Impact of Prosumers’ Operation on Selected Parameters of Low-Voltage Distribution Network Operation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1) The paper proposes a method for selecting parameters of low-voltage distribution network. There are many low-voltage distribution networks in rural areas. The authors are requested to combine the work published at https://0-ieeexplore-ieee-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/document/10430377 and present a method for applying the approach of this paper to the low-voltage electrical networks in rural areas.
2) All variables in the formulas need to be clearly defined.
3) What are the differences between Figures 4 and 5? Is the study subject of this paper Figure 4 or Figure 5?
4) The curves in Figure 7 overlap and require explanation.
5) References for the year 2024 are missing.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
1) The paper proposes a method for selecting parameters of low-voltage distribution network. There are many low-voltage distribution networks in rural areas. The authors are requested to combine the work published at https://0-ieeexplore-ieee-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/document/10430377 and present a method for applying the approach of this paper to the low-voltage electrical networks in rural areas.
The comment was considered by pointing out the impact of the change in the load profile of prosumers.
2) All variables in the formulas need to be clearly defined.
The descriptions of the variables in the formulas were completed.
3) What are the differences between Figures 4 and 5? Is the study subject of this paper Figure 4 or Figure 5?
Figure 4 has been revised to better illustrate the problem. Figure 4 shows the MV network and the location of the substations supplying the analyzed LV network. Figure 5 shows the analyzed LV network.
4) The curves in Figure 7 overlap and require explanation.
The load is almost equal to the generated power – so that the network is practically unloaded, resulting in almost zero voltage deflections.
The descriptions of the analyzed variants in the figure descriptions were clarified.
5) References for the year 2024 are missing.
The article was prepared in 2023. In addition, data for 2024 and 2023 are still missing because they are published at the end of March of the following year.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors need to make changes to the manuscript, here are my comments:
1. there is very little state-of-the-art, the introduction needs to be improved.
2. The references are too few, more references need to be added and updated.
3. It is difficult to understand the problem with very few references.
4. In the conclusions add why it is important to take into account these comparisons.
5. I recommend the authors enrich the manuscript with more references to make a complete evaluation of the study.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
No comments
Author Response
- there is very little state-of-the-art, the introduction needs to be improved.
State of Art has been improved and additional references has been added.
- The references are too few, more references need to be added and updated.
Additional references has been added.
- It is difficult to understand the problem with very few references.
Additional references has been added.
- In the conclusions add why it is important to take into account these comparisons.
The description of the problem has been expanded and the descriptions of the figures and analysis results have been improved.
- I recommend the authors enrich the manuscript with more references to make a complete evaluation of the study.
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1- My main criticism is that there is no state of the art at all. In the introduction, a total of only five papers have been cited - and these papers are only informative. There is no discussion on how the current paper is inserted in the literature. What is the contribution of the current paper in relation to previous studies? What are these previous studies? How the research evolved until the present paper?
2- It seems the first paragraph of subsection 2.2 (between lines 97 and 102) is more concerned with Polish legislation. How this could relate to other European Union countries or worldwide?
3- Please, define all acronyms the first time they appear in the text.
In the discussion about figure 4, define what is SEE, GPZ and ST.
4- Please, explain what are variants a and b in the figures 6 to 8. Lines 142-143 say that "simulation of the location of the substation located near and far from the GPZ – designation a and b in the analyzed variants of calculation". But, please, give more details. How far are these locations? If possible, add this information in Figure 5.
5- Just like you did in Figure 6, briefly explaining what variant W1 is, do the same in Figure 7 for W2 and in Figure 8 for W3.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files
- My main criticism is that there is no state of the art at all. In the introduction, a total of only five papers have been cited - and these papers are only informative. There is no discussion on how the current paper is inserted in the literature. What is the contribution of the current paper in relation to previous studies? What are these previous studies? How the research evolved until the present paper?
The state of art has been improved and additional references have been added. The description of the problem has been expanded and the descriptions of the figures and the results of the analysis have been improved.
2- It seems the first paragraph of subsection 2.2 (between lines 97 and 102) is more concerned with Polish legislation. How this could relate to other European Union countries or worldwide?
The analysis of the problem is based on national requirements, but the problem affects the entire European Union as added in the Introduction and references cited.
3- Please, define all acronyms the first time they appear in the text.
In the discussion about figure 4, define what is SEE, GPZ and ST.
Figure 4 has been revised to better illustrate the problem. Figure 4 shows the MV network and the location of the substations that supply the analyzed LV network. Figure 5 shows the LV network analyzed.
The acronyms in the figures and text have been corrected.
4- Please, explain what are variants a and b in the figures 6 to 8. Lines 142-143 say that "simulation of the location of the substation located near and far from the GPZ – designation a and b in the analyzed variants of calculation". But, please, give more details. How far are these locations? If possible, add this information in Figure 5.
In general, the length of the line string was not assumed; only the voltage drop was assumed, which, as the reviewer wrote, depends on the length of the line, the type of line (cable/overhead line), its unit parameters (cross sections) and the load of the entire network (not just the considered ST1 substation).
In our calculations, we want to show what would happen if the ST1 substation considered feeding the network section (with the structure shown in Figure 5 and the load summarized in Table 1) was located near the MPF (at the beginning of the MV network - location a) and far from the MPF (at the end of the MV network).
5- Just like you did in Figure 6, briefly explaining what variant W1 is, do the same in Figure 7 for W2 and in Figure 8 for W3.
The descriptions of the variants analyzed in the figure descriptions were clarified.
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt can be accepted
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt can be accepted
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors followed all my suggestions, my recommendation is to accept the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOk, the state of the art has been improved. The variant conditions in the simulations have been clarified.
There is still no abbreviation section at the end of the document, but the editing team will ask for this at proofread (or will add themselves).
Some parts of the corrected text deserve a closer attention. For example, at line 84, the term "this paper" is ambiguous: it could be be related to this submission as well as to reference [10] (which I suppose was the author's intention).
