Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The Eq. (2) is a normalized equation and hence K1 and K2  are   not compatible to subtract from each other. Hence the authors need to modify the Equations 2, 3, 4.

2. The convergence plot obtained with GA for the objective function has to be provided.

3. A neat flow chart diagram for the proposed algorithm is need to be provided.

4. In Table-2 in the second time slot the no of EVs are quite large compared to time slot one. How the number of EVs per slot are considered.

5. The total degradation costs projected are seems to be not realistic. Please verify them.

Author Response

Dear Respected Editor and Respected Reviewer,

I hope this manuscript finds you in a good health.

Thank you very much for your valuable time and we greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments that helped us improving the manuscript by incorporating all the reviewers’ comments.

We trust that all your comments have been addressed accordingly in the revised manuscript.

In the attached file, we give a point-by-point reply to your comments and the colour code is reflected in the manuscript.

Thank you very much for your efforts and valuable time.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, a novel and robust central insightful aggregator hierarchical optimization algorithm based on the genetic algorithm (GA) is implemented and investigated. The 203 proposed model has minimized the battery degradation cost and maximized the EV owner profit by selecting the number of EVs that would participate in the V2G and G2V technologies to shave the load demand of the grid. The subject is timely and interesting. However, after careful reviewing of the paper the following comments need to be taken into consideration:

 

1- Literature review should be improved. A taxonomy table should be included to compare the features of the paper in comparison to the other previous works. 

 

2- Why did the authors use GA? Why mathematical oriented methods can not be applicable?

 

3- Following by comment 2, I suggest the authors to compare the performance of the GA with the other heuristic algorithms.

 

4- A nomenclature should be included.

 

5- What is the exact and practical conclusion of the paper? I can not understand it. What does the paper bring for the policy maker and/or operators?

 

6- I think the model and the method should be stated separately.   In 2.3, they have been mixed. Before stating the objective function, a sentence about GA is stated. It would be confusing.

 

I hope my comments help the authors to improve their work.

Author Response

Dear Respected Editor and Respected Reviewer,

I hope this manuscript finds you in a good health.

Thank you very much for your valuable time and we greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments that helped us improving the manuscript by incorporating all the reviewers’ comments.

We trust that all your comments have been addressed accordingly in the revised manuscript.

In the attached file, we give a point-by-point reply to your comments and the colour code is reflected in the manuscript.

Thank you very much for your efforts and valuable time.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

 

This paper is a great work, I have a few suggestions for enhancing the overall view of the paper. These are the following:

·         I kindly suggest you avoid the informal use of the English in the Abstract and the rest of the paper.

·         Equations 2,4,5 please avoid using the “*” rather than “·”, it looks more formal

·         Table 2, Table 3 lacks the units, please add it.

·         In section 2, I miss a subsection where the important key factor is highlighted, for example: maximum DoD (allowed for this experimentation), how the aggregation is made for this paper, definition like V2G slight differ from G2V as consequence this should be exposed here, why choosing these brands and model of cars, and not others, etc.

 

·         I highly recommend read the following paper (10.3390/buildings12030264) and consider the paper as this is a new publication which is closely related to the focus of this research.

Author Response

Dear Respected Editor and Respected Reviewer,

I hope this manuscript finds you in a good health.

Thank you very much for your valuable time and we greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments that helped us improving the manuscript by incorporating all the reviewers’ comments.

We trust that all your comments have been addressed accordingly in the revised manuscript.

In the attached file, we give a point-by-point reply to your comments and the colour code is reflected in the manuscript.

Thank you very much for your efforts and valuable time.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version of the paper is acceptable for publication 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper can be accepted as it is.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has largely improved from the previous version, I strongly believe the paper should be considered for publishing.