Sustainable Floating PV–Storage Hybrid System for Coastal Energy Resilience
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper introduces a sustainable floating photovoltaic (FPV) energy storage hybrid system specifically designed for coastal aquaculture applications. The effectiveness of the system has been verified through comparative experiments with ground-mounted fixed photovoltaic systems. The structure of the paper is clear; however, to further improve the paper's comprehensiveness, specific comments are as follows:
- The description of the energy storage component in the paper is relatively insufficient. The current manuscript is more like a performance evaluation of an enhanced FPV power generation system rather than a comprehensive analysis of an integrated hybrid energy storage system. It is necessary to supplement the discussion on the energy storage component:
1) Charging and discharging control strategy
2) Endurance test of the energy storage device on cloudy days
3) Charging and discharging curve
- In Section 2, a significant amount of basic knowledge and formulas related to the physical model of solar cells are included. It is recommended to appropriately condense the content of this section, so as to make the article more focused on the subsequent photovoltaic applications.
- Both Figure 12 and Figure 13 contain multiple curves, and in particular, their respective subfigure (a) appears somewhat cluttered. It is recommended to use different line styles for differentiation, in addition to different colors.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for their constructive feedback. A detailed point-by-point response is provided in the attached Reviewer 1.pdf. We remain happy to make further adjustments if needed.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the paper is interesting and seems fairly relevant to the scope of Electronics Journal. However, in the actual form the paper is not suitable for publication. The following points explaining this situation are reported below:
- In line 35, a more detailed location of Penghu should be provided (province and country);
- the discussion of the novelty of the paper should be improved, since at the moment only the features of the prototype are thoroughly presented;
- presented equations should be referenced;
- units of the adopted symbols are missing;
- it is not clear what parameters were used to obtain the I-V and P-V characteristics;
- it is not cleat why the authors are presenting the modeling part of the PV cell/modules, it is not used in the results section;
- the Authors should use an impersonal form in the sentences;
- the anemometers measuring parameters should be presented (range, accuracy, etc.), the same for the other sensors;
- the paper misses of details regarding the source of radiation in the laboratory setup;
- why is any hygrometer not considered in the measuring system?
- the graphical representation of the plot is of poor quality (too many lines on the same graph, thick lines, unclear labels, missing units of measure).
Author Response
We sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for their constructive feedback. A detailed point-by-point response is provided in the attached Reviewer 2.pdf. We remain happy to make further adjustments if needed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript “Sustainable Floating PV–Storage Hybrid System for Coastal Energy Resilience” is overall a very well-structured work. However, some minor issues made it harder to read, and a few improvement-oriented thoughts came to my mind.
Main suggestions:
Currently, the measured results are given in Wh and W values, but it is not always clear what irradiation level they refer to. It would be advisable to supplement the power and energy data with irradiation-normalized indicators (e.g., kWh/kWp or kWh/m²) so that the comparison between different weather days becomes clearer.
Although the effect of temperature and cooling is well presented, the system’s overall energy loss structure (e.g., inverter, wiring, or mechanical shading losses) is not quantified. A short loss diagram (e.g., Sankey diagram or a simple table) would enhance the technical interpretability of the results.
The system performs well under short-term test conditions, but what do the authors expect in the long term, e.g., regarding biofouling and mechanical fatigue? It would be worth at least briefly indicating, as a future research direction, that the evaluation of durability behavior is also planned.
Additional remarks and minor issues that made the manuscript harder to review:
Some sentences are quite long and complex, making them difficult to follow at first reading. It is recommended to shorten or break up some of them, especially in the introduction and literature review sections (Chapter 1, e.g., Line 65, Line 81, and 111).
Chapter 5 (Conclusion) summarizes the results well but is somewhat brief. It would be advisable to highlight the main numerical results (e.g., +25.17% and +40.29% performance increase) in a table or bullet points, possibly also at the end of Chapter 4, so that the reader can grasp them more quickly.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for their constructive feedback. A detailed point-by-point response is provided in the attached Reviewer 3.pdf. We remain happy to make further adjustments if needed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors of the article developed and tested an autonomous floating photovoltaic system that enhances the reliability of proper operation of offshore aquaculture infrastructure. The floating solar-tracking system receives its electrical power from a 10 Wp solar module, which charges a small-scale Li-ion battery. This battery powers the Arduino module that controls the entire solar-tracking system, collecting data for optimal functioning of coastal aquaculture.
There are no major flaws in this article. The layout of the article is quite neat. The article is written in fairly neat English, but minor revision of text would be useful.
Some other minor flaws were noticed while reading the article:
- The meaning of the abbreviation AHP is not explained in the introduction (this abbreviation is less commonly used in energy) – line 11,
- The meaning of the abbreviation VT is explained after formula (1) on page 4 (line 159), but this abbreviation is not present on this page – it is written in formula (2) on page 5 (line 164),
- A period is unnecessarily placed at the beginning of line 184, which should be at the end of line 183.
- Line 244 should end with "... the reference temperature TR (25 °C)”,
- In lines 289-293, the abbreviations IDR1-IDR4 are not explained. These and other similar shortcomings may make the article somewhat difficult to read for less experienced readers.
There may be more similar and other shortcomings. I suggest the authors review the article again and correct all the shortcomings they notice.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for their constructive feedback. A detailed point-by-point response is provided in the attached Reviewer 4.pdf. We remain happy to make further adjustments if needed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am satisfied with the revisions made by the authors. They have addressed my concerns comprehensively, and the overall quality of the manuscript is now much improved. I have no further comments and support its publication.
Author Response
We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s kind remarks and support, which further motivate us in our research.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Authors have addressed all the suggestions. The paper is suitable for publication.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive feedback and support for the publication of our manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI reviewed the article Sustainable Floating PV–Storage Hybrid System for Coastal Energy Resilience again. Many corrections were made to it, but a number of shortcomings were also found, similar in nature to the first review of this article.
Noticed shortages
1) In the first formulas, lines 164-180, the meaning of some symbols and indices (c, q, k, n, b) is not explained,
2) When explaining the names of symbols, the explanation begins with the word “Where”, and in some cases “where”, and it should be written in the same uniform order.
I had to review many articles and I noticed that the vast majority of authors explain all symbols and follow the same order when writing the article everywhere.
In my opinion, this article should be edited a little again, following the same order throughout the article and explaining the meaning and meaning of all symbols and indices. If the article is finally sorted out, then it could be printed.
Author Response
We have provided a detailed response to reviewer’s comment in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
