Power Control Strategy for Hybrid System Using Three-Level Converters for an Insulated Micro-Grid System Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study was carried out on the power control strategy of the microgrid consisting of hybrid energy sources. I think there are points that need to be corrected in the issues I have mentioned below.

1.     The originality of the work is not clearly expressed. This part must be fixed. (It can be in clauses if necessary so that the reader can understand it more easily.)

2.     References about HOMER are included in the introduction, but the studies including algorithms developed specifically for the system are in the minority. Therefore, the following study can also be mentioned in the references:

Grey wolf optimization for optimum sizing and controlling of a PV/WT/BM hybrid energy system considering TNPC, LPSP, and LCOE concepts

 3.     I could not find answers to the following questions in the introduction section. These should be added. Otherwise, the scientific side would not be revealed.:

How does this study differ from previous studies? What shortcomings in previous studies does it eliminate? What was the missing point in the literature and what did you do?

4.     The image of figure 2 and figure 5 is not clear. The resolution should be improved. If it is drawn with the drawing program, a clear image is obtained.

5.     Some figures' y-axis titles are bold, some are not. They should all be the same. For example, the title of figure 15-16 is not bold, the title of figure 17-18 is bold.

6.     The resolution of Figure 17-18 is lower than the others. It should be increased.

7.     The sentence on Line 166-168 should be checked and the spelling corrected.

8.     Please write what "The INC algorithm" in Line 181 is.

9.     Please define the abbreviations NPC and RMS in the text.

10.  Throughout the article, the spelling "Kw" should be corrected to "kW".

11.  Where did the radiance data for solar power and wind speed data for wind come from?

12.  In line 371 it is commented that it is close to the reference voltage. Quantity should be valued here. Up to what percentage can this be tolerated? How many percent overshoot? This ratio should be interpreted as good or bad.

13.  The discussion is missing in the study.

14.  Discussion should be held before Conclusion.

15.  Future work should be mentioned.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors thank the reviewer for the kind evaluation of our work, and for their constructive comments. Attached reproduce the comments in black, with our responses in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents an energy management system for an insulated microgrid. Overall, the paper is logically laid out. This reviewer has the following comments:

11)    Page 2 line 63 authors state PV and wind account for more than half of renewable generation. Where is the reference for this? Hydro also is very significant globally.

22)    There are minor grammar errors throughout the manuscript. A review should take place.

33)      What sources are considered grid forming for this microgrid? Only 1 source can be grid forming in these cases otherwise there are stability issues.

44)     Authors do not appear to consider the situation where the BESS is running out of charge. The majority of DGs that are present in a network do not have islanding capabilities or have active anti-islanding protection (e.g., wind and solar). If the output of these DGs begin to produce too much relative to the grid forming source the island can collapse. If the BESS is running out of charge what does the management system do?

55)     As a follow on to this does the management system bias towards certain sources under islanded conditions? It would make sense to utilize the PV and wind so as to conserve charge in the BESS but not to such a level that the island collapses.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors thank the reviewer for the kind evaluation of our work, and for their constructive comments. Attached reproduce the comments in black, with our responses in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors fulfilled all requests. I think, the study can be published as a paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments addressed.