Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Yu Zhang 1,2,*,
  • Zhongxiang Liu 1 and
  • Lianmin Li 1
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Tran Thi Tu Quynh

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an optimal operation model of a regional integrated energy system, considering demand response under a carbon trading mechanism. The model is applied to a data centre in Beijing, China. However, the paper is poorly written and contains many flaws that need to be carefully corrected. Specific comments for this paper are provided below:

·         The paper does not follow the template of the journal and lacks some necessary information. For example, the type of the paper is not indicated, different fonts are used, there are wrong references to the figures, equations are without punctuation and many others.

·         The abstract contains duplicate text in lines 14-15.

·         Many typos and punctuation errors appear in the text, and the English needs to be corrected.

·         In the abstract, from line 15 to line 23, the authors provide only one sentence, which is not acceptable. Moreover, the meaning of this sentence is unclear. The authors should rewrite some sentences to clarify the meaning.

·         Abbreviations in the abstract and in the manuscript text should be introduced separately.

·         A more extensive literature review should be performed to better demonstrate the gap in the field.

·         The objective of the study is not clearly presented. The authors should emphasize the main goal of the paper and how they achieve it.

·         I suggest including a separate section for the methodology (or methods and material) used in the study. It is currently unclear where it is presented.

·         There is no clear distinction between what is done originally by the authors and what is taken from other authors, especially when presenting methodology. The authors should clarify their contribution.

·         The mathematical representation is very weak and must be corrected according to applicable mathematical rules for parameters, variables, and equations. The authors use different symbols to present the same variables in the equations and in the text.

·         The style of the text is inappropriate, as seen in lines 314, 315, and 318, where “secondly” is used three times. This makes it hard to follow the text and the meaning behind it. I suggest thoroughly rewriting the paper.

·         Some figures and tables have very general captions and should be specified better. For example, in Figure 3, “Solving procedure” of what?

·         Table 1 is referenced in the paper, but it does not exist. Additionally, Table 2 appears twice.

·         Titles for the axis in some figures are missing.

·         The list of references is not prepared according to the requirements.

English language must be corrected extensively.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Clarify the contribution of the proposed model: While the paper highlights the importance of considering demand response and carbon trading mechanisms in the optimal scheduling of regional integrated energy systems, it is not clear what specific contribution the proposed model makes to the existing literature. The authors could consider stating explicitly how their model addresses some of the gaps in previous research in this area.

2. Provide more details on the methodology: The paper could benefit from providing more details on the methods used to construct the various models, such as the demand response model, user satisfaction model, and carbon trading model. For instance, the authors could provide equations, algorithms, or pseudocode for each model, as well as information on the input and output data.

3. Provide more information on the simulation scenarios: The paper mentions that the proposed model is evaluated using four typical scenarios, but it does not provide enough information on what these scenarios are. The authors could consider providing more details on the characteristics of these scenarios, such as the energy sources used, the load profiles, and the demand response and carbon trading parameters.

4. Clarify the results: While the paper reports that the proposed model achieves significant reductions in total operation cost and carbon transaction cost, it is not clear how these results were obtained. The authors could consider providing more information on the performance metrics used to evaluate the model, as well as the specific values of these metrics for each scenario.

5. Improve the language: The paper could benefit from a thorough proofreading to correct errors in grammar, syntax, and punctuation. The authors could also consider rephrasing some of the sentences to improve clarity and readability, such as breaking down longer sentences into smaller ones and avoiding the passive voice.

6. Clarify the research objectives and research questions clearly at the beginning of the paper.

7. Provide a more detailed literature review to support the research.

8. Provide a clear explanation of the methodology used in the study, including the mathematical models and assumptions.

9. Clearly define all technical terms and abbreviations used in the paper.

10. Provide more details on the data and assumptions used in the study, including the sources of data and how the data was collected and processed.

11. Provide a more detailed discussion of the results, including any limitations and potential future research.

12. Provide more information on the practical implications and applications of the study, including any recommendations for policymakers or industry stakeholders.

 

Minor Corrections are required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. In addition, thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper proposes an optimal scheduling model for a regional integrated energy system (RIES). The topic is interesting, and the paper is well-presented. However, some these comments should be considered to improve the paper:

  1. The authors need to clearly express the main contribution of the manuscript by providing some outlines and the paper's organization at the end of the Introduction.
  2. Please cite the references where you define RIES and Carbon mechanism.
  3. It is important to provide a clear source for any equations used in the paper (e.g., the equation in section 2.2, the source of modeling main equipment, etc.). If an equation is derived from a specific reference, please provide the reference. If the equation is derived by the author, please explain the derivation in the paper. This will help readers better understand the reasoning behind the equations used in the paper.
  4. The way you named subsections is confusing. For example, you have subsections 1, 2, 3, and 4 in subsection 4.1 of Section 4. Please change this to avoid confusion.
  5. The diagram in Figure 3 needs to have more details to clearly express the solving procedure.
  6. The paragraph describing Figure 3 should be referring to Figure 4. The same mistake occurs in Section 5.2.1.
  7. In the conclusion, the authors should emphasize the significance of the proposed method and its contributions to the field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. In addition, thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved the paper. I have no additional comments.

Minor changes in English language are suggested.

Author Response

Please see the attachment and thank you very much for your valuable suggestions!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx