Modeling and Analysis of BESS Operations in Electricity Markets: Prediction and Strategies for Day-Ahead and Continuous Intra-Day Markets
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntroduction and literature review are well structured and made. Motivation and objectives of the work are clear.
The paper is on the large size and could be reduced for concisiveness and comprehensive efficiency. Chapter 2, where the Italian market structure is presented could be reduced in size. Most of the information is only relevant as a context for the work environment and does not contribute to the scientific objectives of the work. Summarising, compacting or eliminating some sub-chapters while maintaining the main exposure would benefit the paper.
Chapter 3 has some incorrect references leading to several "Error! Reference source not found" instances. Need correction.
Figure 18 is hard to read. Please try to improve quality.
Some images still have Italian words. Please translate.
Q: The work is developed taking as reference the Italian energy market. What difficulties or barriers would be present if we want to apply this model to a different energy market, such as Iberia or UK?
Overall the work is solid and sound. There are plenty of results which hinder focus of the work and the main idea may sometimes get lost. The paper quality would improve if it could be simplified and shortened.
References are few compared to the size of the work. There are works done regarding models with several techniques applied to energy markets. A suggestion to finding new references: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.05.00
An important factor sometimes overlooked regarding energy arbitrage is efficiency, which introduces losses and lowers profit. The work in 10.3390/en15238905 does an analysis on technical efficiency and economical results for battery arbitrage. Tables, 2, 3 and 7 could also be of interest to complement the state of the art and improve paper quality.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper investigates the feasibility and economic viability of batteries into wholesale electricity markets as per EU regulation, focusing on the dynamics of very different markets, namely the Day-Ahead Market (DAM) based on system marginal price and the Cross-Border Intra-day Market (XBID) based on continuous trading. And the research provides insights into compatibility between continuous markets and BESS, showing substantial improvements in economic profitability and the correlation between risk and profits in the bidding strategy. For all that, I would like to recommend that the paper be reconsidered for publication after substantial revisions. Below please find some detailed comments.
1. Authors have recognized the importance of storage systems in the energy transition, and though it becomes crucial to build models capable of optimizing their design and real-time operations to develop an efficient bidding strategy in these markets. This is necessary but it is notable that they should make clear that what are their findings based on the previous research, and what are contributions that different from exist literature. At least in my opinion for now, "This work employs a BESS model based on [15], suitable for analyzing a grid-connected BESS that can represent losses and includes the auxiliaries’ load." is questionable in feasibility.
2. The logic of this manuscript is fine with me, but the managerial implications of this study, i.e. "what's the big deal?", are not well-explained. How would the electricity firms' managers be benefited from the findings of your study? What are the specific action plans based on the research findings? These should be addressed.
3. It is critical to compare the findings with the prior literature as well as check whether the findings can challenge/support the current industrial practice (i.e., industrial verification).
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt‘s ok for me
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. please explain the variable in contribution 2.
2. It is suggested to further clarify the market mechanism in section 2. Please indicate the market transaction types, e.g. electricity market, reserve market, ancillary service market etc., in day-ahead and intra-day market.
3. BESS roles in different transactions of different markets are suggested to be discussed at first in section 3.
4. The influence of the capacity and location of BESS in the system topology and the contribution of BESS at different locations are suggested to be discussed.
5. Subtitle 3.2.1 is suggested to be removed as there is no 3.2.2.
6. Section 3.3 is suggested to be considered as section 4. Thus, the main content will be corresponding to the contributions.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has made a good modification, the revised manuscript is recommended to be accepted.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt's OK for me
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for the positive feedback. Considering the comment on the quality of English, we also proceeded to a moderate editing of English language. Changes done are marked in the new version.
Once again, thank you for the valuable contribution.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn line 148, the variable Pz is suggested to be further described or the equation to be explained.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your positive feedback! Concerning the comment on the former Line 148 about zonal price (Pz), we improved the text in two ways: equation has been better described in the text; zonal price has been better defined in lines 126-127.
We hope now everything is coherent with expectations. Thank you again.
