Economic Optimal Scheduling of Wind–Photovoltaic-Storage with Electric Vehicle Microgrid Based on Quantum Mayfly Algorithm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presented the economic Optimal Scheduling of Wind-photovoltaic-storage- electric vehicle Microgrid Based on Quantum Mayfly Algorithm. There are major issues associated with the manuscript which must be addressed before further processing of the paper. 

1. Check the numbering of the different sections of the manuscript, as 0 is mentioned for the introduction section, which is incorrect.  

2. Title should also modify be incorporating the electric vehicle also in the title. 

3. Abstract, summarize the numerical results of proposed work, and discuss how it outperforms existing works.

4. Related work should be mentioned in a separate section by highlighting the comparative analysis in tabular manner. What are the unique features of this study compared to the existing works?

5. Contributions should be highlighted in bullet points and justified literature

6. A ‘Research Gap’ section should incorporate which will states the purpose of the study

7. Constraint related to operating reserve is missing. 

8. charging and discharging rates of batteries also required to incorporate. 

9. What is the optimal capacity of the utilized batteries obtained from the proposed algorithm. 

10. Type of electric vehicle should be clearly specified. if it is fuel cell electric vehicle, start up and shut down cost will also be a part of constraints.

11. Some places authors mentioned QMA and some places authors mentioned QPSO, which one is correct. 

12. As Meta heuristic algorithms are greatly depend on the parameters selection, kindly discuss in detail which parameter selection process is utilized by the authors.

13. A stability analysis should be carried out because it is well known that the performance of meta-heuristic algorithm is random.

14. what will be the total cost per day of the batteries utilized in this work. 

15. Another table is required which shows the status of various components of the microgrid. 

16. what type of load profile is supplied by this microgrid system? Provide a load curve for the 24 hours. 

17. A more detailed case studies can be presented under the battery charging and discharging scenarios. 

18. Presented Comparative analysis is not sufficient. Authors must incorporated GWO, TLBO, WOA, Harris Hawks Optimizer (HHO), Moth optimization, and sine cosine optimization to show the novel contribution of the work.

19. Conclusion still not in the line of the performed work. It should summarize whole work in quantitative manner.

20. More recent references are required to support the novelty of the work.

21. How the operation and maintenance cost of the different components are incorporated in this work. 

22. Contribution of the authors is not clear as the selected problem is very old. More detailed and critical result analysis with clear modifications by the authors, should be incorporated n the revised manuscript. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

  First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for taking your precious time to process our manuscript. In addition, we have revised the manuscript in the new version according to relevant opinions of the reviewer. Meanwhile, the detailed revision process and revision ideas have been given in the attached Response. Thanks again to the reviewer for your valuable suggestions, which greatly improves the quality of our manuscript.

Best wishes!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, the paper is in general interesting and nice to read. The manuscript deserves to be published only once the authors fix the following issues.

 

All the following indicated aspects should be clarified and better explained in the manuscript.

 

Literature review

1.        The authors should better highlight the innovative aspects of their work in the manuscript.

 

System design

2.        All the used variable in all the formula and figures should report the unit.

3.        Does the considered microgrid satisfy power flow constraints? In the formulation in Section 1 no power flow equation are present. Several recent scientific studies on power grid, show that energy scheduling must consider power quality and power flow constraints. The Authors should comment this point.

a.        P. Scarabaggio, R. Carli and M. Dotoli, "Noncooperative Equilibrium Seeking in Distributed Energy Systems Under AC Power Flow Nonlinear Constraints," in IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, 2022, doi: 10.1109/TCNS.2022.3181527.

b.       M. Yao, D. K. Molzahn, and J. L. Mathieu, “An optimal power-flow approach to improve power system voltage stability using demand response,” IEEE Trans. Control of Netw. Syst., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1015–1025, 2019.

(documents that could be cited in the text)

 

Problem formulation

4.        Optimization model: The authors should clearly characterize the overall problem that they intend to solve. What type of decision variables (i.e. integer, real, etc) and how many? How many constraints (bounding, inequality, equality)?

5.        The authors should clarify how they handle the uncertainty of parameters. Several recent scientific studies on power grid, show that robust optimization instead of deterministic is a viable technique to deal with uncertainty of parameters. The Authors should comment this point.

c.        Carli, R., Cavone, G., Pippia, T., De Schutter, B., & Dotoli, M. (2022). Robust Optimal Control for Demand Side Management of Multi-Carrier Microgrids. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering.

d.       Melhem et al., "Energy Management in Electrical Smart Grid Environment Using Robust Optimization Algorithm," in IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 2714-2726, 2018.

(documents that could be cited in the text)

 

Case study

6.        Where the data come from?

7.        The outcome of the proposed approach should be assessed and condensed into a suitable indicator(s) that synthetically summarizes the related overall correctness and accuracy.

 

Conclusions

8.        Conclusions needs to be extended to present further implications for future research and many managerial insights based on the results of the study, as well as limitations.

 

Minor

9.        The authors should check that all the used acronyms are explained. 

10.     Mainly the English is good and there are only a few typos.  However the paper should be carefully rechecked.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for taking your precious time to process our manuscript. In addition, we have revised the manuscript in the new version according to relevant opinions of the reviewer. Meanwhile, the detailed revision process and revision ideas have been given in the attached Response. Thanks again to the reviewer for your valuable suggestions, which greatly improve the quality of our manuscript.

Best wishes!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Previous comments and concerns have been sufficiently addressed. In the revised paper several improvements have been added.