Benefit Evaluation of Carbon Reduction and Loss Reduction under a Coordinated Transportation–Electricity Network

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper proposes the benefit evaluation method of carbon reduction and loss reduction with the coordination of power systems and electric vehicle charging stations. The loss reduction and carbon reduction are considered to optimize the environmental benefits of power systems. The paper is well organized and clear in presentation. The authors have presented a commendable effort. The following points should be considered to improve the paper.

1. Examine the usage of language and formulas to make the content of the article more concise and accurate.

2. The abstract and conclusions should be further modified to reflect the contributions.

3. Please further illustrate the relationship between the values of indicators and the benefits of reducing losses and carbon emissions in different scenarios.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper proposes the benefit evaluation method of carbon reduction and loss reduction with the coordination of power systems and electric vehicle charging stations. The loss reduction and carbon reduction are considered to optimize the environmental benefits of power systems. The paper is well organized and clear in presentation. The authors have presented a commendable effort. The following points should be considered to improve the paper.

1. Examine the usage of language and formulas to make the content of the article more concise and accurate.

2. The abstract and conclusions should be further modified to reflect the contributions.

3. Please further illustrate the relationship between the values of indicators and the benefits of reducing losses and carbon emissions in different scenarios.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topics covered in this article are timely and important in the present. After reading the manuscript, it is not entirely obvious what the authors' own contribution to science has been, or possibly what scientific problem they have solved. A probabilistic model for the aggregation of electric vehicle charging and discharging was developed, and its impact on grid losses and carbon emissions was considered, in order to create a system to evaluate the benefits of reducing carbon emissions and grid power losses. Technical parameters such as the power loss reduction rate, as well as economic and social aspects such as cost, carbon emissions, and carbon reduction rate were taken into account. The study was performed in a Matlab simulation environment; hence, I conclude that standard tools were used. So what is the element of novelty? In the revised paper, emphasize this strongly.

What I find missing in the research is a discussion of the validation process of the solved problem. How can the reader know that the results obtained are reliable? By extension, how does one know that the conclusions presented are correct?

It would be good to make at least a minimal reference to the results presented in published studies and available in the literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focuses on harnessing the untapped energy storage capacity found within densely populated EV garages in China to support power system dispatching. It seeks to evaluate the effects of this utilization on network losses and carbon emissions while accounting for the unpredictable nature of EV parking habits. However, there are several crucial aspects that require significant improvement:

 

1. The introduction should provide more comprehensive background information and context. It should examine previous research in this area and explain the significance and value of this study. Furthermore, the literature review appears to be insufficient for a standard journal paper, indicating a potential lack of awareness of existing research directions.

 

2. The methodology section would benefit from additional details. It should offer a more in-depth explanation of data collection and analysis methods, as well as any assumptions underlying the model.

 

3. When presenting the results, it is important not to merely present raw numbers. Instead, the study should interpret and discuss the significance and implications of the findings, making it easier for readers to grasp their meaning.

 

4. Several figures in the paper suffer from unclear and poorly designed elements, notably Figures 1, 2, 3, and others. It is imperative to revise these figures to improve clarity and enhance readability for readers.

 

5. Additionally, regarding Figure 12, which depicts the total charging and discharging power of EVs in Scenario 3, it raises questions. Is only one EV used in this study? If so, why is there only one line on the graph? I did not find the section detailing data generation, which should clearly specify the number of EVs used and provide other relevant details about the data employed in this study.

 

6. In the conclusion section, while summarizing key findings is important, it is equally essential to emphasize the broader implications, acknowledge limitations, and outline potential directions for future research. Adding a section titled 'Outlook and Limitations' before the conclusion section would be more effective in addressing these aspects.

 

7. It is necessary to conduct proofreading to identify and rectify grammatical and spelling errors.

 

 

8. Provide more comprehensive justification for the statistical analysis. Explain why specific tests were chosen and how significance levels were determined. This will assist readers in better understanding your analytical approach.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank You. I have no concerns. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of English language required