Robust Scheduling Optimization Model for Multi-Energy Interdependent System Based on Energy Storage Technology and Ground-Source Heat Pump

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall the paper lacks significance and innovation and does not demonstrate its worth sufficiently for publication.

·        Title is too long. “Robust scheduling optimization model” is repeated twice.

·        The model explanation is long winded and stretches over too many pages. Condense it. Define all variables in one place (like an appendix). Explain the significance/innovation of the model as there is none currently.

·        Numerical investigation and results section is a bit poor. Also PSO results are not described.

·        There is no innovation in the PSO approach.

·        Poor conclusions

·        Can the model be solved exactly? Why is PSO needed? If the model can be solved exactly why not use ECM. See:

Burdett R.L., Kozan E. (2016). A multi-criteria approach for hospital capacity analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 255(2), 505-521.

Burdett R.L. (2015). Multi-objective models and techniques for railway capacity analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 245, 489-505

CORRECTIONS

·        Line 30-33: Sentence too long

·        Line 36: “clean environmental protection” does not make sense

·        Line 38: “In the paper [3] built the” is invalid language

·        Line 55: “of the building” is unclear

·        Line 63: “the existing literature has been” is invalid

·        Line 65: “NG” undefined

·        Line 76-79: A multi-objective approach is proposed. The rest of the explanation is not required. Performance criteria were quantified/introduced.

·        Line 82: “different robust co-efficients” does not make sense.

·        Line 92: Description of System – remove rest of header

·        Line 97: There are lots of undefined symbols on the Figure

·        Line 108: Poor use of “is as follows”

·        Line 177: Poor sentence with errors

·        Line 376: Poor sentence

·        Line 383: “Operation result” does not make sense – poor term used

·        Table 3: “Constrain violation probability” => “Probability of violation” ?

·        Line 399: “as shown” =>”is shown”

·        Figure 6 - 10 do not have an x axis label – add one. These figures lack meaning to me. They all look the same. Perhaps it is the lack of colours. There is no proper comparison between them?

·        Line 329. Can’t understand what Fig2 is showing

·        Line 335: “complex constraint processing mechanism ….” – very poor language

·        Line 340. Poor sentence. i.e. “constraint condition” and “concrete formula”

·        Line 343: “to the actual algorithm” does not make sense

·        Line 346: “region scope” ?

·        Line 350: “can find the optimal solution” is not true. There is an attempt to find it. Some refinements/perturbations etc are better and may allow better solutions to be reached.

·        Figure 3 is very basic. Don’t see the contribution?

·        Line 466: “Implemented the simulation” - What simulation?

