Novel Supervisory Management Scheme of Hybrid Sun Empowered Grid-Assisted Microgrid for Rapid Electric Vehicles Charging Area
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper describes a possible approach for the charge of EV in weak AC grid.
The English is poor and several errors are present in more section of the paper. Moreover the presentation of the proposed algorithm results rather confusing.
Most of the large number of figures are trivial and not useful to support the comprehension of the several issues
Some specific questions
row 44 "EVs have the potential to improve the power quality by compensating the reactive power"
the authors should clarify, also by adding references, the sentence
row 45 "The emissions over the entire life of EV, which includes both the energy influx and materials used to power a vehicle tank to wheels"
Please check the English, the sentence has no sense
row 47 the acronym ICEV has not been defined (neither in the caption of the figure 1)
row 52 the authors should define the acronym ZEBRA also by adding references
Figure 1 is blurry and should be improved
row 72 the authors should define the acronym BESS
row 128 PSCAD/EMTDC a references is required
row 136 the acronym has not been defined
row 181 the MVDC acronym has not been defined
Figure 4 is really trivial!!!
Figures 6 and 7 are trivial
row 312 the authors should report what means V2G and support it with references
Table 1 has been filled with several acronyms never previously defined
row 345 I do not understand. Why the authors introduced a campus? is it an example? or what?
row 363 what is pdf?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1:
The authors are very thankful to potential reviewer by pointing valuable comments and take a precious time to review the paper. We did our best to give point to point response in accordance to queries raised by respectful reviewer.
Q-1 The English is poor and several errors are present in more section of the paper.
R-1 The whole manuscript is carefully revised and corrected accordingly. Moreover also used online software for cross check.
Q-2 The presentation of the proposed algorithm results rather confusing.
R-2 In Table 4, the optimal profit using meta-heuristic algorithms (HHO, PSO and GOA) the profit or running expenses is marked near zero. Since the charging station is in campus, it gives subsidiary rate to office staff and faculty so the profit seems very less. Moreover the value is positive that indicates the charging station run smoothly while bearing all expenses without falling in deficit.
Q-3 Most of the large number of figures are trivial and not useful to support the comprehension of the several issues.
R-3 Figure 4 is eliminated from the original manuscript. Figure 1 is redrawn. Figure 11 and Figure 12 also eliminated from the revised manuscript.
Q-4 Row 44 "EVs have the potential to improve the power quality by compensating the reactive power"
R-4 The line is modified in the revised manuscript and highlighted.
Q-5 The authors should clarify, also by adding references, the sentence row 45 "The emissions over the entire life of EV, which includes both the energy influx and materials used to power a vehicle tank to wheels".
R-5 The lines are corrected in the revised manuscript, also added the reference.
Q-6 row 47 the acronym ICEV has not been defined (neither in the caption of the fig1)
R-6 The acronym of Internal combustion engine vehicle defined in revised script.
Q-7 row 52 the authors should define the acronym ZEBRA also by adding references
R-7 References added to Zebra Battery and also defined.
Q-8 Figure 1 is blurry and should be improved.
R-8 Figure 1 is redrawn.
Q-9 row 72 the authors should define the acronym BESS
R-9 Page 3 Line 78 acronym BESS is defined Battery energy storage system.
Q-10 row 128 PSCAD/EMTDC a references is required
R-10 Reference is given at PSCAD/EMTDC.
Q-11 row 136 the acronym has not been defined
R-11 ANFIS and AIS are defined in the revised manuscript.
Q-12 row 181 the MVDC acronym has not been defined
R-12 Medium voltage DC bus is inserted in updated paper.
Q-13 Figure 4 is really trivial!!!
R-13 It is removed in the revised manuscript.
Q-14 Figures 6 and 7 are trivial
R-14 The figures 6 and 7 are directly plotted in MATLAB by providing annual solar irradiance data and temperature NREL data.
Q-15 row 312 the authors should report what means V2G and support it with references
R-15 In the modified script the V2G is defined with the reference.
Q-16 Table 1 has been filled with several acronyms never previously defined
R-16 Table . Acronyms are defined in the revised manuscript.
Q-17 row 345 I do not understand. Why the authors introduced a campus? is it an example? or what?
R-17 We the authors use a campus EV charging station because in order to facilitate the employees & student to charge their vehicles in subsidiary rate (low cost) instead of charging EV outside the campus at high cost.
Q-18 row 363 what is pdf?
R-18 PDF is defined in Page 17 line 322.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have applied the Harris Hawk algorithm as a control algorithm for distribution of microgrid rapid electric vehicles charging. Please find below minor comments:
- How are the distribution for the inbound and outband vehicles defined? It seems they follow a quite perfect normal distribution. Is that common in reality? Different distribution can affect the results as well.
- What are the data sources for the temperature variations or solar irradiance profile?
- Has the buying and selling/trading cost account for the depreciation or time value of the assets?
- In Eq(16), why is GDCO is minus with 0.1.
- Please also compare between the meta-heuristical algorithms chosen. Indicate what are the main differences and justify why these algorithms are chosen
- Please indicate the potential future development and limitations of the works in conclusion section.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2:
The authors are very thankful to potential reviewer for revising our article and give the valuable comments. We did our best to give point by point response in accordance to queries raised by potential reviewer.
Q1- How are the distribution for the inbound and outbound vehicles defined? It seems they follow a quite perfect normal distribution. Is that common in reality? Different distribution can affect the results as well.
R1- Figure 9 depicted the inbound and outbound vehicles timing which follow the normal distribution. As the charging station is inside the campus. So the vehicles follow the timings of the university living outside generally 7 to 9 am arriving time 17 to 19 pm departure time.
Q2- What are the data sources for the temperature variations or solar irradiance profile?
R2- The yearly data is taken from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) California shown in Table 1 in the revised manuscript.
Q3- Has the buying and selling/trading cost account for the depreciation or time value of the assets?
R3- Since the sources used in the charging scheme is the photovoltaic panels, batteries and grid. Where the grid price is varying with time according to load levels. As in equation 18 buying and selling price is involved. Thus it matters the values of assets.
Q-4 In Eq(16), why is GDCO is minus with 0.1.
R4- To sell the power to grid from PV panels or batteries when they have ample power capability or when the grid is high peak to lessen the stress. To long term with the national grid, the charging station gives subsidiary to mains.
Q-5 Please also compare between the meta-heuristically algorithms chosen. Indicate what are the main differences and justify why these algorithms are chosen.
R-5 Since Harris Hawk optimization and Grasshopper optimization are the recent intelligent nature inspired swarm based algorithms. The former finds superb and competitive answers between the diversify and intensify inclinations and an even translation between the pursuit modes. The latter balances exploitation and exploration phase during the search process, and has proven the ability to avoid getting trapped in the local optimum. Moreover the main differences of chosen algorithms are written in the paper. DOI: 10.1002/cpe.6165 Table 4.
Q-6 Please indicate the potential future development and limitations of the works in conclusion section
R-7 Future recommendation and limitations of the work are added in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors, thank you very much for submitting your paper "Novel Supervisory management scheme of hybrid sun-empow- 2
ered grid-assisted Microgrid for rapid electric vehicles charging 3 area "
After reviewing heavily reviewing your paper i came to the following conclusions: The paper need to be revised.
The paper is overall of good merit but lacks some information, state of the art literature, structural refinements and some additional explanations. In the following i will display what needs to be added to the paper:
1. General Objective and Abstract: The general objective in your paper is very clear, the goal of providing a holistic vehicle to grid system for electric vehicles is clear. I can encourage you to write the abstract a litte bite longer and a litte bit more focused on the work in your paper. Currently it sounds very general.
