Fair Virtual Energy Storage System Operation for Smart Energy Communities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Questions are the following: 1- Who is responsible for the operation of a virtual energy storage system? 2- in figure 1 explains the power flow between a virtual energy storage system and the smart energy community; VESS is a virtual provider. Now the question is, how does a virtual component produce real power?Author Response
1. Who is responsible for the operation of a virtual energy storage system?
=> Thank you for the comment. The virtual energy storage system (VESS) can be implemented by either a smart energy service provider (SESP) or a third-party service provider. In this study, it was assumed that the VESS is implemented by the SESP and therefore has the responsibility for its operation. We have now clarified this point in the revised manuscript.
2. In figure 1 explains the power flow between a virtual energy storage system and the smart energy community; VESS is a virtual provider. Now the question is, how does a virtual component produce real power?
=> The VESS logically operates for multiple units, but it is a physical ESS. The SESP combines multiple operation actions of each unit into a single action and operates a physical ESS using the combined single action. This has now been clarified in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to the Authors
1-What are the novelty and advantages of your method? Please clarify What exactly is the purpose of this work?
2- In the introduction, it is not enough to state the current work. It should be expanded and reconstructed. Including the motivation, the main work, and the improvements compared with previous related works should be emphasized in this section and explain how the present work defers from that published previously, also, the literature review given in this paper is very pore and old to state the contribution of the present work, as there are recent and better works that deal with the same system
3- The motivation of the research is not clear and the innovation of the paper is insufficient, if it is not then these should be respectively given. 4- The abstract and introduction is too short and a reader can't get full information of contribution. It must be revised. In particular, the last paragraph of the introduction should be seriously edited. 5-The recommended method should be presented in comparison with many other publications in the literature.
7- In this work, the authors seem to have applied the controller without major contributions. In this case, experimental validation is mandatory or it is necessary to demonstrate the validation of the objectives cited in this work analytically. Given the aforementioned issues and based on my expertise, I conclude that the present paper really lacks originality. I suggest that the authors revise the article completely by bringing more mathematical demonstrations on this controller or an experimental validation.
Author Response
1. What are the novelty and advantages of your method? Please clarify What exactly is the purpose of this work?
=> Thank you for the comment. The novelty (and advantage) of the proposed method is that a virtual energy storage system (VESS) operation scheme considering fairness has been developed. The VESS is based on a sharing economy business model that logically shares a physical ESS among multiple units. Fairness is a necessary condition for the continuous service participation of units [Ref]. However, conventional research on VESS operation focuses on maximizing the total benefit to units without considering fairness. This study suggests two types of fairness (cost fairness and resource fairness) and proposes a VESS operation scheme to satisfy the fairness constraints. In the revised manuscript, the novelty and advantages of the proposed method are more clearly described in the Introduction section.
[Ref] Seiders, K.; Berry, L. L. Service fairness: What it is and why it matters. Academy of Management Perspectives 1998 12(2), 8-20.
2. In the introduction, it is not enough to state the current work. It should be expanded and reconstructed. Including the motivation, the main work, and the improvements compared with previous related works should be emphasized in this section and explain how the present work defers from that published previously, also, the literature review given in this paper is very pore and old to state the contribution of the present work, as there are recent and better works that deal with the same system.
=> I have reviewed the literature again, including recent and better works, and revised the Introduction section accordingly. Moreover, the previous works have now been summarized in the form of a table to clearly show the differences in comparison with the proposed method.
3. The motivation of the research is not clear and the innovation of the paper is insufficient, if it is not then these should be respectively given.
=> As I mentioned in response to the first comment, the motivation of this research relates to the consideration of fairness in VESS operation. I have revised the Introduction section and ensured that the motivation is explicitly stated.
4. The abstract and introduction is too short and a reader can't get full information of contribution. It must be revised. In particular, the last paragraph of the introduction should be seriously edited.
=> Based on the reviewer’s previous comments, the Introduction section has been rewritten to clearly show the motivation, difference between the previous works and the proposed method, and contribution. The abstract has also been revised to clearly present the contribution, while ensuring that it is still within the maximum word limit (200 words) prescribed by the journal.
5. The recommended method should be presented in comparison with many other publications in the literature.
=> In the revised manuscript, the difference between the previous works and the proposed method is compared more clearly in the Introduction section. In addition, when describing the proposed method in the Method section, a description of the difference from the previous works has been added.
6. There is no comment written in #6.
7. In this work, the authors seem to have applied the controller without major contributions. In this case, experimental validation is mandatory or it is necessary to demonstrate the validation of the objectives cited in this work analytically. Given the aforementioned issues and based on my expertise, I conclude that the present paper really lacks originality. I suggest that the authors revise the article completely by bringing more mathematical demonstrations on this controller or an experimental validation.
=> The proposed fair VESS operation scheme is a modified form of existing VESS operation schemes to maximize social welfare. Even when considering the additional fairness constraints, the proposed operation is formulated as a convex problem that can be solved using the iterative method. Therefore, mathematical analysis to solve the problem has not been dealt with in depth. In the original manuscript, to validate the performance of the proposed operation, numerical results using the real data set were presented in Section 3. Changes in social welfare, resource, and cost fairness indices were presented to observe the impact of the SEC aspect by the proposed operation. The operation cycle for the VESS and peak demand reduction for the utility grid were demonstrated. The meaning of the results is discussed in Section 4. In the revised manuscript, to confirm the effect of the proposed operation more clearly, the result of the change in welfare for each unit according to the VESS operation has been added. I hope this addresses your concerns; thank you once again for your valuable comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
The author has presented the paper in a well organized manner. Clarification to be given by the author: 1.Need more conjecture of Figure 4. Total benefit gap between P1 and P2. P1 and 246 P2 is marginal at ∼5%, ===line 246 2. In Figure 5. VESS operation cycle upon varying the implemented VESS capacity, The Y axis can be taken from 0.75 -1.1, then VESS capacity is clear from 250-350kWh ===line 290 Thank youAuthor Response
The author has presented the paper in a well organized manner. Clarification to be given by the author:
1. Need more conjecture of Figure 4. Total benefit gap between P1 and P2. P1 and P2 is marginal at ∼5%. ===line 246
=> In the revised manuscript, the exact values of total benefit gap between P1 and P2 have been added in Figure 4. A description has also been revised for clarity: “The gap of the total benefit between P1 and P2 is less than 5.2%.”
2. In Figure 5. VESS operation cycle upon varying the implemented VESS capacity, The Y axis can be taken from 0.75 -1.1, then VESS capacity is clear from 250-350kWh. ===line 290
=> Figure 5 has been converted with a range of 0.75–1.1 on the Y-axis. Thank you for your useful comment.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
1- In the introduction, it is not enough to state the current work. It should be expanded and reconstructed. Including the motivation, the main work, and the improvements compared with previous related works should be emphasized in this section and explain how the present work defers from that published previously, also, the literature review given in this paper is very pore and old to state the contribution of the present work, as there are recent and better works that deal with the same system such as: [1] Al Alahmadi, A. A., Belkhier, Y., Ullah, N., Abeida, H., Soliman, M. S., Khraisat, Y. S. H., & Alharbi, Y. M. (2021). Hybrid wind/PV/battery energy management-based intelligent non-integer control for smart DC-microgrid of smart university. IEEE Access, 9, 98948-98961. [2] Sahri, Y., Belkhier, Y., Tamalouzt, S., Ullah, N., Shaw, R. N., Chowdhury, M. S., & Techato, K. (2021). Energy management system for hybrid PV/wind/battery/fuel cell in microgrid-based hydrogen and economical hybrid battery/super capacitor energy storage. Energies, 14(18), 5722. [3] Soliman, M. S., Belkhier, Y., Ullah, N., Achour, A., Alharbi, Y. M., Al Alahmadi, A. A., ... & Khraisat, Y. S. H. (2021). Supervisory energy management of a hybrid battery/PV/tidal/wind sources integrated in DC-microgrid energy storage system. Energy Reports, 7, 7728-7740. Etc…
2- The motivation of the research is not clear and the innovation of the paper is insufficient, if it is not then these should be respectively given.
3- The abstract and introduction is too short and a reader can't get full information of contribution. It must be revised. In particular, the last paragraph of the introduction should be seriously edited.
Author Response
1- In the introduction, it is not enough to state the current work. It should be expanded and reconstructed. Including the motivation, the main work, and the improvements compared with previous related works should be emphasized in this section and explain how the present work defers from that published previously, also, the literature review given in this paper is very pore and old to state the contribution of the present work, as there are recent and better works that deal with the same system such as: [1] Al Alahmadi, A. A., Belkhier, Y., Ullah, N., Abeida, H., Soliman, M. S., Khraisat, Y. S. H., & Alharbi, Y. M. (2021). Hybrid wind/PV/battery energy management-based intelligent non-integer control for smart DC-microgrid of smart university. IEEE Access, 9, 98948-98961. [2] Sahri, Y., Belkhier, Y., Tamalouzt, S., Ullah, N., Shaw, R. N., Chowdhury, M. S., & Techato, K. (2021). Energy management system for hybrid PV/wind/battery/fuel cell in microgrid-based hydrogen and economical hybrid battery/super capacitor energy storage. Energies, 14(18), 5722. [3] Soliman, M. S., Belkhier, Y., Ullah, N., Achour, A., Alharbi, Y. M., Al Alahmadi, A. A., ... & Khraisat, Y. S. H. (2021). Supervisory energy management of a hybrid battery/PV/tidal/wind sources integrated in DC-microgrid energy storage system. Energy Reports, 7, 7728-7740. Etc…
=> Thank you for the comment again. I checked the references you recommended and added them to the revised paper.
2- The motivation of the research is not clear and the innovation of the paper is insufficient, if it is not then these should be respectively given.
=> The VESS is a sharing economy business model that logically shares a physical ESS in multiple units. Fairness is a necessary condition for continuous service participation of units. However, the conventional research for the VESS operation focuses to maximize the total benefit of units without considering fairness. The motivation of this research is consideration of fairness in the VESS operation. And, this study suggests two types of fairness as the cost fairness and resource fairness and proposes the VESS operation to satisfy the fairness constraints. In the revised paper, the introduction is reconstructed so that the motivation and innovation of this paper can be clearly seen.
3- The abstract and introduction is too short and a reader can't get full information of contribution. It must be revised. In particular, the last paragraph of the introduction should be seriously edited.
=> Introduction section is reconstructed to clearly show the motivation, difference between the previous works and the proposed method, and contribution. The abstract is also modified to clearly present the contribution. In particular, the last paragraph of the introduction is deleted and represented including the contribution.
