Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Assessment of Hybrid Wind-Wave Energy Resource for the NW Coast of Iberian Peninsula in a Climate Change Context

Assessment of Hybrid Wind-Wave Energy Resource for the NW Coast of Iberian Peninsula in a Climate... applied sciences Article Assessment of Hybrid Wind-Wave Energy Resource for the NW Coast of Iberian Peninsula in a Climate Change Context 1 , 2 3 1 Americo Ribeiro * , Xurxo Costoya , Maite de Castro , David Carvalho , 1 1 3 Joao Miguel Dias , Alfredo Rocha and Moncho Gomez-Gesteira CESAM, Physics Department, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal; david.carvalho@ua.pt (D.C.); joao.dias@ua.pt (J.M.D.); alfredo.rocha@ua.pt (A.R.) CRETUS Institute, Group of Nonlinear Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain; jorge.costoya.noguerol@usc.es Environmental Physics Laboratory (EphysLab), CIM-UVIGO, University of Vigo, Campus da Auga building, 32004 Ourense, Spain; mdecastro@uvigo.es (M.d.C.); mggesteira@uvigo.es (M.G.-G.) * Correspondence: americosribeiro@ua.pt Received: 29 September 2020; Accepted: 19 October 2020; Published: 22 October 2020 Abstract: O shore renewable energy has a high potential for ensuring the successful implementation of the European decarbonization agenda planned for the near future. Hybrid wind-wave farms can reduce installation and maintenance costs, and increase the renewable energy availability of a location by compensating for the wind’s intermittent nature with good wave conditions. In addition, wave farms can provide protection to wind farms, and the combined wind/wave farm can provide coastal protection. This work aims to assess the future hybrid wind-wave energy resource for the northwest coast of Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045), under the RCP 8.5 greenhouse gas emission scenario. This assessment was accomplished by applying a Delphi classification method to define four categories, aiming to evaluate the richness (wind and wave energy availability, downtime), the variability (temporal variation), the environmental risk (extreme events), and cost parameters (water depth and distance to coast) of the wind and wave resources. The combined index (CI), which classifies the hybrid wind-wave resource, shows that most of the NW Iberian Peninsula presents good conditions (CI > 0.6) for exploiting energy from wind and wave resources simultaneously. Additionally, there are some particularly optimal areas (CI > 0.7), such as the region near Cape Roca, and the Galician coast. Keywords: hybrid wind-wave farm; wind energy; wave energy; climate change; resource classification 1. Introduction The development of marine energies has become essential for the green energy sector, in order to mitigate the human influence on climate change, and move towards 100% clean energy, as stated in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development released by the UN in 2015 [1]. Pursuing this goal, both the European Parliament and the European Council have endorsed 60% emission reductions by 2030 [2], and long-term climate neutrality for the EU by 2050. Europe’s decarbonization plan to achieve the net-zero greenhouse gas emission target relies heavily on an o shore renewable energy strategy [3]. The strategic roadmap is to deliver up to 100 GW of capacity by 2050, which represents approximately 10% of Europe’s electricity consumption [3,4]. The European Commission, through its member states, has made great e orts to achieve this goal by promoting projects that address ocean energy eciency [3–7], and the competitiveness of o shore wind [8–10] and ocean energies [11,12]. In fact, the European Union is currently the world leader in Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395; doi:10.3390/app10217395 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 2 of 19 o shore wind [13] and intends to advance in the implementation of the actions of its Strategic Energy Technology (SET) plan [14]. The current development of wind technologies has reduced the cost, maintenance, and equipment of wind turbines, and, at the same time, has increased wind turbine eciency and availability [8,10,15]. This makes wind power cheaper than photovoltaic power, while costing about half of atomic power [16]. Therefore, an explosion in the o shore wind industry is expected, which may positively influence the development of other technologies with high synergy [15,17], such as wave energy conversion. In fact, one of the strategies of the EU SET plan is to increase competitiveness by exploiting wave energy at the same time as wind power. Hybrid wind-wave farms can reduce installation and maintenance costs [17,18] and increase the availability of a location by compensating for the winds intermittent nature with good wave conditions. Furthermore, the wave farm can provide protection to the wind farm, and the combined wind-wave farm can provide coastal protection [19–21]. Several authors have assessed the combined exploitation of wind and wave resources [22] in Europe [17,23–25], and worldwide [26,27]. These studies determined the most suitable locations for wind exploitation, and the specific wave energy conversion (WEC) devices for those locations. Current wind and wave energy technology is intended to have a useful life of at least 20 years [28,29], therefore, when using this combined energy resource, it is important to take into account not only current climatic conditions but also the e ect of climate change on wind and wave energy resources in the near future [30]. Climate change is expected to a ect future wind and wave yields [31–33]. The global climate models (GCMs) from Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) have been tested and verified as reliable sources for future wind and wave variables [34,35]. The EURO-CORDEX initiative, the European branch of the Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX) project [36], used a wide range of regional climate models (RCMs) driven by several CMIP5 GCMs, under di erent greenhouse gas emission scenarios, to project wind and the significant height and period of waves, with a high spatial and temporal resolution. However, to assess the feasibility of operating a hybrid wind-wave farm in a specific location, it is necessary to take into account not only wave and wind resources for the near future but also environmental conditions and cost factors [37,38]. The NW Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula, from 36.5 to 45.5 N and from 6 to 11 W (Figure 1), covers the coast of Portugal and Galicia (Spain). The wind-wave climate is characterized by a high seasonal, and energetic, behavior [39,40], the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) being the greatest source of inter-annual variability in the wave climate in this region [41]. However, the wave field is still dominated by the swell component (over 78%) during most of the year [42], because of being located in a mid-latitude of a western region [43]. These features makes this region one of the maximum oceanic energy resources in Europe [44], and one of the highest marine energy potentials in the world [45]. In particular, the west coast of the Iberian Peninsula is one of the most energetic coasts, in which di erent projects for the exploitation of wind and wave resources have been built or approved [46,47]. In fact, the first project to install a commercial-scale wave energy extraction in the world was in the Pilot Zone o the coast of Portugal [47]. The aim of this study was to assess the present and near future wind and wave energy resources along the Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula. A Delphi classification method [48] that takes into account wind and wave resources, stability, risk, and installation and maintenance costs was applied for the analysis. The originality of the present study relies not only on the evaluation of the combined resources using a Delphi, as done in previous studies, but also in the consideration of other factors besides the wind/wave power resources, to assess the feasibility of a hybrid wind-wave energy farm at a particular location for future exploitation conditions. This methodology contributes to the knowledge and applicability for global-to-local scale studies, and predicts future wind-wave energy resource for researchers and ocean energy entrepreneurs. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 3 of 19 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19 Figure 1. Study area with the main toponyms used in the study. Figure 1. Study area with the main toponyms used in the study. The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, the data is presented, followed by the methodology The aim of this study was to assess the present and near future wind and wave energy resources applied to assess energy resources. Results and discussion can be found in Section 3. Finally, conclusions along the Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula. A Delphi classification method [48] that takes into are presented in the Section 4. account wind and wave resources, stability, risk, and installation and maintenance costs was applied for the analysis. The originality of the present study relies not only on the evaluation of the combined 2. Data and Methods resources using a Delphi, as done in previous studies, but also in the consideration of other factors besides the wind/wave power resources, to assess the feasibility of a hybrid wind-wave energy farm 2.1. Wind Data at a particular location for future exploitation conditions. This methodology contributes to the Daily wind speed at 10 m height was retrieved from regional climate simulations within the knowledge and applicability for global-to-local scale studies, and predicts future wind-wave energy CORDEX project [36] (Table 1) under the RCP8.5 greenhouse emission scenario. RCMs at a spatial resource for researchers and ocean energy entrepreneurs. resolution of 0.11 were considered from 2026 to 2045. The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, the data is presented, followed by the methodology applied to assess energy resources. Results and discussion can be found in Section 3. Table 1. Regional climate models (RCMs) from the Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Finally, conclusions are presented in the Section 4. Experiment (CORDEX) project (http://www.cordex.org/) used in this study. GCM = global climate models. 2. Data and Methods GCM RCM INSTITUTE CNRM-CM5 CCLM4-8-17 CLMcom 2.1. Wind Data CNRM-CM5 RCA4 SMHI EC-EARTH RACMO22E KNMI Daily wind speed at 10 m height was retrieved from regional climate simulations within the IPSL-CM5A-MR RCA4 SMHI CORDEX project [36] (Table 1) under the RCP8.5 greenhouse emission scenario. RCMs at a spatial IPSL-CM5A-MR WRF331F INERIS resolution of 0.11° were considered from 2026 to 2045. MPI-ESM-LR CCLM4-8-17 CLMcom MPI-ESM-LR REMO2009 MPI-CSC Table 1. Regional climate models (RCMs) from the Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX) project (http://www.cordex.org/) used in this study. GCM = global climate A multi-model ensemble approach was applied by using a consensus criterion [49,50] in order to models. reduce biases of each of the models that make up the multi-model. This consensus criterion determines the concordance of the multi-model GCM ensemble wind RCM speed INSTITUTE di erence (future minus past) with the CNRM-CM5 CCLM4-8-17 CLMcom di erent models, by imposing two conditions to evaluate the statistical significance of the pixels. CNRM-CM5 RCA4 SMHI The first condition states that at least 75% of all models present the same sign of the multi-model mean EC-EARTH RACMO22E KNMI in every pixel. The second condition imposes that at least 80% of the models that met the first condition IPSL-CM5A-MR RCA4 SMHI pass the Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon test [51] (a 5% significant level was considered at each pixel). IPSL-CM5A-MR WRF331F INERIS MPI-ESM-LR CCLM4-8-17 CLMcom MPI-ESM-LR REMO2009 MPI-CSC Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 4 of 19 For further information on the consensus criterion, the reader is referred to [49,50]. The accuracy of this ensemble of RCMs was previously analyzed in the area under scope [52,53]. 2.2. Wave Data Wave data parameters (H and T ) for the future period, 2026–2045, were obtained through s p the simulating waves nearshore (SWAN) model [54]. The model was previously implemented and validated for the northwest Iberian Peninsula coast [30]. The simulations consider the recommendations of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) for a reconnaissance-stage model [55], which are required for an energy resource assessment. The SWAN simulations are the dynamical downscaling (0.11  0.11 ) of the MIROC5 GCM. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) database for wave hindcast [56] and wind-wave climate projections [57] o ers eight di erent GCMs simulations. These simulations were statistically analyzed through the overlap percentage between the probability distribution functions (PDFs) [58] of the waves hindcast and the GCMs projections. The MIROC5 was found to be the most accurate model [30]. The time required to perform each of the SWAN simulations limits the use of only one GCM out of the eight possible. Winds provided by MIROC5 CCLM4-8-17 RCM [36] were also used in the SWAN simulations. 2.3. Methods The synergy between the wind and the waves can optimize the harvest of marine resources in the same area using hybrid farms. Thus, when assessing the energy resource, focusing on the harvest through hybrid systems, various factors must be taken into consideration, both specific to each resource and common to both. The assessment applied in this study is based on di erent indices representing the resource richness, variability, risk, and cost of wind energy resource, previously used by Costoya et al. [49,50], and applied in a similar way for the wave energy resource. 