Optimal Dispatch of Power Grids Considering Carbon Trading and Green Certificate Trading

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your work and the topic of the manuscript. The writing is fluid, and the work is well organised. It is a very valid work that deserves to be published, as well as being relevant and up to date. However, from a scientific point of view, it has some significant weaknesses that undermine the reader's confidence and the visibility of the work. For example, the use of multiple coefficients is profuse, but it is not clear whether they are the result of assumptions made by the authors, whether they are the result of modelling, or whether they are the result of consulting the literature, in which case there is a lack of references. These aspects, combined with a lack of discussion of the results, are not compatible with a scientific publication. What is at issue is not the merit of the work, but the way it is presented.

I would advise authors to include the limitations of their work. Given some of the assumptions made by the authors, it would be valuable for them to mention the limitations.

In addition to these points, below are some other comments and suggestions that could improve the article.

Best regards and good luck!

 

 

Major and minor comments:

1. Line 1: “Type of the Paper (Article, Review, Communication, etc.)”. I would advise authors to put the type of article and not all the text of the Template.
2. Line 50: ‘literature [5]’. I would advise authors to replace ‘literature’ with the names of the authors of the respective referenced article. The same applies to Lines 52, 61, 64...
3. Lines 52-54: ‘Literature [6] verified the effect of GCT...’ The authors refer to the work in Reference [6], but at the end of the sentence they put the reference [7]. In the sentence, it seems that the authors are only referring to one paper, but two different references appear. I would ask the authors to clarify this. The same in Lines 63-65.
4. Lines 69-70: ‘To address the above bottlenecks, this study proposes three innovations: First...’ The authors mention what was proposed in the study; however, the authors leave out a reference. I would advise the authors to review this aspect, because if you are describing the objectives, it doesn't make much sense to put references. The same goes for Lines 72 and 76.
5. Line 75: ‘DR Is constructed to embed’. I would advise the authors to capitalise the ‘i’ in the word ‘Is’.
6. Lines 76-77: ‘This framework not only avoids the incentive conflict caused by market segmentation in literature...’. I would advise the authors to explain this part of the sentence better. The first part makes sense, but the indication of ‘literature’ doesn't make much sense.
7. Lines 114-119: There are values assumed by the authors that need to be justified, namely the values of a, b, and ei.
8. Some variables in equation (1) need to be explained. Although the meaning of the term allows us to deduce what each one means, I think it would be better to state them explicitly.
9. Lines 145-155: There are values that lack references.
10. Line 167: ‘Drive constraints’. I think it's an oversight that the word ‘Drive’ starts with a capital letter.
11. Equation (5) and following lines: The values lack references and there are variables in the equation that are not explained.
12. Line 185: I would advise authors to avoid using personal pronouns in a scientific article.
13. Lines 198-199: There are values that lack references. The same in Line 213.
14. Lines 250-251: ‘we utilize the CPLEX solver, which is well-known for its efficiency and robustness in handling complex optimisation problems’. This statement lacks references.
15. Table 1: The values used lack references. The heading of the first column should begin with a capital letter. I would ask the authors to improve the way the table header is presented, such as not putting the units on different lines.
16. There are words with no space between them. For example: Lines 271, 272, 273, ...
17. Page 7: There are values that lack references.
18. Lines 285-287: I would ask the authors to better explain the values used for the coefficients of the proposed combinations.
19. The figures and tables should be closer to the text that refers to them to make it easier for the reader to understand the manuscript.
20. To improve the article, the authors could include a Discussion section between the results and the conclusions or add it to the results section. I think this suggestion could enrich the article where the authors could discuss the results obtained, their implications and comparison with previous work.

Author Response

Thank you for all the invaluable comments from Reviewer 1. We have carefully addressed each comment to the best of our ability. All revisions are detailed in the following responses to the reviewer’s comments, as attached. In the main text, all changes have been highlighted in yellow for clarity.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The relevance of using stochastic modeling in relation to solving problems of power distribution in the electric grid taking into account Carbon Trading and Green Certificate Trading. At the same time, the work under analysis is not without a number of significant shortcomings:

1. The title of the article does not fully indicate its content. Why does it use the term "Regional", which is a typo, if the specifics of regional networks are not considered?
2. Explain the quantities included in the formulas when they are first mentioned. For example, in equation (1) a number of quantities are not explained, including p_i, q_i, etc.
3. It is necessary to explain on the basis of what data the typical values of the coefficients ai, b_i, c_i, e_i used in formula (2) were obtained. Please provide references to relevant literature or explain in detail how the numerical values were obtained. A similar remark regarding other numerical values of quantities, for example, it is not clear why A=300(benchmark price) and B=0.08(price elasticity coefficient).
4. Explain how groups of carbon quota coefficients are formed. Why in all three combinations of coefficients, the last two coefficients are equal to zero, for example [0.78, 285 0.82, 0.45, 0, 0]. How do the coefficients 0.78 and 0.84 (page 7) compare to each other if they are the first coefficient in combination (1) and the second coefficient in combination (2).
5. It is necessary to explain how Figure 1 describes the fluctuations in the power of renewable energy sources during the day, if the step of its discretization is equal to one day.
6. The list of references should be formatted according to the recommended template, including the addition of DOI. 

Author Response

Thank you for all the invaluable comments from Reviewer 2. We have carefully addressed each comment to the best of our ability. All revisions are detailed in the following responses to the reviewer’s comments, as attached. In the main text, all changes have been highlighted in blue for clarity.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Xin et al. presented an optimization scheme based on the combination of carbon trading and green certificate trading, with the goal to seek balance between maximizing economical benefits and minimizing environmental concerns. Here are my comments to this manuscript:

1. It's not clear in the current form what is the variable that is being optimized to achieve the minimized results as described in Eq. 1. It would also be better if there's a baseline comparison between the results before and after optimization.
2. The definition of Eq.1 also needs more clarity. The first term is in cost unit CNY while the second term is in carbon emission unit tCO2. Is carbon price lever missing here?
3. Eq.3 ignores the energy storage option in the system. It would be good to at least mention this assumption somewhere.
4. Multiple λs are being used for both weight factor in Eq1 and green certificate proportion. Different symbol should be used to avoid confusion.
5. What is the sources/references of choosing the parameters for case study, such as mean and variation for PL and carbon emission baseline?
6. How is the three scenerio groups designed? Seems like carbon quota goes up for all three plans from combination 1 to 3, meaning reletive weight between these 3 power plants stay approximately the same across all studies? What happen if this assumption changes? 
7. Typo in Table 2 row 6 that should be corrected.
8. How to understand negative total cost in Figure 2?

Author Response

Thank you for all the invaluable comments from Reviewer 3. We have carefully addressed each comment to the best of our ability. All revisions are detailed in the following responses to the reviewer’s comments, as attached. In the main text, all changes have been highlighted in green for clarity.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for all your responses to my comments and suggestions, and I appreciate the effort you have made to address them all.

However, I believe that some improvements are still necessary. Below are some further comments and suggestions that may improve the article.

Good luck.

Best regards,

 

 

Major and minor comments:

1. Line 1: “Type of the Paper (Article)”. Once again, I would advise authors to include the type of article rather than the entire text of the template. In other words, just write “Article”.
2. At the end of the Introduction, the way the text is organised may not make much sense. The authors present studies carried out by other authors, then present the added value of the work and its objectives and then refer again to a number of works by authors without any connection or justification. Referring to other similar studies is an added value to the authors' work, but only presenting them at the end of the Introduction without any connection to the work/objectives does not make much sense. Perhaps the text of the Introduction could be better organised so that there is a common thread between the various topics.
3. Lines 81-101: I advised the authors that when referring to the names of authors of other works, they should immediately follow with the respective reference, as they did in Lines 62-70.
4. I would ask the authors to clarify the notation used in the models presented, in relation to the previous comment 7 and the authors' response. For example, in line 269: “𝑃𝑒=𝐴−𝐵𝑄”, the authors have removed the meaning of Pe and Q from this new version of the manuscript. However, it was present in the previous version. Is there a reason for this? The same applies to “𝑃_𝑐𝑜2=𝑎1−𝑏1𝑄_𝑐𝑜2”.
5. Lines 127-129: “For example, when 𝜆 =0.7, the model focuses on economic benefits, which corresponds to the traditional energy-dominated scheduling strategy. When 𝜆 =0.3,”. The authors refer to values of λ, but this is no longer present in the equation.
6. Lines 281-282: “Zhang et al. (2022) [32].” The year of publication is in a different referencing style. As this journal adopts the numerical style, normally both are not used. The same applies to lines 431, 436...
7. Figure 1 is too far from the text that refers to it. This makes it a little more difficult for the reader.

Author Response

Thank you for all the invaluable comments from Reviewer 1. We have carefully addressed each comment to the best of our ability. All revisions are detailed in the following responses to the reviewer’s comments, as attached. In the main text, all changes have been highlighted in yellow for clarity.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors carefully revised the article and made all necessary adjustments. As a reviewer, I would recommend that the "Total cost distribution" histogram in the range of negative total cost values be presented as an inset to the figure 4. This would help readers to more accurately examine the data presented. After this, the article can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for all the invaluable comments from Reviewer 2. We have carefully addressed each comment to the best of our ability. All revisions are detailed in the following responses to the reviewer’s comments, as attached. In the main text, all changes have been highlighted in blue for clarity.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx