Techno-economic modelling of hybrid energy system to overcome the load shedding problem: A case study of Pakistan

Muhammad Paend Bakht; Zainal Salam; Abdul Rauf Bhatti; Usman Ullah Sheikh; Nuzhat Khan; Waqas Anjum

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0266660

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 17, 2021
4 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Faisal Abbas, Editor PONE-D-21-01708 Techno-economic modeling of hybrid energy system to overcome the load shedding problem: A case study of Pakistan PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bakht, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Manuscript need major revision. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 19 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Faisal Abbas, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: ● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript ● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) ● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: This work is funded by the Higher Education Commission, Pakistan under HRDi-UESTP Scholarship Program and Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia under the Malaysia Rising Star Award grant. The grant is managed by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia under Vot. No.R.J130000.7823.4F919. We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF. Additional Editor Comments: Manuscript need major revisions. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: ABSTRACT: Results of the study need to properly illustrated in the abstract. Currently the abstract mainly highlights the materials and methods used during the study. Please also add the final conclusion and recommendations if any in the abstract INTRODUCTION: Please properly explain the techno-economic model being used during the study. Objectives of the study are not clear in the introduction. Also please highlight why this research is important and significant. CONCLUSIONS: Conclusion should properly highlight the key findings of the study and further recommendations Reviewer #2: The paper presented a techno-economic modelling of hybrid energy system (HES) to maintain an uninterrupted supply of electricity during load shedding for a small residential community situated in the city of Quetta, Pakistan. The proposed model determines the optimum size of renewable sources based on a minimum levelized cost of electricity. The paper is a technical exercise and a case study that employed the old methodology of LCOE. I have observations regarding the nature of the problem of load shedding in recent times that has changed the debate entirely towards the financial reasons of short supply instead of capacity constraints (that was a major reason of blackouts/ brownouts during last decade). Now that the capacity constraints has been removed by adding plenty of new generation capacity hence, the discussion cannot be completed without taken into account the financial aspect of electricity supply generally termed as the circular debt. Therefore, I think the paper needs major revision by incorporating the financial side. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266660.r001
Revision 1
29 Sep 2021 Author Response Response Letter to Editor Dear Editor, We are thankful to you for providing us the opportunity to revise the manuscript (PONE-D-21-01708R1) titled “Techno-economic modelling of hybrid energy system to overcome the load shedding problem: A case study of Pakistan”, after addressing the comments and suggestions by the reviewers. We are also thankful to the respected reviewers for their time and suggesting changes to further improve the quality of the paper. In response, we provide the point to point responses to the comments, presented in the next pages. Kindly note that we have made following changes in the manuscript to fulfill Journal requirements. 1. Changes have been made in manuscript to follow template and PLOS ONE's style requirements. Figures have been removed from main manuscript copy and submitted separately as Tiff files. Also, all figures have been checked through diagnostic tool ‘PACE’ as directed. Reference style has been amended to meet the requirements. 2. The manuscript has been thoroughly copyedited for language usage, spelling, and grammar by a co-author, Professor Dr Zainal Salam from University Technology Malaysia. Further, proofreading has been done by main author, Muhammad Paend Bakht and a co-author, Nuzhat Khan. 3. The URL’s of the data applied from public repository have been included as supporting information in the revised manuscript. 4. The funding statement has been amended and aligned with the statement of the online submission form i.e. ‘The author(s) received no specific funding for this work’. 5. Authors contribution has been added in the manuscript. We are looking forward for a positive outcome on our manuscript. Thank you. Muhammad Paend Bakht, Corresponding author. On behalf of all Authors of Manuscript (PONE-D-21-01708R1) Response Letter to Reviewer # 1 Reviewer #1: We are thankful for the comprehensive review and the valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our work. The response to the respected reviewer is given as follows. Comments from Reviewer #1: Abstract: Results of the study need to properly illustrated in the abstract. Currently the abstract mainly highlights the materials and methods used during the study. Please also add the final conclusion and recommendations if any in the abstract. Introduction: Please properly explain the techno-economic model being used during the study. Objectives of the study are not clear in the introduction. Also please highlight why this research is important and significant. Conclusions: Conclusion should properly highlight the key findings of the study and further recommendations further recommendations Response: As per recommendations by the Reviewer, we have rewritten the Abstract, Introduction and Conclusion section of the paper. In the Abstract part, the results, conclusion and future recommendations are added. The introduction section is revised to highlight research significance. The emphasis has been put to highlight the weakness of existing studies in the current scenario of load shedding. Based on that, the objectives of our study are clearly described in the introduction section. Similarly in the conclusion, key findings of the study and recommendations are included as suggested by the Reviewer. Response Letter to Reviewer # 2 Comments from Reviewer #2: The paper presented a techno-economic modelling of hybrid energy system (HES) to maintain an uninterrupted supply of electricity during load shedding for a small residential community situated in the city of Quetta, Pakistan. The proposed model determines the optimum size of renewable sources based on a minimum levelized cost of electricity. The paper is a technical exercise and a case study that employed the old methodology of LCOE. I have observations regarding the nature of the problem of load shedding in recent times that has changed the debate entirely towards the financial reasons of short supply instead of capacity constraints (that was a major reason of blackouts/ brownouts during last decade). Now that the capacity constraints has been removed by adding plenty of new generation capacity hence, the discussion cannot be completed without taken into account the financial aspect of electricity supply generally termed as the circular debt. Therefore, I think the paper needs major revision by incorporating the financial side. Response: We are thankful for the positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our work. Please find the response as follows. The observation with regard to the ‘circular debt’ is highly acknowledged. In response, we revised entire Introduction of paper to include this aspect. In that section, we discussed the roots of Pakistan energy crisis, starting from the 1990’s. In technical terms, the crisis can be divided into two scenarios: the ‘hard power shortage’ and ‘soft power shortage’. The hard power shortage refers to insufficient capacity, in which the required demand for electricity cannot be fulfilled even with the full utilization of the available power generators. On the other hand, soft power shortage is not due to the insufficient installed capacity; rather, it is a result of under-utilization of the power generating units due to the lack of supporting facilities. There are various reasons for both shortages. In the final analysis, we concur with the Reviewer that for Pakistan, the recent energy crisis scenario is more inclined towards the soft power shortage. The main reason is because the government is focused on increasing the generation capacity, but very little attention is given to upgrade entire electricity infrastructure, namely the transmission and distribution. Furthermore, there is lack of effort to improve energy mix and system efficiency. Finally, as correctly pointed out by the Reviewer, there is a need to relook into the costs recovery mechanism to minimize the circular debt. All these factors, adds to Pakistan problem of energy sufficiency and security. Cleary, considering the above-mentioned issues, the short-term electricity shortage remains an resolved problem for the end users. As a result, multiple hours of scheduled load shedding is still a common practice by utility operators. Since the permanent solution is not expected in near future, the scope of this work is to deal with the present load shedding problem using renewables, i.e., the proposed HES. This is localized deployment (at distribution feeder level) and can be considered as a medium term solution. By incorporating the HES in to the system, the users are able to experience continuous electricity supply with reasonable price. It is envisaged that, the widespread use of HES will give the government some breathing space to work on the long term solution, i.e. to expand upgrade existing infrastructure and financing facilities. Thus, the HES implementation allows manageability and complementarity of energy that, when applied to existing infrastructure can eliminate or diminish the problem of load shedding. Furthermore, HES deployment in the current scenario of Pakistan is also aligned with governments plan to achieve 30% power generation from renewable energy. This explanation has been thoroughly provided in the introduction section of paper. We try our best to address the valuable concerns. All the authors are grateful to the reviewers for sparing the valuable time to upgrade the quality of our manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266660.r002
9 Feb 2022 Decision Letter - Faisal Abbas, Editor PONE-D-21-01708R1Techno-economic modelling of hybrid energy system to overcome the load shedding problem: A case study of PakistanPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bakht, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Minor Revision Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 26 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Faisal Abbas, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Minor Comments. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Author addressed most of my comments, however, it still requires improvements. 1. Abstract should include more results in accordance with the results and discussions section. 2. Overall structure of the manuscript should be changed including clearly defined headings Introduction, Material and Methods, Results and discussions. Heading 2 and onward should be the part of introduction under heading 1. 3. Initial lines (Line 437-450) of results and discussion section should be the part of materials and methods section, which is currently missing in the manuscript. 