Research on Distributed Energy Storage Planning-Scheduling Strategy of Regional Power Grid Considering Demand Response
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors present an interesting study but the presentation and the results are not good to be accepted. Authors should revise the paper based on the comments below:
1) Introduction should be expanded by citing and discussing more papers. 12 references are very few.
2) Authors should show citations for equations (1)-(20). In addition, authors should present definitions and unit of symbols in the equations.
3) Data of the system in the numerical results regarding symbols in Eqs.(1)-(20) should be shown and explained.
4) Many symbols are missed in line 121-121. Only spaces are seen.
5) Many constraints are put in Eq. (24). Each constraint should be added in each equation and explained in detail.
6) Please clarify Control variables, dependent variables, fitness function, penalty terms.
7) Tables of data should be presented. The presentation of data is not clear to read, and the reviewer cannot check the results.
8) Authors should add a table to show control parameters of applied algorithms.
9) A system with 33 nodes is very simple. Authors should apply more larger scale systems, from 69, 85 nodes to more and more. If authors do not simulate more systems, I think the paper is not good for acceptance.
10) How to check the constraints in Equation (24) after having the final results.
11) Only one algorithm was applied for the problem. How can we know the results are the best or believable ?
12) What is the efficiency of converters to charge and discharge energy?
13) Why do not you apply electricity prices like (Artificial ecosystem optimization for optimizing of position and operational power of battery energy storage system on the distribution network considering distributed generations) ? The efficiency of charge and discharge processes is also seen here, so please clarify the issues in your study.
English and typos should be revised.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents an optimal configuration model of distributed energy storage considering demand response and new energy consumption, where the new energy consumption capacity of the system is taken as an important decision factor.
1. There is a mistake in power-related terms in Eq.11. P_sub_ESS is not “the power of energy storage in the power grid”. It should be “maximum power charge/discharge rate”
2. Again, “r” in Eq. 11 should be “interest rate,” not the discount rate
3. r_P in Eq.11 should be revised as “unit power cost”
4. Energy infrastructure cost in Eq. 11 can not be a constant, independent of the energy size or power capacity.
5. Energy storage operation and maintenance cost (Eq.12) is an annual value and has no relation with the interest rate. No need for annualization (levelization).
6. Similarly, the operation and maintenance costs of DG units (Eq.16) is an annualized value and have no relation with the interest rate.
7. It seems that all the variables in the equations, especially in 8-12, should be given with their units so that one can identify the differences.
8. The energy recovery cost in Eq.10 is different from the two other cots. We need to maximize it, while minimizing the others. Therefore, it must come with a “-“ sign.
9. The authors will better refer to the following papers for the investment and other costs of ESS and DG units.
Ahmadi, B., Ceylan, O., Ozdemir, A., Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M., “A multi-objective framework for distributed energy resources planning and storage management,” Applied Energy, 314(1):118887, May 2022.
Ahmed Awad, Tarek H.M. El-Fouly, M.M.A. SalamaM.M.A., Optimal Distributed Generation Allocation and Load Shedding for Improving Distribution System Reliability, Electric Power Components and Systems 42(6), March 2014
10. I think a compact formulation should be illustrated for the intended constraint optimization problem. Such as;
Minimize OF
Subject to: equality constraints
Inequality constraints
And then define the objective function (OF), equality constraints, and inequality constraints.
11. Figure 1 is not clear enough to derive some conclusions.
12. I am unsure if ESS units have arbitrary storage capacities, as given in Table 1. I think that the sizes of ESS units should also be rounded to modular ones, like the powers.
13. The resulting benefits of optimum siting, sizing, and operating of ESS units must be compared with the base case operation without ESS units (partly done) as well as with some other literature. The second one is required to validate the optimization process.
14. The authors should better compare accuracy and speed with other heuristic methods, at least with the BAT algorithm.
15. The authors are trying to minimize 5 different costs given in Eq.5. It is more beneficial to write all the costs separately for the base case and the optimum case to realize the relative changes in the cost components.
16. The literature review should be extended to cover several aspects of the optimization process, like formulation, solution etc.
A though English check is required. In addition, some technical terms should be checked.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper contains a valuable contribution. The subject is within the scope of the journal and the objective of research is well stated. However, some clarifications about the underlying hypothesis / scope are needed.
In the opinion of this Reviewer the manuscript deserves to be published once the Author takes into account the raised issues.
All the following indicated aspects should be clarified and better explained in the manuscript.
Introduction
1. The authors should better highlight the innovative aspects of their work in the manuscript.
2. For the sake of readability, at the end of Section 1 the authors should describe how the paper is structured.
System model
3. Does the proposed approach consider exact or linearized power quality constraints? Several recent scientific studies on related topics (https://doi.org/10.1109/TCNS.2022.3181527, https://doi.org/10.1109/TCNS.2019.2910455), show that demand response energy management must consider power quality and power flow constraints, to take realistic scenario into account. The Authors should comment this point.
4. It seems that only one battery is considered (Fig. 1). As highlighted by several recent works on power balance and optimal power flow (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2022.105364, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5048446, documents that could be cited in the text), energy communities and microgrids are recently equipped with multiple energy storage. Does the proposed method account for distributed storage?
Problem formulation and resolution
5. Optimization model: The authors should clearly characterize the overall problem that they intend to solve through reinforcement learning. What type of decision variables (i.e. integer, real, etc) and how many? How many constraints (bounding, inequality, equality)?
Case study
6. The outcome of the proposed approach should be assessed and condensed into a suitable indicator(s) that synthetically summarizes the related overall correctness and accuracy.
Conclusions
7. Conclusions needs to be extended to present further implications for future research and many managerial insights based on the results of the study, as well as limitations.
Minor
8. The authors should check that all the used acronyms are explained.
9. Mainly the English is good and there are only a few typos. However the paper should be carefully rechecked.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper deals with Research on Distributed Energy Storage Planning-scheduling Strategy of Regional Power Grid Considering Demand Response. The following comments should be addressed to improve the quality of the manuscript.
1. Please elaborate why carbon prices are set to 58, 62 and 68 yuan/t?
2. What is the limitations of using energy abandonment rate to judge the penalty coefficient?
3. Please use consistent in-text citations? Numbering? Superscript?
4. Kindly compare the results with relevant studies. There seem to be no discussion with other related studies.
5. Please elaborate more on this statement. "After the allocation of energy storage, the amount of new energy abandonment is reduced. After the load participates in demand response, the output curve is more smooth-out and the volatility is reduced."
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
This study recognizes the importance of reducing emissions by incorporating new energy sources within the framework of sustainability. It introduces a model designed to assess the expenses linked to carbon emissions and introduces a mechanism for converting new energy consumption into penalties to discourage the abandonment of new energy sources. This mechanism serves to bolster the feasibility and financial considerations surrounding the adoption of new energy technologies. The optimization challenge is tackled using the improved bat algorithm, and the proposed model's effectiveness is verified through simulation experiments conducted on the IEEE33 node. The results yield insights into the ideal placement, capacity, and scheduling tactics for distributed energy storage within the distribution network.
General Comments:
1) In the introduction, the authors could, in the paragraph before the section that deals with the structure of the document, mention what were the main scientific contributions and the solution to the mentioned problem. At least 3 items.
2) What does MATPOWER mean? What does GUROBI mean? What does INBA mean? What does BA mean? What does PSO mean? Would you be able to detail and reference? Do you realize that a list of abbreviations at the beginning of the document is necessary in the document to facilitate the understanding of the text and the reading to flow better?
3) In Figure 1, the authors report that it is not difficult to see that the operating cost of the system obtained by the INBA algorithm is lower than that of the other two algorithms (BA, PSO), with reduction rates of 0.64% and 1.01%, respectively . Could the authors explain the relevance of a reduction rate below 1%? Is 1% significant? Could you cite other works as a measure of comparison? Does this really mean that the other algorithms are efficient? Would you be able to do a statistical test to prove the degree of confidence in the results? If possible, could you make a confidence interval for the results? Could it be that with a two-sided confidence interval of 95% the algorithms would practically be within a margin of error without so many differences between the algorithms? Could you run these tests?
4) Could the authors do a sensitivity analysis of the results in Tables 4 and 5? In table 4, the authors mention that from the analysis of the participation in the response to demand, by comparing schemes 1, 2, 3 and 4, it is observed that after participation in the response to demand, the rate of consumption of new energy increases by 8.56% and 8.78%, respectively, and new energy consumption is reduced by 602.3 kWh and 618.78 kWh, respectively. Perfect! Great! But I believe there is a lack of physical sensitivity of the results. Is this percentage and kWh increase in the new energy consumption rate important? Is it significant? What are the tangible and intangible gains for the given application?
5) In Table 5 the authors mention that when comparing the four schemes it is possible to observe that the introduction of energy storage and demand response at the same time can effectively reduce the amount of new energy abandonment and decrease the cost of new energy abandonment . Could the authors validate this result with statistical tests? I believe it strengthened the solution.
6) The conclusions can present the percentages of earnings with the work. It is at this point that the authors should clarify the advantages and disadvantages of applying such an algorithm.
7) As a suggestion and not an obligation, in order to reference the valuable work with documents developed in real case studies in battery factory installations that use renewable sources for energy supply, I leave the suggestion to improve the research with these works below:
a) Ramos, F.; Pinheiro, A.; Nascimento, R.; de Araujo Silva Junior, W.; Mohamed, M.A.; Annuk, A.; Marinho, M.H.N. Development of Operation Strategy for Battery Energy Storage System into Hybrid AC Microgrids. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13765. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113765
b) Cavalcanti, M.d.M.; Costa, T.; Pereira, A.C.; Jatobá, E.B.; Filho, J.B.d.M.; Barreto, E.; Mohamed, M.A.; Ilinca, A.; Marinho, M.H.N. Case Studies for Supplying the Alternating Current Auxiliary Systems of Substations with a Voltage Equal to or Higher than 230 kV. Energies 2023, 16, 5396. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16145396
c) de Araujo Silva Júnior, W.; Vasconcelos, A.; Arcanjo, A.C.; Costa, T.; Nascimento, R.; Pereira, A.; Jatobá, E.; Filho, J.B.; Barreto, E.; Dias, R.; et al. Characterization of the Operation of a BESS with a Photovoltaic System as a Regular Source for the Auxiliary Systems of a High-Voltage Substation in Brazil. Energies 2023, 16, 1012. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16021012
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
In general, the topic of this paper is interesting and the paper is well-written. Here, there are some concerns of this reviewer:
1 How does the proposed operation strategy for demand response linkage affect the peak regulation of the power grid?
2 How does the ladder new energy abandonment penalty mechanism work in the carbon trading market?
3 How does the proposed strategy address the issue of new energy abandonment cost in the optimization model?
4 Since the improved bat algorithm is a heuristic search method, its optimization results have certain randomness. In this case, how to guarantee that the optimization result of each run converges to the global optimal solution? If it's not guaranteed, which optimization result should be chosen as the final solution? Please clarify.
5 The review does not cover the latest development in the field studied in this work. Among the 17 references, only 1 come from journals after 2023. The following recent article with the similar scenario and research targets can be cited, and discussed to enable readers to better know the latest developments: Data-driven distributionally robust scheduling of community integrated energy systems with uncertain renewable generations considering integrated demand response; An insight into the integration of distributed energy resources and energy storage systems with smart distribution networks using demand-side management.
6 All references, especially article titles, should be in a uniform format. Please check and modify the references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Some of all comments were not clarified. Please clarify these comments again.
2. "Authors should show citations for equations (1)-(20).".
Authors did not clarify my comment. I mean, Authors should show references, where these equations were taken from.
3. Data of the system in the numerical results regarding symbols in Eqs.(1)-(20) should be shown and explained.
Authors did not clarify my comment. , I mean that authors should show data of the systems.
6. 1. Please clarify Control variables, dependent variables, fitness function, penalty terms.
The author said that lines 309-311 are about the information. But I did not see the information at these lines.
In addition, please revise "[16]" in page 370.
Please clarify the data in Table 5.
English should be polished
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have replied most of my concerns. However, it needs a though English check before publication.
-
Author Response
The English expression has been re-examined
Reviewer 3 Report
Previous comments and concerns have been sufficiently addressed, except the following ones, whose discussion has been partially included but not corroborated by related references.
Does the proposed method account for one (distributed) storage or multiple storages? The authors are encouraged to define the storage configuration they are dealing with (https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2021.3061619). Please note that in all equation (for instance, in energy storage constraints shown in Equation (24)) only one storage seems to be addressed (i.e., only one SOC, one S_t, etc.).
As highlighted by several recent works on power balance and optimal power flow (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2022.105364, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5048446, documents that could be cited in the text), energy communities and microgrids are recently equipped with multiple energy storage. Does the proposed method account for distributed storage.
Finally, the description of the proposed architecture could be improved. It could be better to insert at the beginning of Section 2 an outline about the system model and the methodology flow diagram; the use of UML or SysML could help authors describing the proposed system view in a more structured fashion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 6 Report
The paper has been revised and resubmitted. In general, the quality of paper has been improved and most of my previous questions have been appropriately addressed. Since the revision is acceptable, I think this version of the manuscript can be published.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is not good enough for publication in the journal. It needs more revisions due to the reasons below:
1) Many constraints are shown in formular (24). Authors should separate the formula to formulas and each formula will clarify one constraint.
2) The simulation is very simple. Authors mut use larger systems with 69,85 or 123 nodes. I have suggested the more simulations but authors neglected.
3) Figures shown in results are small. They should be shown in larger size figures.
English needs major revisions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