Author Response

Reviewer 1
Point 1: Title is too long. “Robust scheduling optimization model” is repeated twice.
Response 1:
Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. for the Title is too long, we have removed the Robust scheduling optimization model from title. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 2:
The model explanation is long winded and stretches over too many pages. Condense it. Define all variables in one place (like an appendix). Explain the significance/innovation of the model as there is none currently.
Response 2:
Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have already added Nomenclature and acronyms in the appendix. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 3:
Numerical investigation and results section is a bit poor. Also PSO results are not described.
Response 3:
Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have already rewritten numerical investigation and results section. And we have already added PSO results in section 5.2.1, please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 4:
There is no innovation in the PSO approach.
Response 3:
Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. PSO approach is an important tool for dealing with multi-objective functions, particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is an evolutionary computation that was developed in 1995 by Dr. Eberhart and Dr. Kennedy from a behavioral study of predation of birds. The algorithm was originally inspired by the regularity of the bird cluster activity, and then a simplified model built using group intelligence. Based on the observation of the activity behavior of animal clusters, the particle swarm optimization algorithm uses the individual's sharing of information in the group to make the movement of the whole group in the problem solving space from the disordered to the orderly evolution process, so as to obtain the optimal solution. PSO has been widely used in functional optimization, neural network training, fuzzy system control and other applications of genetic algorithms. In this paper, PSO algorithm is applied to deal with multi-objective function, and the optimal solution of the problem can be easily obtained.
Point 5: Poor conclusions
Response 5:
Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added the improved values and outstandingly data in the sections of CONCLUSIONS section. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 6: Can the model be solved exactly? Why is PSO needed? If the model can be solved exactly why not use ECM. See:
Burdett R.L., Kozan E. (2016). A multi-criteria approach for hospital capacity analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 255(2), 505-521.
Burdett R.L. (2015). Multi-objective models and techniques for railway capacity analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 245, 489-505.
Response 6:
Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. The particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm was proposed by Kennedy and Eberhart in 1995. The algorithm corrects the model of Hepper's simulated bird group (fish group) so that the particles can fly to the solution space and at the best solution. The advantages of PSO are simple, easy to implement, no gradient information, few parameters, especially its natural real coding features are particularly suitable for dealing with real optimization problems. At the same time, it has a profound intelligent background, which is suitable for scientific research and is especially suitable for engineering applications. The author is familiar with the PSO algorithm and applies it to solve multi-objective problems. With the deepening of future research, the ECM algorithm will be applied to solve multi-objective optimization problems.
Point 7: Line 30-33: Sentence too long
Response 7:
Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. For the sentence too long in Line 30-33, we have corrected it. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 8: Line 36: “clean environmental protection” does not make sense.
Response 8:
Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. The meaning of clean environmental protection is the environmental benefits of system operation. In order to make the meaning of this sentence clear, we have corrected it. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 9: Line 38: “In the paper [3] built the” is invalid language.
Response 9:
Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. The meaning of “in the paper [3] built the” is “constructed’. In order to make the meaning of this sentence clear, we have corrected it. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 10: Line 55: “of the building” is unclear
Response 10:
Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. The meaning of “of the building” is “to build’. In order to make the meaning of this sentence clear, we have corrected it. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 11: Line 63: “the existing literature has been” is invalid
Response 11: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. The meaning of “the existing literature has been” is “Previous studies’. In order to make the meaning of this sentence clear, we have corrected it. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 14: Line 65: “NG” undefined
Response 14: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. The meaning of “NG” is “Natural gas’. In order to make the meaning of this sentence clear, we have added an explanation of NG in the paper. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 15:Line 76-79: A multi-objective approach is proposed. The rest of the explanation is not required. Performance criteria were quantified/introduced.
Response 15:Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have removed the explanation of the multi-objective approach, and added Performance criteria of the multi-objective approach. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 16:Line 82: “different robust co-efficients” does not make sense.
Response 16:
Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added the explanation of “different robust co-efficients” in section 5.3, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 17: Line 92: Description of System – remove rest of header
Response 17: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have removed description of System in section of the header, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 18: Line 97: There are lots of undefined symbols on the Figure
Response 18:
Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added the explanation of undefined symbols on the Figure in section Nomenclature, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 19: Line 108: Poor use of “is as follows”
Response 19:
Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have converted use of “is as follows”, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 20: Line 177: Poor sentence with errors
Response 20:
Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have reworked the language, modified the types in the text, and polished the language. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.  
Point 21:Line 376: Poor sentence
Response 21:
Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have reworked the language, modified the types in the text, and polished the language. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 22:Line 383: “Operation result” does not make sense – poor term used
Response 22: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added the improved values and outstandingly data in the section of CONCLUSIONS. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 23: Table 3: “Constrain violation probability” => “Probability of violation” ?
Response 23: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have converted “Constrain violation probability” to “Probability of violation”, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 24: Line 399: “as shown” =>”is shown”
Response 24: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have converted “as shown” to ”is shown”, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 25: Figure 6 - 10 do not have an x axis label – add one. These figures lack meaning to me. They all look the same. Perhaps it is the lack of colours. There is no proper comparison between them?
Response 25: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added X and Y labels of the figures, and drew the figures properly in the text. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 26: Line 329. Can’t understand what Fig2 is showing
Response 26: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added the explanation of Fig2 in section 4.1, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 27: Line 335: “complex constraint processing mechanism ….” – very poor language
Response 27: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have reworked the language, modified the types in the text, and polished the language. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 28: Line 340. Poor sentence. i.e. “constraint condition” and “concrete formula”
Response 28: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have reworked the language, modified the types of“constraint condition” and “concrete formula” in the text, and polished the language. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 29: Line 343: “to the actual algorithm” does not make sense
Response 29: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. The meaning of “to the actual algorithm” is the application of algorithm. In order to make the meaning of this sentence clear, we have corrected it. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 30: Line 346: “region scope” ?
Response 30: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. The meaning of “region scope” is the searching area of algorithm. In order to make the meaning of this sentence clear, we have corrected it. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 31: Line 350: “can find the optimal solution” is not true. There is an attempt to find it. Some refinements/perturbations etc are better and may allow better solutions to be reached.
Response 31: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have reworked the language, modified the types of “can find the optimal solution” in the text, and polished the language. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to
Point 32: Figure 3 is very basic. Don’t see the contribution?
Response 32: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added the contribution of Figure 3, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 33: Line 466: “Implemented the simulation” - What simulation?
Response 33:Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. The meaning of “Implemented the simulation” is “solving Multi-objective Problem with PSO Algorithms”. In order to make the meaning of this sentence clear, we have corrected it. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper addresses the problem of Robust Scheduling Optimization in the context of combined cooling, heating and power CCHP system, considering a multi-objective setting and proposing a Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm for its solution.
In my opinion, the paper contains some interesting results. However, the description of the optimization model and of its robustification procedure is poor and this does not really allow to appreciate the impact of the work.
Major revisions are needed before being able to make a final recommendation.
Specifically,