2.3.1. Wind Power Resource The wind power density (WPD in watts m ) was determined by: WPD =  W , (1) a H where  is the air density (1.225 kgm at 15 C and 1000 hPa) and W is the wind speed at the selected a H hub height (120 m). WPD is the power available to be converted by a wind turbine at a specific location. An important detail, when investigating wind energy changes due to global warming, is related to changes in the air density due to temperature increases. However, these are found not be relevant since a 5 k temperature increase represents only a 1% decrease of the WPD (for the same wind speed). Since WPD is independent of the turbine power curve, it is a suitable wind energy metric for this study. 2.3.2. Wave Power Resource Wave energy resource was evaluated by means of the wave power (WP in kWm ) following the expression: WP = H T , (2) where H is the significant wave height,  is seawater density (1025 kgm ), g is the gravitational acceleration, and T is the energy period estimated on the peak period (T ) [30,59]. Harvesting energy e p from waves is not straightforward, as each wave energy converter has a characteristic power matrix that varies with its design. In this sense, wave power can be applied to any wave energy converter since it is independent of the power matrix. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 5 of 19 2.3.3. Assessment of Future Wind Energy Resource Eight indices were considered to assess the future wind energy resource in the northwest Iberian Peninsula coast, following the methodology applied by [38,49,50] to assess the richness of the wind resource, the variability, the environmental risk, and cost parameters. These indices are: Annual average wind speed (W ), rich level occurrence (RLO), downtime (DWNT), coefficient of variation index (C ), monthly ann v variability index (M ), risk of extreme wind speeds (Risk), water depth (WD), and distance to coast (DC). The richness of the wind resource parameter accounts for the potential wind energy resource available, which is independent of the converter device. The W index is divided into seven partitions ann following the NREL classification scheme [60]. The rich level occurrence measured by means of the RLO index is defined as the frequency of WPD higher than 200 Wm . The e ectiveness in the exploitation of the wind energy resource is also a key factor because wind turbines only operate in a particular range that allows the production of energy. The upper (cut-o speed) and lower (cut-in speed) thresholds of this range are usually around 4 and 25 ms , respectively [49,50]. In this sense, the DWNT index provides a measure of the total time with useful wind speed occurrence (EWSO) in which a wind turbine is producing electricity. The temporal variability of the wind energy resource is another important factor, since a stable energy supply throughout the year would optimize the energy harvest eciency. In this context, the coecient of variation (C ) index is defined as: C = , (3) where S and x are the standard deviation and the WPD mean, respectively. Additionally, the monthly variability (M ) index was also considered. This index is defined as: P P M1 M12 M = , (4) year where P is the annual mean of the WPD, and P and P represent the WPD for the most and year M1 M12 least energetic months, respectively. The risk index was also considered, to take into account extreme wind speeds (EWS) that can highly a ect the safety of ocean engineering. This index was calculated by means of the EWS over a 50-year period calculated based on the Gumbel curve method. Finally, water depth and distance to coast indices were also considered for every grid pixel. These indices represent the cost factors related to grid connection and marine engineering. For this purpose, the ETOPO bathymetry and the Global Self-consistent, Hierarchical, High-resolution Geography (GSHHG) coastline databases were used to calculate WD and DC indices, respectively. The assessment of the future wind resource based on the indices described above was carried out following a Delphi classification method similar to the one described in [37,49,61]. First, each index was normalized to encompass all of them in a single parameter (the C index) since, as mentioned wind above, each index has its magnitude and units. The normalization process followed is similar to the one applied by [49,50], in such a way that both positive and negative indices were turned into positive factors with the optimal value equal to 1 and the worst equal to 0. The partitions of the [0, 1] interval were calculated considering a 1/(n 1) step, where n is the number of categories (10 or 5, depending on the index). Most of the indices were normalized using 10 partitions (Table 2) ,with the exception of the W index normalized using 7 (as mentioned before), and WD and DC which were normalized ann using 5 partitions (Table 3). Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 6 of 19 Table 2. Normalization criterion used for rich level occurrence (RLO), downtime (DWNT), coecient of variation index (C ), monthly variability index (M ), and extreme wind speeds (EWS) indices related v v to richness factors, variability factors, and environmental risk factors. Normalized. RLO (%) DWNT (%) C M EWS (ms ) v v 0/9 <10 <10 >1.9 >2.5 >27 1/9 10–20 10–20 1.7–1.9 2.25–2.5 25.5–27.0 2/9 20–30 20–30 1.5–1.7 2.0–2.25 24.0–25.5 3/9 30–40 30–40 1.3–1.5 1.75–2.0 22.5–24.0 4/9 40–50 40–50 1.1–1.3 1.5–1.75 21.0–22.5 5/9 50–60 50–60 0.9–1.1 1.25–1.5 19.5–21.0 6/9 60–70 60–70 0.7–0.9 1.0–1.25 18.0–19.5 7/9 70–80 70–80 0.5–0.7 0.75–1.0 16.5–18.0 8/9 80–90 80–90 0.3–0.5 0.5–0.75 15.0–16.5 9/9 >90 >90 <0.3 <0.5 <15.0 Table 3. Normalization criterion used for water depth (WD) and distance to coast (DC) indices related to cost factors. WD (m) DC (deg) >500 >4 100–500 3–4 50–100 2–3 25–50 0.5–2 0–25 <0.5 The weight coecients for wind energy indices based on the Delphi classification method are described in Table 4. Table 4. Weight coecient in the wind energy classification. The standard deviation was calculated as  = A A /N, where A is the weight coecient, A is the mean value of A and N is the i=1 number of experts (10) consulted in [37]. Richness Variability Risk Cost W RLO DWNT C M EWS WD DC ann v v 0.22 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.22 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.10 0.02 Thus, the wind energy classification index (C ) was calculated for each grid point as: wind C = W  I , (5) wind i i i=1 where I and W are the indices and weights described in Table 4. i i 2.3.4. Assessment of Future Wave Energy Resource The assessment of the future wave energy resource was similar to the one used for the future wind resource, since both wind and wave resources share the same characteristics and constraints. Previous studies assessed the wave energy resource [38,62,63], taking into account several parameters which evaluated the energy production (linked to a specific WEC), extreme events, availability of the optimal wave height, accessibility, and monthly variability of the resource. Future wave energy resource was classified following a method similar to previous studies [38,49], based on a Delphi technique. In particular, experts were selected from the steering committee of, and participants in, the COST Action WECANet: A pan-European Network for Marine Renewable Energy (https://www.wecanet.eu/). Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 7 of 19 As a first step, experts were questioned about the factors that they considered to be influential for wave energy converters. Experts were consulted only about general factors that did not depend on the particular features of a particular type of device. These factors, which include drivers that depend on the resource (mainly the amount of wave energy and its variability), on the environmental risk, and on cost constraints, were proposed and agreed by the experts. In a second step, a normalization method was adopted to compare di erent factors. Finally, as the last step, experts were consulted again to determine the weight of each factor following the protocol described latter. Similarly as previously done for wind, the C index was calculated considering seven indices wave that evaluated the wave resource richness, variability, environmental risk, and cost parameters: wave energy resource (WP), downtime (DWNT), coecient of variation index (C ), monthly variability index (M ), risk of extreme wave heights (Risk), water depth (WD), and distance to coast (DC). The richness of the wave resource parameter (WP) includes the potential wave energy resource available in the area under study, and is independent of the wave energy converter. Like for wind energy converters, wave converters also operate on a particular range of T and H . In this context, p s and following [64], the DWNT index was defined with upper and lower thresholds set to H = 8 m and H = 1 m, which represent the level of “power outages” due to extreme wave conditions, and the time of calms, respectively. The temporal variability of the wave energy was also considered for the wave energy exploitation by means of the C and M indices that were calculated as for the wind resource, but changing the v v WPD for WP. Similar to EWS, a risk factor that takes into account extreme wave heights (EWH) was also considered. This index was calculated by means of the maximum H over a 50-year period, calculated based on the Gumbel curve method. The calculation of the cost factors (WD and DC) was performed for every grid pixel, using the same method applied for the wind resource, and the same normalization process described in Table 3. The other indices were also subjected to the same normalization process applied in the wind energy classification. The normalization criterion is described in Table 5. Table 5. Normalization criterion used for wave energy resource (WP), DWNT, C , M , and extreme v v wave heights (EWH) indices related to richness factors, variability factors, environmental risk factors, and cost factors. Normalized DWNT (%) C M EWH (m) WP (kWm ) v v 0/9 <10 <10 >1.9 >2.5 >21 1/9 10–20 10–20 1.7–0.9 2.25–2.5 20–21 2/9 20–30 20–30 1.5–1.7 2.0–2.25 19–20 3/9 30–40 30–40 1.3–1.5 1.75–2.0 18–19 4/9 40–50 40–50 1.1–1.3 1.5–1.75 17–18 5/9 50–60 50–60 0.9–1.1 1.25–1.5 16–17 6/9 60–70 60–70 0.7–0.9 1.0–1.25 15–16 7/9 70–80 70–80 0.5–0.7 0.75–1.0 14–15 8/9 80–90 80–90 0.3–0.5 0.5–0.75 13–14 9/9 >90 >90 <0.3 <0.5 <13 The weight coecients for wave energy indices based on the Delphi classification method are described in Table 6. In particular, experts were selected from the steering committee and participants in the COST Action WECANet: A pan-European Network for Marine Renewable Energy (https://www.cost.eu/actions/CA17105/). As a first step, experts were questioned about the factors that they considered to be influential for wave energy converters. Experts were consulted only about general factors that did not depend on the particular features of a particular type of device. These factors, which include drivers that depend on the resource (mainly the amount of wave energy and its variability), on the environmental risk, and on cost constraints, were proposed and agreed Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 8 of 19 by the experts. In a second step, a normalization method was adopted to compare di erent factors. Finally, in the last step, experts were consulted again to determine the weight of each factor following the protocol previously described. Table 6. Weight coecient in the wave energy classification. Factors averaged to the fifteen wave energy P 2 experts and engineers consulted. The standard deviation was calculated as  = A A /N, i=1 where A is the weight coecient, A is the mean value of A and N is the number of experts (15). Richness Variability Risk Cost WP DWNT Cv Mv EWH WD DC 0.44 0.05 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.10 0.01 In this case, the indices that account for the wave resource richness are only two, compared to the three for the wind resource. This is because the wave energy harvest is usually done in terms of the average WP [65,66], in contrast to the wind resource that is usually done in terms of the W ann and EWSO. Similar to the wind energy classification index, the wave energy classification index (C ) wave was calculated for each grid point as: C = W  I (6) wave i i i=1 where I and W are the indices and weights described in Table 6. i i Finally, the classification of the hybrid wind-wave energy resource was determined by a combined index (CI) of wind and wave energy resources defined as: C + C wind wave CI = (7) 2.3.5. Sensitivity Test of the Energy Resource Parameters The classification indices used in Equations (5) and (6) were calculated for each grid pixel (k) by means of an expression that can be generalized as: k k k C = hW i I (8) i i i=1 where N is the number of indices, I is the normalized value of each index (i) calculated for every pixel (k), andhW i is the mean weight of each index obtained from Tables 2–6. Note that each weight in Tables 4 and 6 is described as a mean and a standard deviation. Although the mean weight value of the weight coecients (hW i) will be considered throughout most of the study (Equations (5) and (6)), a sensitivity test was carried out following a Monte Carlo approach to analyze the dependence of the classification indices (C ) on the variability of the weight coecients. The procedure applied to each pixel can be summarized as follows: 1. Random variation. Each weight was allowed to vary randomly k k k k W = hW i + R  W (9) i i i where R is a random number with equal probability between 1, and  is the standard deviation provided by Tables 4 and 6 for wind and waves, respectively. A di erent random number was used for each pixel (k). Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 9 of 19 2. Renormalization. Before the random variation, weights were normalized in such a way that hW i = 1 (10) i=1 However, that normalization cannot be guaranteed after random variation. Consequently, weights must be renormalized by Wn = (11) hW i i=1 3. The classification indices were recalculated using the new weights k k k C = Wn  I (12) j i i i=1 where the subscript (j) refers to the di erent realizations of the Monte Carlo approach. In particular, j = 100,000 realizations will be considered in the present analysis. k k 4. The RMSE associated to each pixel was calculated between the reference index (C ) and the di erent realizations, C . k k C C j=1 j RMSE = (13) 5. In a similar way, the RMSE associated to each realization was calculated as C C k=1 j RMSE = (14) where N is the number of pixels. 6. The mean value of the classification index was calculated as the average of all realizations by using the following expression k k hC i = C (15) j j j=1 3. Results and Discussion The assessment of the potential energy resource for a hybrid wind-wave farm was carried out along the northwest coast of the Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). First, spatial maps of all the wind and wave indices that make up the categories of resource richness, variability, risk, and cost were calculated. The method used in this study is similar to the one developed by [62], where the authors proposed a multi-criteria approach for wave energy converters. They used similar coecients (resource, variability, downtime, risk, and cost) although their study was more focused on particular devices for three specific locations. In the case of this research, which is based on previous studies carried out for wind energy converters [37,49,50,61], the analysis is focused on a large area covering the Atlantic part of the Iberian Peninsula under near future conditions. Previous works also focused on particular locations [25,65], although as far as we know, none on them considered future wind and wave conditions. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 10 of 19 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19 The richness category accounts for the available resource in terms of W , RLO, and DWNT ann for the wind resource (Figure 2), and WP and DWNT for the wave resource (Figure 3). W index ann (Figure 2a) shows the maximum value of 1 in the ocean, and decreases to less than half near land. This is consistent with the WPD values shown for this region in [67]. The RLO index pattern is similar to the one of W , with the lowest values (around 0.1) being detected along the coast, and the maximum ann values, of around 0.7, in the northwest region. The DWNT index shows a smaller di erence (0.2) Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19 between the ocean and the coastal regions. (a) (b) (c) Figure 2. Richness indices for wind energy resource. Annual average wind speed (a), rich level occurrence (b), and downtime (c) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). Wave richness resource shows some similarities to that of the wind, mostly due to the waves being generated as a result of the wind forcing on the water surface. WP index (Figure 3a) shows its (a) (b) (c) maximum (0.7) on the northwest region, as the RLO index. The lowest WP values are found near the coast, in particular in the Gulf of Cadiz (<0.2). Regarding wave DWNT index (Figure 3b), it should be Figure 2. Richness indices for wind energy resource. Annual average wind speed (a), rich level Figure 2. Richness indices for wind energy resource. Annual average wind speed (a), rich level noted that it reaches the maximum value of 1 in most of the study area, except in the Gulf of Cadiz. occurrence (b), and downtime (c) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). occurrence (b), and downtime (c) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). Wave richness resource shows some similarities to that of the wind, mostly due to the waves being generated as a result of the wind forcing on the water surface. WP index (Figure 3a) shows its maximum (0.7) on the northwest region, as the RLO index. The lowest WP values are found near the coast, in particular in the Gulf of Cadiz (<0.2). Regarding wave DWNT index (Figure 3b), it should be noted that it reaches the maximum value of 1 in most of the study area, except in the Gulf of Cadiz. (a) (b) Figure 3. Richness indices for wave energy resource. Wave power (a) and downtime (b) in the NW Figure 3. Richness indices for wave energy resource. Wave power (a) and downtime (b) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). Wave richness resource shows some similarities to that of the wind, mostly due to the waves The indices that account for the wind power resource variability, Cv and Mv, are represented in being generated as a result of the wind forcing on the water surface. WP index (Figure 3a) shows its Figure 4a,b, respectively. In general, the highest Cv values of 0.5 are in the ocean region south of Cape (a) (b) maximum (0.7) on the northwest region, as the RLO index. The lowest WP values are found near Finisterre, which is not optimal for energy production. However, the Mv index is very good (>0.8) for the same region. These Mv and Cv indices suggest the presence of short events linked to seasonal Figure 3. Richness indices for wave energy resource. Wave power (a) and downtime (b) in the NW fronts. Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). The indices that account for the wind power resource variability, Cv and Mv, are represented in Figure 4a,b, respectively. In general, the highest Cv values of 0.5 are in the ocean region south of Cape Finisterre, which is not optimal for energy production. However, the Mv index is very good (>0.8) for the same region. These Mv and Cv indices suggest the presence of short events linked to seasonal fronts. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 11 of 19 the coast, in particular in the Gulf of Cadiz (<0.2). Regarding wave DWNT index (Figure 3b), it should be noted that it reaches the maximum value of 1 in most of the study area, except in the Gulf of Cadiz. The indices that account for the wind power resource variability, C and M , are represented v v in Figure 4a,b, respectively. In general, the highest C values of 0.5 are in the ocean region south of Cape Finisterre, which is not optimal for energy production. However, the M index is very good Ap (> p0.8) l. Sci. for 2020 the , 10, same x FOR P region. EER REVIEW These M and C indices suggest the presence of short events linked 11 of 19 to v v seasonal fronts. (a) (b) Figure 4. Variability indices for wind energy resource. Variation coefficient (a) and monthly Figure 4. Variability indices for wind energy resource. Variation coecient (a) and monthly variability variability (b) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). (b) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). Th The e beh behavior avior of of th the e w wave ave po power wer reso resour urce ce var variability iability shows shows a a hi high gh resemb resemblance lance with with th the e on one e shown for the wind. A Cv index (Figure 5a) of around 0.4 is obtained for the northern part of the area, shown for the wind. A C index (Figure 5a) of around 0.4 is obtained for the northern part of the area, with with hi higher gher values values ((~0.5) ~0.5) in in th the e southe southern rn part. part. M M v (Fi (Figur guree 5b 5b) ) sh shows ows vvalues alues hhigher igher th than an 0. 0.6 6 in in the the southwest region of the study area and in a small fringe along the north coast of Spain. For the rest southwest region of the study area and in a small fringe along the north coast of Spain. For the rest of of the thar e ea areunder a under study stu,dy, M M shows v show values s values of 0.5. of 0.5. Once Onc again, e again, theth lowest e lowest values valu of es C of and Cv and M M indices v indice arse v v v are located in the Gulf of Cadiz. located in the Gulf of Cadiz. Figure 6 represents the risk category that considers the EWS and EWH indices, which a ect the safety related to the maneuverability of energy devices. The wind risk index (Figure 6a) shows high values (>0.8) along a narrow fringe in the coastal region, moderate values in the southwest region (0.6), and low values (<0.3) in the northwest region. The wave risk index (Figure 6b) shows close to 1 in most of the area, apart from the northwest region, where values of 0.5 are shown. It is noticeable that the lowest risk values (the worst risk conditions) in both wind and wave energy resources occur in the same region, the northwest section of the study area. This is precisely the region with the highest values of W , RLO, and WP indices. ann The cost category, represented by DC (Figure 7a) and WD (Figure 7b) is the same for both wind and wave resources, since they only depend on topographic constraints. (a) (b) Figure 5. Variability indices for wave energy resource. Variation coefficient (a) and monthly variability (b) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). Figure 6 represents the risk category that considers the EWS and EWH indices, which affect the safety related to the maneuverability of energy devices. The wind risk index (Figure 6a) shows high values (>0.8) along a narrow fringe in the coastal region, moderate values in the southwest region (0.6), and low values (<0.3) in the northwest region. The wave risk index (Figure 6b) shows close to 1 in most of the area, apart from the northwest region, where values of 0.5 are shown. It is noticeable Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19 (a) (b) Figure 4. Variability indices for wind energy resource. Variation coefficient (a) and monthly variability (b) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). The behavior of the wave power resource variability shows a high resemblance with the one shown for the wind. A Cv index (Figure 5a) of around 0.4 is obtained for the northern part of the area, with higher values (~0.5) in the southern part. Mv (Figure 5b) shows values higher than 0.6 in the southwest region of the study area and in a small fringe along the north coast of Spain. For the rest of the area under study, Mv shows values of 0.5. Once again, the lowest values of Cv and Mv indices Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 12 of 19 are located in the Gulf of Cadiz. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19 (a) (b) that the lowest risk values (the worst risk conditions) in both wind and wave energy resources occur in the same region, the northwest section of the study area. This is precisely the region with the Figure 5. Variability indices for wave energy resource. Variation coecient (a) and monthly variability Figure 5. Variability indices for wave energy resource. Variation coefficient (a) and monthly highest values of Wann, RLO, and WP indices. (b) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). variability (b) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). Figure 6 represents the risk category that considers the EWS and EWH indices, which affect the safety related to the maneuverability of energy devices. The wind risk index (Figure 6a) shows high values (>0.8) along a narrow fringe in the coastal region, moderate values in the southwest region (0.6), and low values (<0.3) in the northwest region. The wave risk index (Figure 6b) shows close to 1 in most of the area, apart from the northwest region, where values of 0.5 are shown. It is noticeable (a) (b) Figure 6. Risk indices for wind (a) and wave (b) energy resource in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the Figure 6. Risk indices for wind (a) and wave (b) energy resource in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). near future (2026–2045). The classification indices calculated following Equation (5) for wind and Equation (6) for waves are The cost category, represented by DC (Figure 7a) and WD (Figure 7b) is the same for both wind shown in Figure 8. The Wind index (C , panel a) shows elevated values (>0.6 in most of the area). and wave resources, since they only dep wiend on t nd opographic constraints. Only a very narrow fringe along the cost shows values lower than 0.5. High values can be observed in a wider fringe (~50 km wide) along the coast, the highest ones being (around 0.7) observed from Cape São Vicente to Cape Roca. The wave classification index (C , panel b) shows the same pattern as the one wave observed for the wind index but with lower values (between 0.4 and 0.7) in the whole region. In this case, the coastal fringe with the highest values covers from Cape Roca to approximately Cape Peña. (a) (b) Figure 7. Cost indices: (a) distance to coast (DC), and (b) water depth (WD) for wind and wave energy resources in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). The classification indices calculated following Equation (5) for wind and Equation (6) for waves are shown in Figure 8. The Wind index (Cwind, panel a) shows elevated values (>0.6 in most of the area). Only a very narrow fringe along the cost shows values lower than 0.5. High values can be observed in a wider fringe (~50 km wide) along the coast, the highest ones being (around 0.7) observed from Cape São Vicente to Cape Roca. The wave classification index (Cwave, panel b) shows the same pattern as the one observed for the wind index but with lower values (between 0.4 and 0.7) Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19 that the lowest risk values (the worst risk conditions) in both wind and wave energy resources occur in the same region, the northwest section of the study area. This is precisely the region with the highest values of Wann, RLO, and WP indices. (a) (b) Figure 6. Risk indices for wind (a) and wave (b) energy resource in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). The cost category, represented by DC (Figure 7a) and WD (Figure 7b) is the same for both wind Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 13 of 19 and wave resources, since they only depend on topographic constraints. (a) (b) Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19 Figure 7. Cost indices: (a) distance to coast (DC), and (b) water depth (WD) for wind and wave energy Figure 7. Cost indices: (a) distance to coast (DC), and (b) water depth (WD) for wind and wave energy in the whole region. In this case, the coastal fringe with the highest values covers from Cape Roca