4. Results need to be properly supported by the relevant literature. Currently very small amount of literature support is seen in results and discussion section. 4. Conclusion section still missing key findings of the study. Please provide some important results of the study in conclusion section. 5. Overall quality of English (grammar, spellings, sentence structure etc.) needs significant improvements Reviewer #3: The paper focuses on a very interesting and urgent topic. The motivation of this study is weak and author can mention the motivation of the study in the introduction section. How this research can be used in practice (economic and societal impact) and to influence public policy (contributing to the body of knowledge)? This can be written in the introduction. In the conclusion section, the author should identify clear implications for research, practice and/or society. Currently, this part is weak. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #3: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266660.r003
Revision 2
24 Mar 2022 Author Response Response to Reviewers Reviewer #1: We are thankful for the comprehensive review and the valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our work. The response to the respected reviewer is highlighted in yellow color in the manuscript. For convenience, the point-to-point response and its exact location in the manuscript is given as follows. Comment 1: Abstract should include more results in accordance with the results and discussions section. The entire abstract is revised and main results have been included. Lines 14-28 Overall structure of the manuscript should be changed including clearly defined headings Introduction, Material and Methods, Results and discussions. Heading 2 and onward should be the part of introduction under heading 1. Response 1: The entire manuscript structure is changed as suggested. Kindly note that extra text and Figure 1 are added to clear the overall methodology of the paper in Section 2. (Lines 121-134) Comment 2: Initial lines (Line 437-450) of results and discussion section should be the part of materials and methods section, which is currently missing in the manuscript. The lines have been shifted to materials and methods section as recommended. Lines 338-342 Results need to be properly supported by the relevant literature. Currently very small amount of literature support is seen in results and discussion section. Response 2: To support the results, relevant studies have been included in the results section. Cited studies are Reference [49] [20,50,51][53]. Extra text is added to justify the results in lines (500-503). (Lines 493-501) Comment 3: Conclusion section still missing key findings of the study. Please provide some important results of the study in conclusion section. Response 3: The entire conclusion is revised and the relevant results have been included. Some implications and recommendations are also added. (Lines 603-607) Comment 4: Overall quality of English (grammar, spellings, sentence structure etc.) needs significant improvements Response 4: We have proof read and tried to address small errors in the manuscript. Alos, Equations and Figure numberings have been corrected. (Multiple lines) Reviewer #2: We are thankful for the comprehensive review and the valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our work. The response to the respected reviewer is highlighted in green color in the manuscript. For convenience, the point-to-point response and its exact location in the manuscript is given as follows. Comment 1: The paper focuses on a very interesting and urgent topic. The motivation of this study is weak and author can mention the motivation of the study in the introduction section. Response 1: First, we thank you for the positive comment, which has encouraged us. As suggested, we have revised the introduction section. A new paragraph in the introduction section is added to identify the problem and the research significance to address the problem. Other important justifications have also been included. (Lines 32-44, 107-108, 115-116) Comment 2: How this research can be used in practice (economic and societal impact) and to influence public policy (contributing to the body of knowledge)? This can be written in the introduction. Response 2: The economic and societal impacts of the research are highlighted. The impact of the research on public policy is highlighted as recommended. Lines (75-79, 103-105, 107-108, 115-116) Comment 3: In the conclusion section, the author should identify clear implications for research, practice and/or society. Currently, this part is weak. Response 3: The conclusion section is revised to identify the implications of the carried research. Besides, Lines (592-595, 607-617) We try our best to address the valuable concerns. All the authors are grateful to the reviewers for sparing the valuable time to upgrade the quality of our manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers..docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266660.r004
25 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Faisal Abbas, Editor Techno-economic modeling of hybrid energy system to overcome the load shedding problem: A case study of Pakistan PONE-D-21-01708R2 Dear Dr. Bakht, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Faisal Abbas, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Accept Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266660.r005
Formally Accepted
14 Apr 2022 Acceptance Letter - Faisal Abbas, Editor PONE-D-21-01708R2 Techno-economic modelling of hybrid energy system to overcome the load shedding problem: A case study of Pakistan Dear Dr. Bakht: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Faisal Abbas Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266660.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .