Development of an Algorithm for Regulating the Load Schedule of Educational Institutions Based on the Forecast of Electric Consumption within the Framework of Application of the Demand Response
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well-organized. The topic in interesting and timely. Please consider the following comments/suggestions.
1) It is recommended to include more qualitative data in the abstract section. Problem statement and rationale should be added to this section, as well. By doing so, the future readers do not skip the paper after going through the abstract.
2) Referring to the remote control system architecture provided in Fig. 1, the authors have not presented any information about cybersecurity analysis since an adversary van penetrate to the cyber layer and manipulate the information leading to different failures in decision making. It is highly recommended to justify the effectiveness of the proposed approach in dealing with cyberattacks. Is there any prevention measures? Is there a suitable remedial action scheme to be implemented by the power system operator upon detecting a successful cyberattack. Useful references: Hardware-in-the-Loop Experimental Validation for a Lab-Scale Microgrid Targeted by Cyberattacks; Experimental Validation of a Market-based Remedial Action Coping with Cyberattackers Targeting Renewable-based Microgrids; Approaching Optimal Power Flow From Attacker’s Standpoint To Launch False Data Injection Cyberattack.
3) Fig. 4 cannot be read in the printed version. It is highly recommended that the authors try to increase the quality of all figures, especially those figures with many parts.
4) Please provide more analysis about the results provided in Fig. 18.
Author Response
We send you the responses to your review. please see the attached document.
your comments helped us greatly to improve the article, thank you for your review!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article provides a research on algorthmic and experimental development of a electric energy management system of an academic building(s).
The work carried out is interesting while the results can be found useful for the sustainability improvement of the campus. Besides, the authors cite a long list of updated references.
Notes: The introductory section is very long; it can be splitted. Also the structure of the paper is missing at the end of the introduction.
Author Response
We send you the responses to your review. Please see the attached document.
Цe tried to improve our article according to your comments. Thank you for your review!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
“Development of an algorithm for regulating the load schedule of educational institutions based on the forecast of electric consumption within the framework of application of the demand response”
The introduction promises to present results in the highly actual field of best matching electricity demand and electricity supply. No doubt that this subject is of great interest to the engineering and scientific community.
The methods presented in the manuscript are adequate. However the way how results are collected and presented leave the impression of an inhomogeneous collection of several subsections merged to an article. To give an example:
I can not see what relevance has the overall power system consumption forecast addressed in subsection 3.2 including figure 9 to the central part of your work which focuses on two laboratory units of a high school.
Between the different (sub)sections and figures labeling for the same object(s) differ:
In table 2 you mention 5 different electric loads. It seems that you consider 15 computers as one single unit (labeled as P1) then you continue labeling P2 to P4. The 5th item is left unlabeled. In fig.2 you show the simulation diagram for MatLab without using your labeling system introduced in table 2. Furthermore you show 15 sub-units for P1 (opposite to laboratory 2's diagram) where all PCs are expressed by one Diagram-symbol. In order to confuse the reader in fig.3 you use a series of (sub)levels (for P1) such as P10 – P19 and P_11 and P_12 which are nowhere explained.
Fig.5 looks similar however there is not even need to separate P1 (all 14 PCs).
Instead of using your originally introduced label system in fig 16 you use “3” instead of P1, “5” instead of P2 etc.
Another point that is important in my eyes is the direct comparison between simulation and reality. I would have expected a comparison and critical discussion between the results shown in fig.5 and the measured time series shown in fig.14. Without this information I do not know how much confidence I can have on the suggested “improvement” obtained by simulation and shown in fig.19.
The calculation of a “saving potential” given in the discussion section based on the Min. and Max. prices of the kWh is a mere speculation. With a look at fig.8 most of the (electrical) activities in the laboratory take place during a daytime of an overall high demand and changes in the time dependent prices probably are much lower. However for me it is extremely interesting to collect information about what time shifts are acceptable by the users of the laboratory. For instance a shift of the courses to times around 4h in the morning will be extremely beneficial shifting the load demand towards time of low overall consumption. Is this an option for a high school? For private consumers timing of the wash machines inside this time interval is reality.
So far to the content of your manuscript. I have the feeling that it has the potential to become a highly interesting article.
Beside the general remarks some minor corrections should be done as listed below:
- Please use a decimal-point instead of a comma.
- Use a unique format for time and date throughout the manuscript.
- Most of your figures are examples therefore it should be noted in the caption.
- It is not necessary to append (compiled by the authors) after each caption. A single statement in the text is sufficient.
- Please translate the caption of fig.10
Author Response
We send you the responses to your review. Please see the attached document.
Your comments helped us greatly to improve the article, thank you for your review!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors consider the possibility of participating in the concept of demand response of educational institutions with a typical work week schedule. The work is interesting but I have some questions:
1) Demand response have been thoroughly reviewed in ["Impacts of demand-side management on electrical power systems: A review", Energies] before and the literature review of the manuscript seems to ignore a big portion of other studies as shown in this review paper.
2) It has shown before that DR program can affect the reliability of the generation system as shown in ["Impact of demand-side management on the reliability of generation systems", Energies], but this is not considered in the paper. The authors should benchmark their method with this or provide a discussion to address this gap.
3) I feel that the benefit of DR can also be extended to cover decarbonization and improve generation cost/reliability as shown in ["Integration of Wind and Demand Response for Optimum Generation Reliability, Cost and Carbon Emission", IEEE Access]. This is lacking in this paper and the authors should discuss this gap.
4) Finally, DR response has been used together with the DTR system before for achieving maximum reliability benefit, as shown in ["Probabilistic Peak Demand Matching by Battery Energy Storage Alongside Dynamic Thermal Ratings and Demand Response for Enhanced Network Reliability", IEEE Access] and ["Demand Response and Dynamic Line Ratings for Optimum Power Network Reliability and Ageing", IEEE Access]. This is another gap I think the authors should address/discuss in their paper.
Author Response
We send you the responses to your review. Please see the attached document.
Your comments helped us greatly to improve the article, thank you for your review!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the authors effort in responding to my comments. Most of them have been well addressed. However, some of the replies are not directly addressing the comments.
* The comment (2) in the first round is still not clearly answered. It is necessary to elaborate upon cyber threats in the proposed framework with respect to the existing literature. Please provide more information about your reaction mechanisms as soon as the presence of false data in the system is confirmed.
Author Response
We have analyzed a large number of sources related to cybersecurity and selected several solutions to ensure the protection of the system from cyber attacks. For a detailed description of the change, please see the file in the attachment. Thanks for your review, it helped improve our article!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I still think that the potential cost saving calculation given in the discussion is not justified. But since I believe that all other findings you have presented are of great interest to the reader this paragraph is of minor importance for the scientific community.
Author Response
We have adjusted the economic part according to your comments. Please see the attachment. Thanks for your review!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
no more comments.
Author Response
Thank you for your review!
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Although the main concerns associated with communication system have not been properly addressed in the revised version, I have no further comments at this point. Hence, I leave it to the Editor to decide about the suitability of the paper for publication in the journal. Good Luck!