to resources in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). resources in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). approximately Cape Peña. The classification indices calculated following Equation (5) for wind and Equation (6) for waves are shown in Figure 8. The Wind index (Cwind, panel a) shows elevated values (>0.6 in most of the area). Only a very narrow fringe along the cost shows values lower than 0.5. High values can be observed in a wider fringe (~50 km wide) along the coast, the highest ones being (around 0.7) observed from Cape São Vicente to Cape Roca. The wave classification index (Cwave, panel b) shows the same pattern as the one observed for the wind index but with lower values (between 0.4 and 0.7) (a) (b) Figure 8. Classification of the wind (a) and wave (b) energy resource in the NW Iberian Peninsula for Figure 8. Classification of the wind (a) and wave (b) energy resource in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). the near future (2026–2045). The patterns observed in Figure 8 are similar to the ones depicted in Figures 9 and 10 obtained The patterns observed in Figure 8 are similar to the ones depicted in Figures 9 and 10 obtained through the sensitivity analysis described in Section 2.3.5. In particular, Figures 9a and 10a calculated through the sensitivity analysis described in Section 2.3.5. In particular, Figures 9a and 10a calculated with Equation (15) are similar to Figure 8a,b, respectively. The RMSE values (Figures 9b and 10b) with Equation (15) are similar to Figure 8a,b, respectively. The RMSE values (Figures 9b and 10b) obtained from Equation (13) are at least one order of magnitude smaller than the average classification obtained from Equation (13) are at least one order of magnitude smaller than the average indices. This fact is corroborated by the distribution of the RMSE calculated from Equation (14) classification indices. This fact is corroborated by the distribution of the RMSEj calculated from (Figures 9c and 10c). Equation (14) (Figures 9c and 10c). (a) (b) Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19 in the whole region. In this case, the coastal fringe with the highest values covers from Cape Roca to approximately Cape Peña. (a) (b) Figure 8. Classification of the wind (a) and wave (b) energy resource in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). The patterns observed in Figure 8 are similar to the ones depicted in Figures 9 and 10 obtained through the sensitivity analysis described in Section 2.3.5. In particular, Figures 9a and 10a calculated with Equation (15) are similar to Figure 8a,b, respectively. The RMSE values (Figures 9b and 10b) obtained from Equation (13) are at least one order of magnitude smaller than the average classification indices. This fact is corroborated by the distribution of the RMSEj calculated from Equation (14) (Figures 9c and 10c). Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 14 of 19 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19 (a) (b) (c) (c) ⟨ ⟩ Figure 9. Sensitivity analysis for wind energy. (a) Map of the mean classification index, 𝐶 ⟨ ⟩ Figure 9. Sensitivity analysis for wind energy. (a) Map of the mean classification index, 𝐶 k Figure 9. Sensitivity analysis for wind energy. (a) Map k of the mean classification index,hC i calculated calculated from Equation (15); (b) Map of the RMSE calculated from Equation (14); and (c) RMSEj calculated from Equation (15); (b) Map of the RMSE calculated from Equation (14); and (c) RMSEj histogram calculated from Equation (13) k . from Equation (15); (b) Map of the RMSE calculated from Equation (14); and (c) RMSE histogram histogram calculated from Equation (13). calculated from Equation (13). (a) (b) (a) (b) (c) (c) Figure 10. Sensitivity analysis for wave energy. (a) Map of the mean classification index, ⟨𝐶 ⟩ Figure 10. Sensitivity analysis for wave energy. (a) Map of the mean classification index,hC 𝑗 i calculated Figure 10. Sensitivity analysis for wave energy. (a) Map of the mean classification index, ⟨𝐶 j ⟩ calculated from Equation (15); (b) Map of the RMSE calculated from Equation (14); and (c) RMSEj from Equation calculate (15); d fro (b m) Equatio Map of n (the 15); (RMSE b) Map of calculated the RMSE ca frlcu om late Equation d from Equation (14); and (14); an (cd ) RMSE (c) RMSEhistogram j histogram calculated from Equation (13). histogram calculated from Equation (13). calculated from Equation (13). The combined index (CI) to classify the hybrid wind-wave energy resource (Figure 11) shows The combined index (CI) to classify the hybrid wind-wave energy resource (Figure 11) shows strong similarities to the patterns observed in Figure 8. In general, the CI is lower than Cwind (Figure strong similarities to the patterns observed in Figure 8. In general, the CI is lower than Cwind (Figure 8a) and higher than Cwave (Figure 8b). The narrow coastal fringe with low values, and the wider coastal 8a) and higher than Cwave (Figure 8b). The narrow coastal fringe with low values, and the wider coastal fringe with high values (from Cape Peñas to Cape São Vicente) can also be observed in this case. Once fringe with high values (from Cape Peñas to Cape São Vicente) can also be observed in this case. Once again, the lowest values, around 0.5, are observed in the Gulf of Cadiz. again, the lowest values, around 0.5, are observed in the Gulf of Cadiz. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 15 of 19 The combined index (CI) to classify the hybrid wind-wave energy resource (Figure 11) shows strong similarities to the patterns observed in Figure 8. In general, the CI is lower than C (Figure 8a) wind and higher than C (Figure 8b). The narrow coastal fringe with low values, and the wider coastal wave fringe with high values (from Cape Peñas to Cape São Vicente) can also be observed in this case. Once again, the lowest values, around 0.5, are observed in the Gulf of Cadiz. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19 Figure 11. Classification of the combined wind-wave energy resource in the NW Iberian Peninsula Figure 11. Classification of the combined wind-wave energy resource in the NW Iberian Peninsula for for the near future (2026–2045). the near future (2026–2045). 