Achieving an Optimal Decision for the Joint Planning of Renewable Power Supply and Energy Storage for Offshore Oil–Gas Platforms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper looks interesting. Some of the contributions claimed by the authors can be deemed as original, thereby rendering the paper a marginal contribution to the state of the art.

What are the major differences between this work and recently published manuscripts? Why this work is needed? The literature review is very limited. Therefore, the benefits that can be offered by the idea proposed in this manuscript in comparison with the previously proposed methods cannot be judged. A substantial discussion with references to the previous works on this subject is required. Specifically, this discussion should focus on comparing the proposed approach to the other works in this area in terms of numerical results.

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have put into reviewing our work. We have carefully considered your suggestions and made the necessary revisions, particularly in the introduction section.

In order to emphasize the significance of our research, we have added references to several recent articles that support and contextualize the content of our study. These additions are clearly marked in yellow in the revised version of the manuscript. We believe that these additional citations strengthen the overall impact and relevance of our work.

Once again, we express our gratitude for your thorough review and constructive comments. Your insights have played a crucial role in improving the quality of our research. If you require any further information or have any additional concerns, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Thank you for your continued support and guidance.

Sincerely,
Jufu Deng

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have conducted a study on “Optimal decision of joint planning of renewable power supply and energy storage for offshore oil-gas platforms”. The objective was to study a joint planning optimization strategy of wind turbine (WT) / photovoltaic (PV) / ES. Several parameters were observed. Moreover, the partition result, the ES capacity and the distribution network’s loss and node voltage fluctuation are planned for each sub cluster subset. Furthermore, siting and sizing of the ES/PV/WT are optimized. The results are interesting however the following changes are mandatory preceding to the acceptance of the manuscript:

1.     Existing challenges is missing in the abstract section. Moreover, the authors did not include the quantitative data in the Abstract section. Please add.

2.     The core aim of the manuscript must be written in clearer and more concise manner at the end of literature section.

3.     Figure 1 belong to authors if no then properly cite it.

4.     There are so many equations in the wind turbine section 2.1 but no graph is plotted with respect to these equation. Please elaborate.

5.     Again Figure 2 belong to authors if no then properly cite it.

6.     For sensitivity analysis, did the authors considered single event for various outcomes. Please explain.

7.     For WT/PV/ES optimization how many data set are considered?

8.     Figures 7, 8 and 9 are not properly explained. The authors are request to explain both figures in a proper way.

9.     It is suggested that explain all the figure in details i.e. from figure 7 to figure 16.    

10.  The conclusion part is very short. The authors are requested to add more details to the conclusion part.

11.  The number of references are very less. Please add more references. Moreover, the authors are requested to add latest papers to the introduction section. There is no latest paper cited by the authors.

Minor editing is required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for providing valuable feedback on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our work. We have carefully considered your questions and suggestions, and have made the necessary revisions to the manuscript accordingly.

In the attached document, you will find a detailed response to each of the issues you raised. We have addressed them to the best of our abilities and have provided explanations in attached response, and additional data, or references in manuscript. We hope that our responses adequately address your concerns.

Once again, we express our gratitude for your thorough review and constructive comments. Your input has been instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of our research. 

Thank you for your continued support and guidance.

Sincerely,
Jufu Deng

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper shows that two joint optimization methods are proposed for the planning with gas turbine power-limited and economical-limited, respectively.

Overall presentation is good.

Results Explain well.

But need some more latest references (minimum 15) for more understanding concept.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your kind acknowledgement of our research findings. We greatly appreciate your recognition and support for our work. Your positive feedback is truly encouraging to us.

We would also like to express our gratitude for the suggestions you provided regarding the citation of relevant literature. We have carefully reviewed your comments and have made the necessary additions by including new references that further strengthen the validity and significance of our study. Your guidance has been invaluable in enhancing the quality of our research.

Once again, we extend our heartfelt appreciation for your thoughtful feedback and guidance. If you have any further suggestions or if there are any other aspects that require our attention, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Thank you for your continued support.

Sincerely,
Jufu Deng