Methodology to Implement a Microgrid in a University Campus
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Refer to Lines: 382-383 in the manuscript. For maintaining voltage, what voltage regulation standards/limits have been considered?
- While dealing with photovoltaics, only uniform solar radiation has been considered. The authors must include a case study when there is a partial shading, because it will be more practical. I would like to see the corresponding results for this case (such as, PV system voltage and power curves etc.) under partial shading.
- The authors should include some recent literature survey regrading the campus microgrids in the introduction section. For instance have a look at the following articles: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.05.036, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102264, https://doi.org/10.3390/en14248408, https://doi.org/10.1080/23080477.2017.1417005
- What are the upper and lower state-of-charge (SoC) limits for BESS, and what is the specific reason for imposing these limits? Have a look at the following article for understanding: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2017.06.013, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232638, https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-gtd.2018.0105
- The English language of the manuscript must be improved in the revised version.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presents a method with a several steps to design a microgrid at a University campus based on available resources, that must be carried out to estimate the resource to be used, the area needed for installation and the capacity of the systems needed.
To demonstrate its effectiveness and applicability developed method several simulations with different scenarios were performed.
Comments:
- Manuscript is well organized but English language must be revised.
- The manuscript meets the requirements of a (state-of-the-art) literature study, and the methodology, presentation and equations are also sufficiently addressed.
- The paper has adequate credit published related works and shows how the study differs from other literature studies.
- Table 1 does not provide useful information, I was expecting to see some considerations regarding the availability of the different renewable resources in Puerto Rico.
- Why scenario 1 has a different (and least) implementation area regarding scenario 2? Also Table 5 refers that PV only contributes with 4% and 39%, why not use more area to implement PV?
- Please explain or rewrite the phrase, “The regulation establishes that the energy produced for the MG should be at least seventy five percent (75%) of the total energy produced by MG”…please clarify where can be seen that the MG met the 75%.
- Why are not considered scenarios including Eolic turbines? Figure 5 shows several large places where turbines could be installed.
- Line 362, authors mention back-up generators existing in the campus with 1250kW for Medical services (figure 7- 16kW peak) and biology (figure 8 - 507 kW peak). If exists a generator with power slack, why is needed another fuel source, CHP, to supply the critical loads during an emergency?.
Also in line 463, authors state that “Under normal operations in connected mode, the CHP will be used as back-up and support, thus helping reduce the energy consumption of the grid” and they choose a 800kW CHP. Is it cheaper to produce kWs using fuel than buy it directly to the grid? Please explain.
What is the difference in the electrical network between having grid+CHP or grid+generator?
Why is considered a MG in the first case and not in the second?
- In my opinion the manuscript can be published after major revisions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for submitting your paper “Methodology to Implement a Microgrid in a University Campus” to this Journal.
The paper draws attention to a relevant subject. However, several issues need to be addressed properly before the paper is being considered for publication.
My comments including major and minor concerns are given below:
I suggest reorganizing the abstract, highlighting the novelties introduced and the main numerical results. It should contain answers to the following questions:
- What problem was studied and why is it important?
- What methods were used?
- What conclusions can be drawn from the results?
- What is the novelty of the work and where does it go beyond previous efforts in the literature?
There are very short paragraphs, such as paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 that can be included in the introduction.
It can be useful to add a specific section dedicated to the literature review.
At the end of the introduction add the real contribution of this study, compared to those already existing in the literature and the innovation presented.
The area analyzed for validation could be identified through Köppen-Geiger climate classification, as done in the following studies:
Worldwide geographical mapping and optimization of stand-alone and grid-connected hybrid renewable system techno-economic performance across Köppen-Geiger climates, Applied Energy, Volume 276, 2020, 115507, ISSN 0306-2619, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115507.
Using the Köppen classification to quantify climate variation and change: An example for 1901–2010,
Environmental Development, Volume 6, 2013, Pages 69-79, ISSN 2211-4645, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2013.03.007.
Please explain the graphs better. Many graphics are not very visible, maybe it is better to increase the fonts.
It emphasizes the innovation of this study, especially in the conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
While dealing with photovoltaics, only uniform solar radiation has been considered. The authors must include a case study when there is a partial shading because it will be more practical. I would like to see the corresponding results for this case (such as, PV system voltage and power curves etc.) under partial shading.
Author Response
Please see the attachmen.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Congratulations to authors. They improve the article by responding to all the reviewer’s suggestions.
So, the quality of the paper increased substantially, and by this reason in my opinion the manuscript is now ready for publication.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we are grateful for your comments and recommendations.
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors addressed the reviewers' suggestions, paper is well done
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we are grateful for your comments and recommendations.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The quality of schematics should be improved. After slightly zooming-in (especially Figures 16 through 19), most of schematics lose their resolution. Please, insert the schematics in high resolution (preferably in EPS format).
