-->PONE-D-25-03463-->-->Low Carbon Economic Dispatch of Integrated Energy System Based on Coupled Operation of OCPP-P2G-CHP-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ma,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 04 2025 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,

Soheil Mohtaram

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.  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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

[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: Yes

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

-->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: This paper proposes an OCPP-P2G-CHP coupled operation mode, transforming the traditional thermal power unit into an oxygen-enriched combustion power plant (OCPP), and establishing the mathematical model of OCPP, two-stage P2G and CHP and their coupling mechanism to construct an integrated energy system (IES) model. Five scenarios are designed to analyze the output and carbon emissions of each subsystem, and the scheduling results of each scenario are compared to verify the feasibility and advantages of the proposed model.

1. The various parts of the model mentioned in the paper are closely related, but all of them are modeled using fixed-value linear models, without considering the dynamic characteristics of the model.

2. The following related research can be compared a) Two-Stage Coordinated Operation of A Green Multi-Energy Ship Microgrid With Underwater Radiated Noise by Distributed Stochastic Approach b) A multi-stage stochastic dispatching method for electricity-hydrogen integrated energy systems driven by model and data

3. The innovation of the article is not strong enough. The oxygen-enriched combustion power plant (OCPP) is the core of the innovation of this paper, but the modeling is too rough. Please enrich the modeling of this part.

4. The simulation part of this paper lacks the power system topology diagram and the photovoltaic and wind power data used lacks source citations.

5. Scheduling is the title of this paper but the simulation part is too rough. One hour as the scheduling step is a bit too long for this model. Please reconsider the scheduling step.

6. Figures 2, 3, 5 and 6 in this paper are too rough. Please redraw them.

Reviewer #2: The paper deals with the low-carbon economic dispatch topic by proposing and investigating the performances of an optimization algorithms for an integrated power and thermal energy system including OCPP, P2G, and CHP facilities. Noteworthy the very deeply demonstration of the mathematical approach and the excellent English style. The simulation results of the proposed approach show better performances against other energy system models. The paper presents a significant contribution on the topic offering a new perspective on the addressed problem, the obtained results are interesting and reliable. Other strengths of the paper refer to the logical structure of ideas, clear presentation of the research purpose and objectives, and well organization oh the paper content. Moreover, the methodology is described in detail, allowing other researchers to reproduce the experiment; the results are presented clearly and concisely, by using relevant graphs and tables, and the analysis of the results is done in-depth.

However, the manuscript should be revised as there are several issues to be addressed for the sake of clarity and simplicity.

Minor issues

1. Abstract: what is the novelty addressed by your research? Please state explicitly the novelty involved in your approach. Quantitative data/conclusions are also welcome.

2. Avoid repeating frequently an acronym and its definition. E.g., Integrated Energy Systems (IES).

3. Recommendation to include in the paper a nomenclature of the used symbols & acronyms

4. Proposal to consider the much significant syntagma “Author et al. [x]...” instead of anonymous “In [x]…”, “Ref [x] presents”, etc.

5. Solve several typing mistakes, e.g. “processes. [26].”, “is the Net”, “boilers(GB)modeling”, “boilers(EB)”, etc. Check carefully the entire manuscript for other similar mistakes.

6. Typically, the paper structure (its sections) is briefly presented at the end of Introduction.

7. Define all symbols used in equations and/or include their definition / significance in Nomenclature.

8. Increase the quality (resolution) of all figures, they are in current state at the legibility limit.

9. Fig. 2: the role of the CC unit in the OCPP system in not clearly explain (it is isolated form the rest of the components, there is only a power input, without a specific output). Similarly for other figures, where the local outputs should be also indicated.

10. Justify the selection of curves in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6: what they represent in this specific case study? Are they coming from measurements? Please clarify it!

Major issues

11. The literature review: an appropriate systematization of the identified solutions and challenges in the addressed topic is more valuable instead of presenting one by one the paper results.

12. A flowchart of the proposed approach is welcomed before introducing all mathematical issues.

13. Use appropriate reference(s) whenever unproven equations are introduced (i.e., the large majority of the equations). Make a clear difference between existing and proposed equations.

14. Objective function: some clarification are needed related to the cost optimization concept by considering the whole life cycle cost of the system, not only the operating cost. Or, at least state the limits of the proposed approach.

15. 6. Conclusion: proposal to rename it “6. Conclusions” as several conclusions are drawn. The limits of the proposed system and approach, as well as future works, should be highlighted here.

**********

-->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.

Low Carbon Economic Dispatch of Integrated Energy System Based on Coupled Operation of OCPP-P2G-CHP

PONE-D-25-03463R1

Dear Dr. Jingjing Ma,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Alessio Faccia

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE