologies in research article.

Regarding some particular parts of the paper:

  • It is necessary to give a clearer understanding of the difference between DER and RES. Also check all other abbreviations

Response: Distributed energy resources a small unit to generate electricity at distribution or load side, whereas the renewable energy sources, are the basic sources (i.e., solar,  wind, biomass etc.) that use to generate electricity

  • The models should be explained in more details.

Response: As suggested by respected reviewer, authors explained models in more details and highlighted with purple color in manuscript.

  • Typical UK domestic loads need to be explained in details, what is the reason for such a large consumption in a high profile (and almost 3 times the difference from low profile). The source of information [32] should be more precise.

Response: As suggested by respected reviewer, authors explained typical UK domestic load in  details and highlighted with purple color in manuscript. Further, author added source of information in more details in manuscript and highlighted with purple color.

 

  • the paper should be framed so that there is no free space on pages 10 and 11.

Response: Journal editing team properly framed it and eliminated free space. Authors certain that in final version journal editing team will be framed manuscript properly.

 

  • Section 2, first sentence. It is not clear what it refers to.

Response: As suggested by respected reviewer, authors rewrite and rephrased 1st paragraph of section 2 and highlighted with purple color.

  • The article needs clearer structuring, logical consistency and highlighting the most important points that reflect the stated objective.

Response: As suggested by respected reviewer, authors, structured manuscript properly  and highlighted important points with purple color.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an excellent paper on home energy management systems, and how to link them with utility demand side energy management with the author's ETPA software. I have just 1 comment that is not editorial: the paper would greatly benefit from adding a Table of the Nomenclature/Glossary of the main technical terms used.

Comments/editorial:

  1. Abstract - add mention of the UK application. In line 2, spell out "DSM", i.e. :Demand-side management"; line 7, delete "at"; line 13, change "it has been" to "we"; line 15, insert "the" before "main"
  2. Page 1 - 5 lines from the bottom, change "reliable" to "increase reliability"
  3. Page 2 - line 1, change "renewable energy systems" to "RES"; line 9, please explain why reducing grid penetration is important, and penetration of what? Alternatively do you mean grid reliance?; 6 lines from the bottom, change "system" to "systems"
  4. Page 3 - line 5, please provide a reference for "ETAP"; lines 8-9, change "home energy management system" to "HEMS"; line 11, insert "in the case of the UK" after "proposed methodology"
  5. Page 4 - line 3, delete "for" and change "can" to "may"; line 11, insert "the" before "abstract"; line 13, change "is" to "are"; 5 lines from the bottom, change "is" to "are"; 2 lines from the bottom, change "shows" to "shown"
  6. Page 5 - section 3.3, line 2, explain what are "economy 7 meters", perhaps in a footnote?; section 3.4, lines 4-5, change "took assistance for data selection from" to "based data selection on"; 2 lines from the bottom, insert "A" before "HEMS"
  7. Page 6 - lines 6-7, change "Whereas it is worth to note" to "It is worth noting" 
  8. Page 7 - line 3, change "flowchart" to "figure"; line 8, change "renewable energy systems" to "RES"; line 20, insert "in" before "the early hours"; line 21, change "benefits" to "benefit"; lines 26 & 27, change "renewable power systems" & "renewable energy systems" to "RES"; line 33, change " ; " to " : "
  9. Page 8 - line 17, insert "system" before "should"; in the 3 lines before the equations, change " ; " to " : "; 5 lines from the bottom, change "Solar panel" to "the solar panels"; 3 lines from the bottom, fix the typo in "Battery" (not "Battry"); last line, also fix the typo in "panel" (not "pannel")
  10. Page 9 - line 9, change "turbine" to "turbines"
  11. Page 12 - 2 lines from the bottom, change "renewable systems" to "RES"
  12. Page 13 - line 2, change "condition" to "conditions"; line 11, change "The" to "In the"
  13. Page 14 - Section 4,2, 1st 2 lines, change "renewable systems" to "RES"
  14. Page 16 - last line, insert "an" before "HEMS"
  15. Page 17 - Figure 12 label, line 2, insert "a" before "OV system"
  16. Page 18 - 3 lines from the bottom, insert "the" before "residential
  17. Page 19 - 4 lines from the bottom of regular text, delete "the" before "future"; Reference 1, leading cap for "Commission"
  18. Page 20 - Reference 13, add year of publication

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the editor for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript and resubmit it. We would like also to thank the reviewers for their thorough work in assessing our manuscript, and their detailed comments that contribute significantly to its improvement. We explain, in the following sections, how the comments were addressed in the revised paper. More specifically, in this note, we summarize the revisions made to the paper as requested, whereas minor errors, omissions, typos, etc., are fixed in place. Taking these comments into account, we have tried our best to revise the manuscript. The revision has clearly improved both the results and the presentation of the manuscript, and we hope that the reviewers will now find our manuscript ready for publication. All changes made in the manuscript are highlighted in YELLOW color for this reviewer.

Response to Reviewer:

This is an excellent paper on home energy management systems, and how to link them with utility demand side energy management with the author's ETPA software. I have just 1 comment that is not editorial: the paper would greatly benefit from adding a Table of the Nomenclature/Glossary of the main technical terms used.

Response: As suggested by the respected viewer, authors have added Table of the Nomenclature/Glossary at end of manuscript just before end references and highlighted by YELLOW color.

Comments/editorial:

  1. Abstract - add mention of the UK application. In line 2, spell out "DSM", i.e. :Demand-side management"; line 7, delete "at"; line 13, change "it has been" to "we"; line 15, insert "the" before "main"

Response: Demand side management defined (DSM) in abstract, typos are fixed  as mentioned by the respected reviewer and highlighted with YELLOW color in manuscript.

  1. Page 1 - 5 lines from the bottom, change "reliable" to "increase reliability"

Response: Typos are fixed  as mentioned by the respected reviewer and highlighted with YELLOW color in manuscript.

  1. Page 2 - line 1, change "renewable energy systems" to "RES"; line 9, please explain why reducing grid penetration is important, and penetration of what? Alternatively do you mean grid reliance?; 6 lines from the bottom, change "system" to "systems"

Response: Abbreviations and Typos are fixed  as mentioned by the respected reviewer, Further, authors explain “why reducing grid penetration is important” at 1st paragraph of page .2  and highlighted with YELLOW color in manuscript.

  1. Page 3 - line 5, please provide a reference for "ETAP"; lines 8-9, change "home energy management system" to "HEMS"; line 11, insert "in the case of the UK" after "proposed methodology"

Response: Typos are fixed  as mentioned by the respected reviewer and  reference for ETAP added and highlighted with YELLOW color in manuscript.

 

  1. Page 4 - line 3, delete "for" and change "can" to "may"; line 11, insert "the" before "abstract"; line 13, change "is" to "are"; 5 lines from the bottom, change "is" to "are"; 2 lines from the bottom, change "shows" to "shown"

Response: Typos are fixed  as mentioned by the respected reviewer and highlighted with YELLOW color in manuscript.

 

  1. Page 5 - section 3.3, line 2, explain what are "economy 7 meters", perhaps in a footnote?; section 3.4, lines 4-5, change "took assistance for data selection from" to "based data selection on"; 2 lines from the bottom, insert "A" before "HEMS"

Response: Typos are fixed  as mentioned by the respected reviewer and explained “economy 7 meter in detail in section 3.3” and highlighted with YELLOW color in manuscript.

 

  1. Page 6 - lines 6-7, change "Whereas it is worth to note" to "It is worth noting" 

Response: Typos are fixed  as mentioned by the respected reviewer and highlighted with YELLOW color in manuscript.

 

  1. Page 7 - line 3, change "flowchart" to "figure"; line 8, change "renewable energy systems" to "RES"; line 20, insert "in" before "the early hours"; line 21, change "benefits" to "benefit"; lines 26 & 27, change "renewable power systems" & "renewable energy systems" to "RES"; line 33, change " ; " to " : "

Response: Abbreviations are added, Typos are fixed  as mentioned by the respected reviewer and highlighted with YELLOW color in manuscript.

 

  1. Page 8 - line 17, insert "system" before "should"; in the 3 lines before the equations, change " ; " to " : "; 5 lines from the bottom, change "Solar panel" to "the solar panels"; 3 lines from the bottom, fix the typo in "Battery" (not "Battry"); last line, also fix the typo in "panel" (not "pannel")

Response: Typos are fixed  as mentioned by the respected reviewer and highlighted with YELLOW color in manuscript.

 

  1. Page 9 - line 9, change "turbine" to "turbines"

Response: Typos are fixed  as mentioned by the respected reviewer and highlighted with YELLOW color in manuscript.

 

  1. Page 12 - 2 lines from the bottom, change "renewable systems" to "RES"

Response: Typos are fixed, and changes made  as mentioned by the respected reviewer and highlighted with YELLOW color in manuscript.

 

  1. Page 13 - line 2, change "condition" to "conditions"; line 11, change "The" to "In the"

Response: Typos are fixed  as mentioned by the respected reviewer and highlighted with YELLOW color in manuscript.

 

  1. Page 14 - Section 4,2, 1st 2 lines, change "renewable systems" to "RES"

Response:  Abbreviation added as mentioned by the respected reviewer and highlighted with YELLOW color in manuscript.

 

  1. Page 16 - last line, insert "an" before "HEMS"

Response: Typos are fixed  as mentioned by the respected reviewer and highlighted with YELLOW color in manuscript.

 

  1. Page 17 - Figure 12 label, line 2, insert "a" before "OV system"

Response: Typos are fixed  as mentioned by the respected reviewer and highlighted with YELLOW color in manuscript.

 

  1. Page 18 - 3 lines from the bottom, insert "the" before "residential

Response: Typos are fixed  as mentioned by the respected reviewer and highlighted with YELLOW color in manuscript.

 

  1. Page 19 - 4 lines from the bottom of regular text, delete "the" before "future"; Reference 1, leading cap for "Commission"

Response: Typos are fixed  as mentioned by the respected reviewer and highlighted with YELLOW color in manuscript.

  1. Page 20 - Reference 13, add year of publication

Response: As mentioned by the respected reviewer, year for reference 13. Authors want to confirm that year for reference nowhere mentioned.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No comments. 

Back to TopTop