1) the Authors should provide a more precise characterization of the addressed problem and give a rigorous derivation of the optimization model, better stating the decision variables, feasibility constraints and objective function

2) the robustification of the model is covered in a very fast and concise way in section 4.3.1. The Authors should better explain which modelling approach they adopt for including data uncertainty and how this impacts on the model. Specifically, the constraint (33) seems very similar to the well-known budget of uncertainty constraint used in the classical Gamma-robustness model of Robust Optimization (see  the paper "The Price of Robustness" by Dimitris Bertsimas and Melvyn Sim, Operations Research, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1030.00650).
The Authors should clarify how their robustification relates to this Robust Optimization approach.
3) I think that the Flow Diagram visualizing the solution algorithm should be accompanied by a pseudocode, precisely and rigorously stating all the passages of the algorithm.

4) the Authors should carefully recheck the English adopted throughout the paper, which, in some passages, is not correct.

Author Response

Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper addresses the problem of Robust Scheduling Optimization in the context of combined cooling, heating and power CCHP system, considering a multi-objective setting and proposing a Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm for its solution. In my opinion, the paper contains some interesting results. However, the description of the optimization model and of its robustification procedure is poor and this does not really allow to appreciate the impact of the workMajor revisions are needed before being able to make a final recommendation.
Specifically,
Point 1: the Authors should provide a more precise characterization of the addressed problem and give a rigorous derivation of the optimization model, better stating the decision variables, feasibility constraints and objective function
Response 1:
Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. Due to the length of the article, the author did not describe the derivation process of the model. The precise characterization of the addressed problem and a rigorous derivation of the optimization model, better stating the decision variables, feasibility constraints and objective function can be seen in literature [31]. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 2: the robustification of the model is covered in a very fast and concise way in section 4.3.1. The Authors should better explain which modelling approach they adopt for including data uncertainty and how this impacts on the model. Specifically, the constraint (33) seems very similar to the well-known budget of uncertainty constraint used in the classical Gamma-robustness model of Robust Optimization (see  the paper "The Price of Robustness" by Dimitris Bertsimas and Melvyn Sim, Operations Research, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1030.00650).
The Authors should clarify how their robustification relates to this Robust Optimization approach.
Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. In the section 4.3.1, we have added the explanation of how their robustification relates to this Robust Optimization approach. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 3: I think that the Flow Diagram visualizing the solution algorithm should be accompanied by a pseudocode, precisely and rigorously stating all the passages of the algorithm.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added the pseudocode of the Flow Diagram visualizing the solution algorithm. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.
Point 4: the Authors should carefully recheck the English adopted throughout the paper, which, in some passages, is not correct.
Response 4: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have reworked the language, modified the typos in the text, and polished the language. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round  2

Reviewer 1 Report

Unaddressed comments from first review:

·        Can the model be solved exactly? Why is PSO needed? If the model can be solved exactly why not use ECM. If you cannot respond please add the following references and say that it is possible in future research using the techniques used in those papers.

 

Burdett R.L., Kozan E. (2016). A multi-criteria approach for hospital capacity analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 255(2), 505-521.

Burdett R.L. (2015). Multi-objective models and techniques for railway capacity analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 245, 489-505

 New comments:

·        I did not see any mention of the PSO parameters used and the effect?

·        There is no need to write non dominated solutions to a file continuously. A list should be kept in memory and updated as required. The list should only be output at completion.

·        I still feel that Fig2 provides nothing and should be removed

·        Why is there no 3D chart of the Pareto frontier?

New Corrections

Line 10: “total energy used nationally

Line 12: “cascade” is unclear

Line 18: “as the research object” is unclear

Line 23: “the results of comparing different … the join t optimization mode operation strategy” is inclear.

Line 42: “has been rapidly”

Line 74: “was constructed” is unclear. You formulated and solved an optimization model

Line 135: “the insufficient heating” is unclear

Line 186 - 199: Poor explanation. You formulated an optimization model and introduced three objectives! Did you use the NPV equation – it is not mentioned again?

Line 332: “is an external file”.

Line 338-340: Does not make sense. What is this Nearest neighbour density?

Line 354: “through a distance….”

Line 359: “into a new optimization” is not true to me. You have proposed a Lagrangian style approach

Line 367: “for an optimised object” is unclear

Line 370: “Whether to get” is unclear

Line 401: Not a sentence

Line 402: “search near” is unclear

Line 404: “Easy to fall …” is not a sentence

Line 460: “running state” is unclear

Lie 467: “it can be seen” ?? To me the evidence is unclear

Line 483: “robustness factor” is undefined? Nothing said anywhere?

Author Response

 Point 1

Can the model be solved exactly? Why is PSO needed? If the model can be solved exactly why not use ECM. If you cannot respond please add the following references and say that it is possible in future research using the techniques used in those papers.

Response 1:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. we have two papers about ECM in section of Introduction. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

New comments:

Point 2： I did not see any mention of the PSO parameters used and the effect?

Response2:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have added the PSO parameters used and the effect in the paper. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 3: There is no need to write non dominated solutions to a file continuously. A list should be kept in memory and updated as required. The list should only be output at completion.

Response 3:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. for the question of “There is no need to write non dominated solutions to a file continuously. A list should be kept in memory and updated as required. The list should only be output at completion.” In this article, it is mainly for the integrity of the article. Therefore, the method of simulation application is described in detail. As the research progresses, the methods used will appear as citations. If you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 4: I still feel that Fig2 provides nothing and should be removed

Response 4:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have removed that Fig2 in the paper, we have already revised with clear sentence. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 5:Why is there no 3D chart of the Pareto frontier?

Response 5:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. Pareto frontier is the test condition to test whether the objective function is optimal or not, Determine if the objective function is optimal

Point 6:Line 10: “total energy used nationally

Response 6:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion.

The meaning of ““total energy used nationally” is total energy consumption in one country, we have already revised with clear sentence. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 7:Line 12: “cascade” is unclear

Response7:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion.

Energy cascade utilization: A way of rational use of energy. Whether it is primary energy or residual energy resources, they are used according to their grades. High and medium temperature steam is used first to generate electricity (or used in production processes), and low temperature waste heat is used to supply heat to the home. The so-called energy grade is measured by the amount it can be converted into mechanical work. Energy cascade use, because thermal energy can not be converted into mechanical work, it has lower grade than mechanical energy and electrical energy. The conversion efficiency of thermal power is related to the temperature, and the grade of high temperature heat is higher than that of low temperature heat. All irreversible processes proceed in the direction of lowering the energy grade. The use of energy cascades can improve the energy efficiency of the entire system and is an important measure for energy conservation.

Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 8:Line 18: “as the research object” is unclear

Response 8:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. The meaning of “as the research object” is the object of study in this paper. We have already revised with clear sentence. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point9: Line 23: “the results of comparing different … the join t optimization mode operation strategy” is unclear.

Response9:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. The meaning of “the results of comparing different … the join t optimization mode operation strategy” is 

we have already revised with clear sentence. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 10:Line 42: “has been rapidly”

Response 10:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have already revised with clear sentence. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 11:Line 74: “was constructed” is unclear. You formulated and solved an optimization model

Response 11: Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have already revised with clear sentence. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 12：Line 135: “the insufficient heating” is unclear

Response 12:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion.

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. The meaning of “the insufficient heating” is the insufficient heat. We have already revised with clear sentence. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 13:Line 186 - 199: Poor explanation. You formulated an optimization model and introduced three objectives! Did you use the NPV equation – it is not mentioned again?

Response 13:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. The CCHP system based on thermal energy storage and a ground-source heat pump can yield benefits by reducing operating costs, but the investment of the WPP, PV, and SC may be higher than GT, which will increase the total investment cost of the system. Here, the NPV method is introduced, which is calculated by equation (5), If NPV ≥ 0, this means that the system’s investment effect is beneficial. Otherwise, the advantage of investing in the system is not obvious enough. But in this paper, n, enabling the optimization of the operation strategy of the CCHP system, therefore, ER, TOC, and CE were chosen as optimization objectives.

Point 14:Line 332: “is an external file”.

Response 14:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. The meaning of “is an external file” is initial parameter of the system. We have already revised with clear sentence. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 15:Line 338-340: Does not make sense. What is this Nearest neighbour density?

Response 1:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. “Nearest neighbour density” is meaning of one of the steps in the algorithm, It can be calculated by formula (36). We have already revised with clear sentence. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 16:Line 354: “through a distance….”

Response 16:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion.

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. The meaning of “through a distance….” is searching process of the algorithm. We have already revised with clear sentence. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 17: Line 359: “into a new optimization” is not true to me. You have proposed a Lagrangian style approach

Response 17:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have already revised with clear sentence. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 18:Line 367: “for an optimised object” is unclear

Response 18:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have already revised with clear sentence. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 19:Line 370: “Whether to get” is unclear

Response 19:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion.

We have already revised with clear sentence. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 20:Line 401: Not a sentence

Response 20:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have already revised with clear sentence. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 21:Line 402: “search near” is unclear

Response 21:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have already revised with clear sentence. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 22: Line 404: “Easy to fall …” is not a sentence

Response22:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have already revised with clear sentence. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 23:Line 460: “running state” is unclear

Response 23:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have already revised with clear sentence. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 24:Line 467: “it can be seen” ?? To me the evidence is unclear

Response 24:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. We have already revised with clear sentence. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Point 25:Line 483: “robustness factor” is undefined? Nothing said anywhere?

Response 25:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion.  is the uncertainty coefficient of wind power output, we have already revised with clear sentence. Please you check them, if you think somewhere till need to improve, you can con tact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors have addressed my comments and remarks and the quality of the manuscript has been improved.
Still, the explanations of how the constraints are made robust could be made richer and more precise.
The paper could be now considered for acceptance.

Author Response

Point 1

The Authors have addressed my comments and remarks and the quality of the manuscript has been improved. Still, the explanations of how the constraints are made robust could be made richer and more precise. The paper could be now considered for acceptance.

Response 1:

Thanks for your suggestion on our manuscript. We have already revised your suggestion. in section 4.3.1. We have added he explanations of how the constraints are made robust, to make the paper richer and more precise. Please you check them, if you think somewhere still need to improve, you can contact us at your convenience and we will revise the manuscript carefully.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf