Australian Renewable-Energy Microgrids: A Humble Past, a Turbulent Present, a Propitious Future

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Introduction. Complete it according with the template: “The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance. The current state of the research field should be carefully reviewed and key publications cited. Please highlight controversial and diverging hypotheses when necessary.”.

Usually, a review paper has around 100 references.

Line 62. I suggest that “[2]” is cited “Hartman Boyce et.al. [2]”; that “([3] p.1)” is cited “Hartman ([3] p.1)”. Valid for the other citations of this type.

Line 317. Use space between value and measurement unit.

Line 396. I suggest that, instead of using footnotes, to add info in the main text and the reference (CEC report) in the References section. Valid for the other footnotes.

Author Response

Please see the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

This paper is based on existing literature on microgrids explores the most important of these aspects including business models, ownership and investment. This paper highlights specific areas for future research that need to be addressed if the full potential of microgrids 19 is to be realized in the context of a global energy transition both domestically and internationally. This paper has certain guidance for the future research direction of microgrid, but there are still some shortcomings.

1) The comparison between the development of Australia and other countries can be considered to highlight the current development status of Australia.

2) The typesetting format and sentences can be considered to be more detailed, so as to avoid ambiguity in others' reading, and the chart should be clear.

3) What is the significance of the presentation and conclusion obtained in this paper, and what is the guiding significance for subsequent research? It is recommended that this section be explained in more detail if possible.

Author Response

Please see the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1)- Introduction ignored important contributions in this research

area. Several methods are reported in the literature.

2)  The paper is not well written. In addition, the contribution is, in

my opinion, not clear.   The authors should motivate more their contributions and clearly explain the intuitions behind the ideas. Also, more simulations and comparisons that show the advantage and the drawbacks of the proposed schema are needed.

3) In my opinion,  the discussion is unsatisfactory for presenting and discussing the "innovation" and originality of this work.

Author Response

Please see the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

thanks authors for revision papers according reviwers' concern