2. State of the Art: You are missing some important work from some research in this field. I can heavily encourage you to entere the following papers that will make the paper more holistic and complete
(1) Intelligent Integration of EVs in the Smart grid: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41104-016-0008-y
(2) Fleet Disposition in combinationn with smart grid: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352146516308705
(3) EV evaluation for commercial companies: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7589541
(4) Modeling EVs in Engery systems (with another tool): Unger, R., Schwan, T., Mikoleit, B., Bäker, B., Kehrer, C., Rodemann, T.: Green building—modelling renewable building energy systems and electric mobility concepts using Modelica. (2012)
(5) Test Data set for Smart EV research: H. Akhavan-Hejazi H. Mohsenian-Rad and A. Nejat "Developing a Test Data Set for Electric Vehicle Applications in Smart Grid Research" Proceedings of the IEEE 80th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2014-Fall) pp. 1-6 2014.
(6) Z. Jiang and H. Rahimi-Eichi "Design modeling and simulation of a green building energy system" Proceedings of the IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM 2009) pp. 1-7 2009.
(7). J. E. Lopez "Home charge system for EVs with peak power smoothing based on renewable energy" Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on New Concepts in Smart Cities: Fostering Public and Private Alliances (SmartMILE) pp. 1-6 2013.
3. Overall structure of the paper and methods:
- All images in the paper need to be redone. The quality is very bad and both text, colours and design are not applicable for a scientific paper. Please check out vector graphics. That could help you here
- Make the contributions more clear. Integrate a list of bullet points an show what are your contributions step by step
- The overall structure is good and displays some good steps in the paper. It is easy to follow and good to understand
4. Results:
- The results are good and display a very wide an holistic overview of the algorithm
5. Discussion: You are missing your discussion section completely. From a scientific paper point of view you need to enter a critical and reflective discussion. Explain to the reader what is good on your approach and what is bad. Be really honest here what needs to be done in addition to enhance your approach further. In addition you can draw here conclusions to other authors.
In addition i think to make the paper more complete it would be helpful for everyone if you open-source your code on Github or similar.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3:
The authors are very thankful to respectful reviewer by valuable comments and take a precious time to review the paper. We did our best to give pipe to pipe response in accordance to queries raised by potential reviewer.
Q1. General Objective and Abstract: The general objective in your paper is very clear, the goal of providing a holistic vehicle to grid system for electric vehicles is clear. I can encourage you to write the abstract a little bit longer and a little bit more focused on the work in your paper. Currently it sounds very general.
R1- Results are added in the abstract to be more focused and professional.
Q2- State of the Art: You are missing some important work from some research in this field. I can heavily encourage you to enter the following papers that will make the paper more holistic and complete
R2- In order to make the paper, compact and holistic, the indicated papers are inserted in the revised paper.
Q3 a- All images in the paper need to be redone. The quality is very bad and both text, colours and design are not applicable for a scientific paper. Please check out vector graphics.
R3- Figure 4 is eliminated in the current manuscript. Figure 1 is also redrawn. Figure 3 and Figure 4 also eliminate from the revised manuscript.
Q3 b- Make the contributions more clear. Integrate a list of bullet points an show what are your contributions step by step.
R3 b- Contribution of the paper is enlisted with bulletins.
Q3 c- The overall structure is good and displays some good steps in the paper. It is easy to follow and good to understand.
R-3 c- Thank you for your kind words. We really appreciate to you.
Q-4 The results are good and display a very wide an holistic overview of the algorithm
R-4 From authors side we appreciate for the favours and encouragement.
Q-5 Discussion: You are missing your discussion section completely. From a scientific paper point of view you need to enter a critical and reflective discussion. Explain to the reader what is good on your approach and what is bad. Be really honest here what needs to be done in addition to enhance your approach further. In addition you can draw here conclusions to other authors.
R 5 Discussion of the paper is added in the revised manuscript which give the paper importance in the current scenario.
Q-6 In addition I think to make the paper more complete it would be helpful for everyone if you open-source your code on Github or similar.
R-6 Consent from co authors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors, following the suggestions of the reviewers, significantly improved the manuscript that now can be accepted for publication on Applied Science.
