Flexibility Transformation Decision-Making Evaluation of Coal-Fired Thermal Power Units Deep Peak Shaving in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors will need to attempt the followings:

• Please add nomenclature to the manuscript,
• Please add definition of "deep peak shaving" to the manuscript,
• Please add primary raw data, e.g., BMCR, coal quality, generation efficiency, etc. to support and validate the calculated data listed in Table 2, and
• Please try to estimate or discuss on the uncertainty of the evaluation approach that the authors have applied in the manuscript in terms of both quantitative and qualitative indexes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study area "Coal-fired Thermal power units" and " Deep Peak shaving" are very interesting research areas. Unfortunately, the authors did not reflect this from the content of their manuscript. This manuscript does not merit publication in "Sustainability journal" in its current form. The following comments might be helpful to the authors in revising their manuscript;

1. The title is too ambigous and must be revised.
2. The abstract is not concise. Avoid unnecessarily long motivational statements. Revise the abstract to capture the objective of your study and other important elements in the study.
3. Line 42, Particulate Matter describing fine inhalable particles is PM_2.5 not PM2.5. Correct this please.
4. The introduction is too long and must be revised. I suggest authors break some parts of the introduction into subsections if they must retain the texts in the introduction.
5. Table 1 doesn't look comprehensive in its current form. Please redraw.
6. Line 220-221 need at least a reference to substantiate authors' claims.
7. Equations need to be mentioned in-text before their 1st appearance. The authors just listed equations (1-14) without making reference to it anywhere in the text.
8. Too many open claims without any scientific backing or reference. See lines 216-218, 220, 250-252.
9. The manuscript is flawed with lots of typographical errors. Authors should read the manuscript thoroughly again to correct this.
10. No clear methodology. Authors should briefly explain how the hybrid  comprehensive evaluation method based on GRA-TOPSIS works.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of planning decision-making evaluation of coal-fired thermal power units flexibility transformation under deep peak shaving is well suited to the topic of the magazine. At the same time, the topic is quite important in my opinion and these works have a chance to be well quoted. However, there are a few things that need to be discussed according to the list of comments below:
1. the end of the Introduction should provide a further structure for the work
2 The contribution should be more strongly shown
3 The choice of MCDA methods should be better justified, e.g., by using Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection
4 The designs should be written in one font size
5 The rankings in Table 4 must be compared with each other, e.g., in order to use A new coefficient of rankings similarity in decision-making problems
6. the conclusions should include a direction for further research work

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It seems that the authors have sincerely attempted to address the reviewers' comments, and I would recommend to publish the manuscript.  However, the following statement at Line 91-92 is incomplete since it has no verb: "Due to the increase in renewable energy power generation, as well as the randomness and uncertainty of renewable energy power generation."

Author Response

It seems that the authors have sincerely attempted to address the reviewers' comments, and I would recommend to publish the manuscript. However, the following statement at Line 91-92 is incomplete since it has no verb: "Due to the increase in renewable energy power generation, as well as the randomness and uncertainty of renewable energy power generation."

 

A1: Thanks for the suggestion, we have added the verb in Line 91-92, and changed the sentence with “Due to the renewable energy power generation is gradually increasing, the randomness and uncertainty of renewable energy power generation bring a big challenge for power energy supply”.

Reviewer 2 Report

Title  and abstract are in good shape now. The authors have addressed most of my comments and the general restructuring of this revised version looks fairly good for publication, contingent upon these minor corrections;

1.  Authors should carefully read through the manuscripts again to correct minor typos and mis-used words. Example the word "constructed" as used in line 19 of the abstract, "Larger coal quality"  used in line 198  amongst others are out of place.
2. Rewrite Equation 1. Use a better equation editor that clearly presents the denominator as a quotient not a mere slash (/).

Author Response

Authors should carefully read through the manuscripts again to correct minor typos and misused words. Example the word "constructed" as used in line 19 of the abstract, "Larger coal quality" used in line 198  amongst others are out of place.

 

Thanks for the suggestion. We had checked the revised paper again to correct the minor typos. We have changed “constructed” with “established” in line 19, and have changed the sentences of "Larger coal quality" “the larger the coal quality evaluation value”

 

Rewrite Equation 1. Use a better equation editor that clearly presents the denominator as a quotient not a mere slash (/).

We had rewritten the equation 1 with a better equation editor.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper can be accepted in the current form.

Author Response

Thanks for the reviewer.