Low-Carbon Optimization Scheduling for Systems Considering Carbon Responsibility Allocation and Electric Vehicle Demand Response

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an interesting analysis of the emissions and costs associated with the use of energy in electric cars. Although it is within the scope of the journal and has merit, it needs some improvements in the text before being accepted for publication.

Abstract

Deliver the best results with the best combination of names, emissions and costs.

Introduction

You need to put the number 2 of CO2 as subscript form and remove the superscript forms from the citations [1, 2, 3 and 4].

Results - Methodology

Are LA1, LA2 and LA3 the residential LA, commercial LA, and industrial LA,, respectively? Write more clearly in the text

I don't understand where the sources of emissions come from. At one point you mentioned wind energy, at another thermal energy and coal.
After all, what was the source of energy fed into the electric vehicle system?

You need to specify and bring them closer to the tables, so that we can identify the potential sources of emissions. Since you only use scenarios 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5... it is difficult to interpret your results.

I suggest that instead of numbering you use an abbreviation for the energy source.

You present an incredible 32 equations, however, in Table 1You cite cost coefficients a, b and c, but these are not present in any of the equations you presented.

I suggest that you present only the essential equations and insert the driving ones in an appendix. And, SHOW the equations that use the cost coefficients from Table 1.

In all tables, display the units in parentheses (yes: Total cost (10000 yuan) instead of separated by a slash (No: Total cost/10000 yuan).

Is the calculation done for 24 hours or for a year or during the life cycle of the electric car battery? Did you not consider the years of battery use as a factor in increasing consumption (and consequently emissions)?

Is the calculation done for 24 hours or for a year or during the life cycle of the electric car battery? Didn't you consider the years of battery use as a factor in increasing consumption (and consequently emissions)? Why don't you take a look at pages 18 and 19 of this article https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrogen6010010 and see that batteries must be replaced over time, due to their drop in efficiency.

All authors are not listed correctly in the references, according to the author guide. See how article 1 should be: Zhou, Z.，Zhang, N.，Xie, X.，et al.
Why do you use a [J] after the article titles (delete them).

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. We have made revisions in the text. Please refer to the attachment for detailed modifications.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article proposes a low carbon optimization scheduling for systems considering carbon responsibility allocation and electric vehicle demand response to achieve low-carbon emissions in the power system and contribute to economic growth. The topic of this article is very meaningful, but there are still the following issues:

1. In the introduction section,please supplement the latest literature oncarbon quota calculation.
2. In section 2, formula (3) lacks specific explanationsfor parameters Rand P. Please explain the parameters.
3. Some parameters in formula (8) lack explanation. Please check and explainthem.
4. Section 3.1 lacks an analysisof the advantages and applicability of applying the Shapley value allocation method to carbon quota responsibility allocation. Please supplement the analysis.
5. There is a missing legend in Figure 5, please supplement it clearly.
6. In Section 5.5, the analysis of the impact of EVs' participation in demand response on carbon emissions and costs in Los Angeles is relatively small and insufficient.Please specifythe impact of demand response on carbon quota responsibility allocation and required costs.
7. There are a few grammar errors in the text, please try to keep the sentence length within 20 words. Please revise it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English meets the requirements

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. We have made revisions in the text. Please refer to the attachment for detailed modifications.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes a low-carbon optimization scheduling strategy that considers carbon responsibility allocation on the basis of establishing carbon potential guidance. The paper is interesting and provides valuable insights. Overall, this paper is well-written. Below are my comments/suggestions:

1. In the abstract section, the specific optimization effect and advantages of the method proposed in the paper are slightly insufficient, and it is suggested to modify and supplement.
2. The meaning of formula (2) is not clear enough, please explain it again.
3. In Section 2.2 of this paper, the analysis of the characteristics of CL and TL and their specific effects on scheduling is insufficient. Please add relevant analysis.
4. The specific iteration parameters for the upper and lower layers in Section 3 are not explained clearly. Please add it.
5. The electricity prices corresponding to time periods 7-8, 11-12, and 17-18 are missing from Table 2. Please add relevant data.
6. The carbon quota interval for LA1 as determined in Section 5.2 is incorrectly expressed. Please correct it.
7. Please supplement the latest literature on carbon quota allocation.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. We have made revisions in the text. Please refer to the attachment for detailed modifications

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You have done almost everything I asked, but they still need to correct all the references according to the standards in the author guide.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has responded to all my suggestions. I have re-read the article and believe that it is qualified for acceptance.