Renewable Energy Potential for Micro-Grid at Hvide Sande

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper commented that, considering the heat demand of Hvide Sande, the lowest frequency of zero accident in power generation can be ensured by the combination of wind, solar energy and wave. The article also estimated the demand for lithium ion batteries and other batteries. The best size of the battery is found by the bisection method, which proves that it can meet the heat demand of renewable energy. Finally, different combinations of renewable energy and demand as well as batteries are evaluated. The article also puts forward some suggestions through many figures and tables, which are very helpful to the renewable energy planning of Hvide Sande, so I think this article can be directly accepted.

Author Response

Thank you so much for taking the time to assess our manuscript.
It is a pleasure for us to read your expert opinion.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Dear Authors

The main reasons for such a recommendation are listed below:

1. Abstract : Should be improved

2. Keywords: Should be improved and to comply with the Journal Standards.

3. Highlights: Should be added.

4. Graphical Abstract: Should be added.

5. List of Abbreviations: Should be added.

6. Introduction : should be improved.

- Not well organized.

- Many sentences without references.

- "we" : should be avoided in scientific research.(example lines 86-87 , 98 and line 301).

7. Figure 2: Add the source for this figure.

8. Figure 4b: Add the source for this Figure and Why you are choose year 2007? Explain ?

9. Figure 5 and 6:Add the source for this Figure.

10. Method section : Should be organized.

11. Figure 8, 10 and 11: Add legend for these figures.

12. Figure 9  and 12:  are not clear.

13.  Discussion section: Should be improved.

14. Conclusion : should be enhanced.

- The conclusion section could be improved to better highlight the research performed and future recommendations.

15. References : please refer to the Journal instructions.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Abstract yet to present clearly what authors trying to convey.

2. Starting sentence with numeric is not suggested, in line number 7.

3. Sources for Fig 1 can be provided.

4. Limitations of existing methods can be framed as a table at the end of introduction to highlight the novelty of article.

5. Necessity of proposed work should emphasized. 

6. It is suggested to evaluate the system by considering the latest data available, 2007 data in Fig 2 is not acceptable to estimate.

7. What do you mean by ERA-5 need to define before its use.

8. Fig 7 also should upgrade with latest data 

9. What is the reason for representation of co-relation efficient in negative in Table 1.

10. It is suggested to incorporate the cost estimation of the proposed system in real implementation.

11. Also should verify the feasibility or proposed concept.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is correctly structured but needs a thorough re-layout especially in correspondence with some figures (e.g. Figure 6, Figure 9) it is advisable to deepen the study of the energy mix with well-known articles such as, for example DOI: 10.3390/en15062005 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118356 And 10.1109/OCEANSAP.2016.7485649

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dears,

Still some comments are not covered completely.

Best Regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have answered for comments raised by me. I dont have any other comments.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to assess our manuscript and for all the help.