Dual-Level Voltage Bipolar Thermal Energy Harvesting System from Solar Radiation in Malaysia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article provides a good explanation of a thermal energy harvesting system equipped with a real-time -level voltage bipolar. The design and development of the solar harvesting system structure, as well as the topology, were described completely, not to mention the good and clear presentation and discussion of the results.
From my point of view, the experimental results showed a good agreement. Taking the notes into the account is essential before acceptance.

 

- organize a section for the symbols and the nomenclature.

- it would be important to make the figure .1 clearer.

- There is a lack of numerical results in the abstract and the conclusion.

- clarifying the mathematical model used in this paper would be very significant.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper designed a thermal harvesting circuit and evaluated its functionality and efficiency, to harvest thermal energy from solar radiations. The topic is attractive for energy harvesting and the results are useful. However, the following concerns should be addressed.

1. The setup is not described clearly. It is hard to understand how the system works. Please describe the specification parameters of the test setup, including the energy storage unit. How does the TEG work? it should be briefly illustrated. How the design harvests solar energy? it is not clear.

2. Problem background should be highlighted in the Abstract. The main physical findings should also be presented.

3. The research gap should be further deduced. Especially for the previous studies shown in the 3^rd paragraph from the last. The novelty is not clear according to the present introduction. If necessary, please make a comparison of the unsolved issues for the previous pertinent papers.

4. What is the dwi-level meaning? It should be explained in the Introduction.

5. The authors declared that “harvest thermal energy due to solar radiation in Malaysia”; however, there are no data presented and used in Malaysia. So what are the real-time data?

6. I strongly suggest the quality of the figures should be greatly improved. For example, in Fig. 1, it is hard to discern what is the system meaning. The data and the curves are difficult to distinguish. It makes the paper very hard to understand.

7. The discussion section is too short and with less physical explanation, which should be greatly improved.

8. There are many wrong sentences and grammar mistakes in the text, please check the whole text. For example, Lines 338-339, it is a wrong sentence, please check the grammar.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The presented article is a study of an electric generating device from the thermal energy of solar radiation. The topic of the article is relevant and may be of interest to specialists and researchers in the fields of solar energy and microelectronics. The authors have done a certain search and analysis of sources, developed and studied a device for converting thermal energy into electricity, however, as comments and recommendations, several points should be noted:

1. The authors should more clearly and in detail indicate the fundamental scientific novelty of the proposed technical solution in comparison with the existing ones - a comparative table should be presented where various criteria and parameters of analogs and prototypes would be compared with the developed device.

2. In the literature review, the authors should pay more attention to comparing the proposed technology with the latest developments in the field of photovoltaic thermal conversion of solar radiation, which is characterized by a high overall efficiency of solar energy conversion (for example, DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-3867-7.ch004 etc.) when the modules can also be installed on the roof. What distinctive advantages and disadvantages of the construction proposed by the authors can be distinguished by the authors in comparison with existing rooftop solar panels of various types for heat and electricitygeneration (for example, doi.org/10.3103/S0003701X18050146 etc.)? The authors should highlight and describe in more detail the advantages of the proposed device compared to photovoltaic, thermal photovoltaic and thermal solar energy converters (technical, economic, environmental, etc.) - a comparative table can be compiled for this purpose.

3. Is the economic component of the proposed project and the payback period of the proposed devices determined in the most general indicative indicators? The expediency and appropriateness of using the developed device depends on these parameters. Such parameters can be compared with those of other solar energy converters.

4. Have the authors investigated the dependence of the work and efficiency of the proposed construction on the power of the incoming solar radiation. How does it change depending on the time of day and the power of solar radiation? Using these data, we can talk about the effectiveness of the proposed design and the feasibility of its use.

5. What amount of thermal energy can be collected by the proposed device at night? How many times less is it than during the day?

6. The authors should describe in more detail how the efficiency of thermal energy conversion by the proposed device was calculated.

7. Also, the authors should add some photos of the developed device, the assembled installation and the entire system.

8. In the text of the work, the authors should add subsections "Methods and instruments", as well as "Directions for future research", where authors should indicate in detail where and how the results will be implemented, as well as plans and topics for future research of the authors.

In general, the presented article leaves a positive impression and, after eliminating these comments and taking into account the recommendations made, it can be recommended for publication in the journal "Sustainability".

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank the authors for considering all of my suggestions. The paper has been improved to a stronger one, and I recommend its acceptance.