Rationalization of Electrical Energy Consumption in Households through the Use of Cheap IoT Module with Cloud Data Storage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, the author proposed  a based model for monitoring for electricity consumption for effective utilization of the production capacity of Renewable energy sources (RES). This paper also investigates the future potential of electricity generation from renewable sources in Poland.

The following minor and major comments/remarks should be addressed before submission.

Minor:

Line 32: 82,6% of the power…. 82.6% of the power

Line 33: while 17,4% was derived…. while 17.4% was derived

Line 236: E? > ??. (?12? + ?12?) − (?11 + ?11)/ (?12? + ?21?) − (?12? + ?12?)….

?? > ??. (?12? + ?12?) − (?11 + ?11)/ (?12? + ?12?) − (?12? + ?12?)

Line 248: ?? > 0,29 ∙ ?? (for G12 tariff)….. ?? > 0.29 ∙ ?? (for G12 tariff)

Line 248: ?? > 0,40 ∙ ?? (for G12 tariff)…. ?? > 0.40 ∙ ?? (for G12 tariff)

Line 334: 0,73%.... 0.73%

Line 441: not understandable and the start of this line there is 1 is this is any reference if yes then where is it?

Major:

Line 390-394: The author mentioned the reference of table 6 but in table 6 cost decreased by 4337 There is no idea about the price and the author mentions the price decreased by 44 PLN

Question: How is it possible whether the mentioned reference is wrong or the value is wrong?

Suitable for publication

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the author for collecting the used data alone for this study, but it is a suggestion to improve the structure of the manuscript. Currently it is highly unstructured. I am mentioning some of the points here, which needs major improvements:

1. Topic of the manuscript is not matching with the work presented in the manuscript. So it is irrelevant topic. It is recommended to change the topic. In complete manuscript there is no use of IoT, cheap module, household consumption and cloud data storage. So why are these words used in topic?

2. Abstract and conclusion (Discussion) are irrelevant with respect to topic as well as work presented in the manuscript. So it is a suggestion to rewrite it.

3. In the manuscript, Author did not focus on any one complete study. Sometime there is an annual data presented for study, suddenly monthly study is used and then daily, hourly data are used for the study. Author should explain why he is doing this, or why any specific month, year, day he selected for the study?

4. Reference [1] is used in most of the data/study. It is unacceptable. Try to resolve this issue in revision.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents an overview of the current status and future potential of electricity generation from the renewable sources in Poland. It discusses the potential economic and environmental benefits to switch from the flat rate tariff to the time-of-day tariff. This results in an increase in energy consumption during off-peak hours, when there are occasional periods of overproduction of electricity from photovoltaic installations. This work also focuses on a cost-effective system for monitoring residential electricity consumption including multiple features, the assessment of the financial feasibility of switching electricity tariffs.

The reviews and comments made on the article are as follows.

1.      Abstract should be rewritten with more specific and explanatory expressions. As such, it does not fully summarize the study because the results obtained from the study should have been expressed in this section with 1 or 2 sentences.

2.     Section 1 (Introduction) is expressed very briefly. Only 3 articles were cited in this section. However, similar studies should be reviewed extensively in this section, and the difference and novelty of this study should be expressed especially in the last paragraph.

3.     It is seen that Section 2 is the continuation of Section 1. These two sections should be combined as a single section.

4.      It would be more appropriate to change Sections 3, 4 and 5 from "materials and methods" to Section 2 and to explain the methods/approaches/experimental setups used in a more comprehensive way with subsections. For instance, explaining the operation of the system with block diagrams will make the study more understandable. Also it’s more proper to include Figures 6 and 7 in this section to support the system operation.

5.     Although Section 6 is the part of this study where the results are given, it is seen that there are no meaningful and encouraging results related to this study. The results of the study should have been given in detail by examining them in this section, but it seems that this is not the case. This part should be seen as the most important part of the study and the results obtained should be given in this section by making necessary analyses.

6.     In the conclusion part, the findings obtained should be given as outcomes of this study. It is apparent that in this section, more general information about the study is given therefore this part needs to be reworded.

7.     In Figures 4 and 5, it is obvious that the unit price increases as the power generation from the PV system increases, and increases in the opposite case. This needs to be explained in detail.

8.     The graphs given in Figures 8 and 9 are not explanatory and need to be improved. In Figure 8, unit of time is not specified. Likewise, the same situation is in question in Figure 9. Similarly, Figure 10 should be given in the form of an appropriate graph or table. As it stands, it is not clear what it is. It would be more appropriate to give the graphics shown in Figure 11 in a more appropriate graphic form. Excel or similar spreadsheet software may be used to increase the graphic quality once necessary data are available.

9.     In general, it is seen that the study is not well organized, the methods and approaches used are not sufficient, and the results are not given and expressed in more appropriate way as they should be.

The English used throughout the text needs to be improved to make the study more understandable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Author has addressed most of the comments in a good manner and in a short time. Some of the things need correction:

1. In equations 1, 2, 3, C11 and C12 are written to represent tariff,  while in text and other places, G11 and G12 are mentioned. Correct it.

2. Figures 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 need improvement as well as relevant explanation for the better understanding of the readers.

3. Why is reference [48] mentioned in conclusion? Author should conclude it with his own results.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. It would be more suitable for visuality if Figures 5 and 6 were drawn with MS Office or similar software, using the data generated from the relevant software, instead of the "screenshot" image. Particularly, more detailed scaling of the horizontal axis is important in understanding the result obtained.
2. It is useful to pay attention to the terminology in Figure 8a. For example, instead of the concept of “Active Power”, one of the concepts of “real power” or “average power” would be more appropriate. In the data given in tabular form in the same graph, is the unit of the Energy heading given as "kWh"? This needs to be stated. Also, is the data in this table limited to 19 days? Shouldn't all measurements be given in tabular form?
3. The graphics in Figures 9a and 9b should be presented more clearly. In these charts the horizontal axis is not fully scaled. It would be more appropriate for visuality to draw these graphics with MS Office or similar software, using data generated from the relevant software, instead of a "screenshot" image.
4. Sections 4 and 5 should be combined under the name Section 4 as “Results and Discussion”.
5. Shouldn't the Conclusion be a separate "section" after the "Results and Discussion" section? The results obtained from the study should be outlined here.
6. If there is electricity generation from photovoltaic systems in Poland, wouldn't it be better for the reader to have some information about solar atlas in Poland? In the Introduction section, a solar atlas chart for Poland should be given.
7. There are two graphs in Figures 1 and 2. It is necessary to classify each graph as (a) and (b). Are the energy price graphs in Figures 1 and 2 unit prices produced from the photovoltaic system? Or is it the unit prices of energy purchased from the grid? This should be stated in the figure caption.

Minor editing of English language may be required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for revision. The article is improved from various aspects.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf