Numerical Study of Single-Layer and Stacked Minichannel-Based Heat Sinks Using Different Truncating Ratios for Cooling High Concentration Photovoltaic Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a study on “Numerical study of single-layer and stacked minichannel-based heat sinks using different truncating ratios for cooling high concentration photovoltaic systems”. However, there are some remarks and comments regarding the manuscript before determining for publication.
A revision is required regarding the literature cited, model references and discussion as:
* the article needs to be subdivided into the following sections: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion, Conclusions and Future work
* The main results of this work summarized seem to be apparent without new insights. A clear description of the new values or the contribution of the paper could be needed.
* Enrich discussion about results with quantitative description and explanation of reasons and mechanism behind.
* An updated and complete literature review should be conducted and should appear as part of the Introduction.
* Literature review (25 references were used in the Introduction) is weak in terms of relevant studies as there are already many work that focus on topics such as thermal energy, heat recovery, energy consumption ratio and drying efficiency. So, add updated and relevant studies for introduction and model references like:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.08.240
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123439
* Equations (1) to (11) should be established based on references.
*There are many values in tables and mostly taken from literature. Do they all utilized for the calculation?
* The quality of figures (9), (11) and (14) is poor. Please improve the quality of these figures if possible.
* There is no mandatory error analysis provided (experimental and/or numerical as requested by this journal)!
* A comparison of the current performances of HCPV/T with those of the literature should be established

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Nevertheless, some disadvantages are still not be resolved:

(1) The reviewer concerns about the error analysis of the proposed method in the revision.

(2) In the manuscript, the authors do not show the order of convergence of this method. What's the order of convergence?

(3) In the introduction, the authors did not provide a strong motivation for the paper and the obtained results. In addition, they should discuss the main contributions of their work in detail after the motivation part. Then, they should summarize the main structure of their paper in brief at the end of the introduction.

(4) The English writing of the paper is required to be improved. Please check the manuscript carefully for typos and grammatical errors. The reviewer found some typos and grammatical errors within this manuscript, which have been excluded from my review. In addition, the English structure of the article, including punctuation, semicolon, and other structures, must be carefully reviewed.

(5) The authors have to compare their results with the other literature and present the accuracy.

(6) The authors have to show their related computation equipment in the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The presented article is a study of the operating mode and optimization of the design of the photoreceiver of the concentrator solar module. The topic of the article is relevant and may be of interest to specialists and researchers in the fields of solar energy and the optimal use of resources. The article presents a study in the finite element analysis system, calculation of the module operation mode, with the help of which the authors propose various options for the design of the photoreceiver of the solar module, the authors also carried out a certain search and analysis of sources, however, several points should be noted as comments and recommendations:

1. It is interesting to compare the thermal regimes of a radiator without complex channels - one thin cavity - how inferior is this design to that proposed by the authors? Particularly important in the design is the complexity of its manufacture and the cost of manufacture, if the technical parameters differ not critically.

2. How is the electrical insulation of the photoelectric converter from the copper substrate - is electrical insulation necessary in the version proposed by the authors?

3. What function does the ceramic layer perform in one of the layers of the radiator - this should be indicated by the authors.

4. Of interest are the lines of fluid flow and its thermal fields in the finite element analysis system for the radiators under consideration in order to analyze its thermal mode of operation and finer optimization of the radiator design. Why did the authors take only two types of truncation, and not more?

5. Why do the authors compare their results only with Ahmed et al. [11] - it is worth expanding the works under consideration for comparison.

6. With the calculated temperature difference of various structures of 1-3 degrees Celsius at the optimum flow rate of the coolant, is it worth complicating the design and increasing the cost of its manufacture, when the outlet water temperature practically does not change, and the increase in electrical efficiency is 0.5 - 1% - it is necessary to justify the choice of the design of complicated radiators in more detail.

7. The authors should describe in more detail the areas of application of the developed modules - expand the indicated "membrane desalination, water heating and air conditioning".

8. What is the optimal configuration of the radiator as a result - what are the proposals for the implementation and manufacture of the module?

9. How will the coolant be supplied technically, and especially to the truncated channels of the radiator?

10. On the line 183, the authors should edit "whiletherestisconverted". The text on figures with graphs should be made clearer and larger.

11. What is the planned estimated cost of the developed photoreceiver, including photoelectric converters? What is the share of the cost of the photoreceiver in the total cost of the installation, which will include the solar concentrator, tracking system, coolant system, etc.? These values ​​are important and interesting, as they will show competitiveness in comparison with planar photovoltaic thermal modules (for example, DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-3867-7.ch004) - this should be noted at the beginning of the work and justify the feasibility of research.

12. As an alternative to expensive multicomponent photovoltaic converters, authors should pay attention in future studies or as an analogue for the investigated photovoltaic converters to silicon matrix high-voltage photovoltaic converters (for example, DOI: 10.4018/IJEOE.2020040106 ; DOI: 10.4018/IJEOE. 2021040101), which are also used in concentrator systems, have high electrical efficiency, low cost and long service life. The use of a two-component polysiloxane compound in these solar modules reduces the degradation of photovoltaic converters when operating in a concentrated solar flux and at a high operating temperature, which is especially relevant for Saudi Arabia. What technology and chemical components are used to seal and protect the photoelectric converters proposed by the authors?

The above remarks are of a more technical nature, but without a clear idea of ​​their solution, the question arises of the appropriateness of a numerical and analytical study of the solar module presented.

In general, the presented article leaves a positive impression, its subject matter is relevant, and it is performed at a sufficient scientific level, however, it is not without flaws. After eliminating these comments and taking into account the recommendations made, the presented article can be recommended for publication in the journal Sustainability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper can be considered for publication Sustainability

Reviewer 2 Report

It can be accepted.