Research on Day-Ahead Optimal Scheduling Considering Carbon Emission Allowance and Carbon Trading

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript studies the day-ahead optimal scheduling considering carbon emission allowance and carbon trading, the idea is good and the following are my comments:

1.     The introduction is not enough, more recent literature should be reviewed.

2.     The language should be proofed, currently it read not well.  

3.     More explanations should be given to your modelling.

4.     Fig. 2-9 seems not goodlooking, please do better plotting.

5.     There seems to be some problem with Tab. A1, please do a thorough check.

6.     The future work should be added.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for reviewing our paper. The answer to the reviewer 's question is as follows :

Q1: The introduction is not enough, more recent literature should be reviewed.

Response: References added. The revised content is shown in the revised manuscript.

Q2: The language should be proofed, currently it read not well.

Response: The language has been adjusted. The revised content is shown in the revised manuscript.

Q3: More explanations should be given to your modelling.

Response：The parameters used in the model have been explained in the previous article and are not repeated.

Q4: Fig. 2-9 seems not goodlooking, please do better plotting.

Response：The picture has been optimized

Q5: There seems to be some problem with Tab. A1, please do a thorough check.

Response：Tab.A1 has been modified.

Q6: The future work should be added.

Response：Future work has been supplemented.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I would like to congratulate you on your work. The topic is relevant and contemporary, and is introduced in a simple and very readable way. However, some minor aspects still need improvement. They are listed below.

Best regards,

 

1. Please contextualize the relevance of the IEEE-118 bus system, in your study, through appropriate referencing. Is the presented scheme of Units supposed to be implicit for the reader? This reduces the reach and visibility of the article, and the fluidity of reading, within the publication's target audience.

2. In this regard the study objectives and methodology should be improved.

3. The writing of units of measurement should be made according to S.I. notation. This would benefit the quality of the article, e.g., replacing T/MW.H with t/MWh or tonne/MWh in Table 1, and following, and in the text itself.

The graphical presentation of the results should be improved. The images are too small. In some cases, the figure legends are almost illegible. This penalizes the readability of the article.

4. In Table 2, there is a lack of uniformity in the unit of measurement (Scenario 2: Total carbon emission allowance/ton; Scenario 3: Total carbon emission allowance/ton; Scenario 3: Total carbon emission allowance/ton). emission allowance/ton; Scenario 3: Total Carbon Emission Allowance/ton).

5. Please expand the discussion of the results and improve the conclusions of the study. They are somewhat vague, and this falls short of the quality of the manuscript. Please be more assertive and less prone to qualitative argumentation.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for reviewing our paper. The answer to the reviewer 's question is as follows :

Q1: Please contextualize the relevance of the IEEE-118 bus system, in your study, through appropriate referencing. Is the presented scheme of Units supposed to be implicit for the reader? This reduces the reach and visibility of the article, and the fluidity of reading, within the publication's target audience.

Response: I ' m sorry that I didn 't think it over well, the deficiencies will be improved in the follow-up study.

Q2: In this regard the study objectives and methodology should be improved.

Response: I ' m sorry that I didn 't think it over well, the deficiencies will be improved in the follow-up study.

Q3: The writing of units of measurement should be made according to S.I. notation. This would benefit the quality of the article, e.g., replacing T/MW.H with t/MWh or tonne/MWh in Table 1, and following, and in the text itself.

The graphical presentation of the results should be improved. The images are too small. In some cases, the figure legends are almost illegible. This penalizes the readability of the article.

Response：The measurement unit has been corrected and the picture has been optimize. The revised content is shown in the revised manuscript.

Q4: In Table 2, there is a lack of uniformity in the unit of measurement (Scenario 2: Total carbon emission allowance/ton; Scenario 3: Total carbon emission allowance/ton; Scenario 3: Total carbon emission allowance/ton). emission allowance/ton; Scenario 3: Total Carbon Emission Allowance/ton).

Response：The measurement unit has been unified.

Q5: Please expand the discussion of the results and improve the conclusions of the study. They are somewhat vague, and this falls short of the quality of the manuscript. Please be more assertive and less prone to qualitative argumentation.

Response：Relevant content has been added in the conclusion part of the article.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

1. In line 107 - please revise if there should be "too low" at the beggining of the line. 

2. Figure 1 - is not clear what captions above figure and below figure are connected to - please correct.

3. Figure 1 - salse quota - should it be sale quota ? 

4. Figure 2-Figure 6 should be bigger - the captions of axis and data are hardly visible. Also figures 9-12 should be bigger.

 

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for reviewing our paper. The answer to the reviewer 's question is as follows :

Q1: In line 107 - please revise if there should be "too low" at the beggining of the line.

Response: Corrected to "too high". The revised content is shown in the revised manuscript.

Q2: Figure 1 - is not clear what captions above figure and below figure are connected to - please correct.

Response: The picture has been optimized.

Q3: Figure 1 - salse quota - should it be sale quota ?

Response：The content has been corrected.

Q4: Figure 2-Figure 6 should be bigger - the captions of axis and data are hardly visible. Also figures 9-12 should be bigger.

Response：The picture has been optimized.

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

In this paper，The authors established carbon trading cost models for wind and thermal power respectively, adopted a carbon emission allowance allocation strategy based on the entropy method, and proposed a day-ahead optimal scheduling method considering carbon emission allowances and carbon trading. Finally, the authors experimentally demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

However, certain improvements are needed.

1.     In the “2.Carbon emission quota allocation method based on entropy method”, the authors list some “Traditional carbon credit allocation method”and “Carbon emission quota allocation strategy based on entropy method”. It will be more convincing if the authors compare the various methods in a table.

2.     Figure 1 needs improvement. The meaning of this picture is confusing

3.     What are the basic steps of the algorithm mentioned in the paragraph “The basic steps of the algorithm are as follows:” below Figure 1? Please give the algorithm.

4.     Please explain why the “MINLP” mathematical method was used to solve the model in this paper?

5.     The language of the authors' analysis of the experimental results needs to be strengthened.

6.     The authors do not present enough of the latest or focused work on power system. Following articles about trustworthiness should be cited,

 

   The Dual Control With Consideration of Security Operation and Economic Efficiency for Energy Hub, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 5930-5941, Nov. 2019.

 

A multi-slack bus model for bi-directional energy flow analysis of integrated power-gas systems," CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems, doi: 10.17775/CSEEJPES.2020.04190

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for reviewing our paper. The answer to the reviewer 's question is as follows :

Q1: In the “2.Carbon emission quota allocation method based on entropy method”, the authors list some “Traditional carbon credit allocation method”and “Carbon emission quota allocation strategy based on entropy method”. It will be more convincing if the authors compare the various methods in a table.

Response: The comparative analysis of the two is given later.

Q2: Figure 1 needs improvement. The meaning of this picture is confusing

Response: Figure 1 has been improved. The revised content is shown in the revised manuscript.

Q3: What are the basic steps of the algorithm mentioned in the paragraph “The basic steps of the algorithm are as follows:” below Figure 1? Please give the algorithm.

Response：Sorry, this sentence is useless, forget to delete.

Q4: Please explain why the “MINLP” mathematical method was used to solve the model in this paper?

Response：The unit commitment problem is a typical mixed integer nonlinear problem. In this paper, the piecewise linearization method is used to transform the nonlinear problem into a linear problem, and then the cplex method is used to solve it.

Q5: The language of the authors' analysis of the experimental results needs to be strengthened.

Response：The conclusion has been improved.

Q6: The authors do not present enough of the latest or focused work on power system. Following articles about trustworthiness should be cited,

 

   The Dual Control With Consideration of Security Operation and Economic Efficiency for Energy Hub, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 5930-5941, Nov. 2019.

 

A multi-slack bus model for bi-directional energy flow analysis of integrated power-gas systems," CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems, doi: 10.17775/CSEEJPES.2020.04190

 

Response：Related content has been improved.