Next Article in Journal
RNA-Pol II Transcription Elongation Factor FpRtfA Is Required for Virulence and Secondary Metabolism in Fusarium pseudograminearum
Previous Article in Journal
Development of an Algorithm for Textile Waste Arrangement
Previous Article in Special Issue
Simulation and Optimization of Renewable Energy-Powered Desalination: A Bibliometric Analysis and Highlights of Recent Research
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Analysis of System Balancing and Wind Power Curtailment Challenges in the Ethiopian Power System under Different Scenarios

Sustainability 2023, 15(14), 11400; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411400
by Kena Likassa Nefabas 1,*, Mengesha Mamo 1 and Lennart Söder 2
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Sustainability 2023, 15(14), 11400; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411400
Submission received: 8 June 2023 / Revised: 17 June 2023 / Accepted: 30 June 2023 / Published: 22 July 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The present study has made the reasonable effort in the domain and authors have presented the model in an appropriate manner. However, to improve the manuscript following suggestions are needed to be incorporate:

 

1.       Referencing needs to be revised extensively. There are many claiming sentences which were not referenced appropriately. Such as line 80-90 requires reference and so as lines 92-93 and so on.

2.       The contribution of the paper is written in bullet points which is required to be re-written in paragraph form with fluency.

3.       Between lines 188-197 under heading 2, require referencing.

4.       Data in Table has not included any references to guide where that data was obtained from. Please add the references.

5.       The equations presented in the manuscript require also the source where those equations have been obtained from. If they have derived for ethop9ian scenario, than they also require some explanation in the same section.

6.       Notably, in section 3, why case study setup was built? I am unable to understand this, why this was needed? Perhaps in my opinion, it should be written in continuous manner just like as results were discussed in a continuous manner.

7.       The major results in a summarized manner need to be included in the conclusion section of the manuscript which I noticed are missing.

English is Ok but require some changes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for you swift response.

I have tried to address your comment and it is attached below.

Best regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript: Sustainability-2467884-peer-review-v1

In this paper, an hourly dispatch model was developed to analyse the system balancing and wind power curtailment challenges in the future of Ethiopian electric power grid system. The developed model is validated by historical data and is used for the analysis of the grid system in 2030 with different scenarios. The model was used to examine the transmission capacity, regulation reserve 10 requirement and daily minimum power generation of hydropower for irrigation with three cases of the annual energy share of 14.5%, 17.8% and 25.2%. Thus, the curtailment is found to be below 0.2%, 1.1% and 9.8% for each case respectively. The cost of wind energy increases in proportion to the percentage of curtailment and an increase in transmission line capacity. Reducing minimum hydropower generation are results in smaller wind power curtailment and better generation-consumption balancing.

1.      Nomenclature section should be arranged in a more understandable way. As it stands, it is confusing and not clear enough.

2.     Introduction section is written as it should be. The contribution of this study is explained in the last paragraph. The novelty of this study and its contribution to the field of science need to be expanded a little more.

3.     The data used in the study are given in Section 2 in a comprehensible manner with tables and graphics.

4.     In Section 3, the problem formulation is given in a clear and explicable manner with equations, graphs and tables.

5.     The presentation, interpretation and discussion of the results in Section Result and Discussion is reasonable and informative.

6.     In Conclusion, the findings obtained in the study are presented in an understandable way. Some findings need to be highlighted more. That is, it should be expanded a little more.

Minor editing of English language may be required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your swift response.

I have tried to address your comment accordingly.

 

Best regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Yes. I am satisfied with the efforts made by authors in accordance with the suggestions made.

Back to TopTop