4. Conclusions 4. Conclusions The viability of exploiting the energy to be produced in hybrid wind-wave farms in the NW The viability of exploiting the energy to be produced in hybrid wind-wave farms in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045) was investigated using a Delphi method to classify Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045) was investigated using a Delphi method to classify wind and wave energy resources. This classification was based on di erent indices that represent the wind and wave energy resources. This classification was based on different indices that represent the resource richness, variability, risk, and cost of the energy resources. resource richness, variability, risk, and cost of the energy resources. The richness category shows the same patterns for both energy resources, with the highest values The richness category shows the same patterns for both energy resources, with the highest in the NW corner of the study area. The variability of the resource also shows a similar pattern for values in the NW corner of the study area. The variability of the resource also shows a similar pattern both wind and waves, with the highest values located south of Cape Finisterre. Both resource and for both wind and waves, with the highest values located south of Cape Finisterre. Both resource and variability factors are higher (better) for wind than for wave resource, the downtime factor being better variability factors are higher (better) for wind than for wave resource, the downtime factor being for waves. better for waves. The best risk conditions occur along the coastal region, both for wind and waves. In the oceanic The best risk conditions occur along the coastal region, both for wind and waves. In the oceanic part, the conditions improve from north to south. In general, the risk index is worst for wind than part, the conditions improve from north to south. In general, the risk index is worst for wind than for for waves. waves. Finally, a macroscopic evaluation of the hybrid wind-wave resource shows that most of the NW Finally, a macroscopic evaluation of the hybrid wind-wave resource shows that most of the NW Iberian Peninsula presents good conditions (CI > 0.6) for harvesting energy from wind and wave Iberian Peninsula presents good conditions (CI > 0.6) for harvesting energy from wind and wave resources simultaneously. In particular, there are some optimal areas (CI > 0.7), such as the region resources simultaneously. In particular, there are some optimal areas (CI > 0.7), such as the region near Cape Roca and the Galician coast, which had already been highlighted in previous studies on near Cape Roca and the Galician coast, which had already been highlighted in previous studies on wind [46] and wave [30] resources. wind [46] and wave [30] resources. The assessment carried out in this study must be considered as a decision support toolkit in the The assessment carried out in this study must be considered as a decision support toolkit in the identification of the best locations for hybrid wind-wave farms, or in the management, adaptation, identification of the best locations for hybrid wind-wave farms, or in the management, adaptation, and resilience of projected and ongoing plans. This assessment only considers the resource from a and resilience of projected and ongoing plans. This assessment only considers the resource from a physical point of view and can be complemented with the technical features of di erent devices, legal, physical point of view and can be complemented with the technical features of different devices, and environmental constraints, the costs linked to the support of the electric grid connection, and other legal, and environmental constraints, the costs linked to the support of the electric grid connection, indices that consider the relation between the maximum production values of both wind and wave and other indices that consider the relation between the maximum production values of both wind resources and the grid energy demand. and wave resources and the grid energy demand. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.R. (Americo Ribeiro), X.C., M.d.C. and M.G-G.; methodology, X.C. and M.G-G.; formal analysis, A.R. (Americo Ribeiro), X.C., M.d.C., D.C., A.R. (Alfredo Rocha) and M.G.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R. (Americo Ribeiro); writing—review and editing, A.R. (Americo Ribeiro), X.C., M.d.C., D.C., J.M.D., A.R. (Alfredo Rocha) and M.G.-G.; visualization, X.C., M.d.C., D.C., J.M.D., A.R. (Alfredo Rocha) and M.G.-G.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: The first author of this work has been supported by the Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT) through a doctoral grant (SFRH/BD/114919/2016). Thanks are also due to FCT/MCTES for the financial support to CESAM (UIDB/50017/2020+UIDP/50017/2020), through national funds. This work was partially supported by Xunta de Galicia under project ED431C 2017/64-GRC (Grupos de Referencia Competitiva) and by Ministry of Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 16 of 19 Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.R. (Americo Ribeiro), X.C., M.d.C. and M.G-G.; methodology, X.C. and M.G-G.; formal analysis, A.R. (Americo Ribeiro), X.C., M.d.C., D.C., A.R. (Alfredo Rocha) and M.G.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R. (Americo Ribeiro); writing—review and editing, A.R. (Americo Ribeiro), X.C., M.d.C., D.C., J.M.D., A.R. (Alfredo Rocha) and M.G.-G.; visualization, X.C., M.d.C., D.C., J.M.D., A.R. (Alfredo Rocha) and M.G.-G.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: The first author of this work has been supported by the Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT) through a doctoral grant (SFRH/BD/114919/2016). Thanks are also due to FCT/MCTES for the financial support to CESAM (UIDB/50017/2020+UIDP/50017/2020), through national funds. This work was partially supported by Xunta de Galicia under project ED431C 2017/64-GRC (Grupos de Referencia Competitiva) and by Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of the Government of Spain under the project “WELCOME ENE2016-75074-C2-1-R” funded by European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). This study is also part of the project “WECAnet: A pan-European network for Marine Renewable Energy” (CA17105), which received funding from the HORIZON2020 Framework Programme by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology), a funding agency for research and innovation networks. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results. References 1. United Nations—Climate Action. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/ (accessed on 11 September 2020). 2. European Comission. Regulation Of The European Parliament And Of The Council Establishing The Framework For Achieving Climate Neutrality And Amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 (European Climate Law); European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. 3. ETIPOCEAN. Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda for Ocean Energy; Ocean Energy Europe: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. 4. SET-Plan. Temporary Working Group Ocean Energy; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. 5. Ocean Energy Forum. Ocean Energy Strategic Roadmap: Building Ocean Energy for Europe; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2016. 6. Ocean Energy Systems. Annual Report: An overview of Ocean Energy Activities in 2019; Ocean Energy Systems: Lisbon, Portugal, 2020. 7. Maisondieu, C.; Healy, M. The impact of the MARINET initiative on the development of Marine Renewable Energy. Int. J. Mar. Energy 2015, 12, 77–86. [CrossRef] 8. SET-Plan. O shore Wind Implementation Plan. Available online: https://setis.ec.europa.eu/o shore-wind- implementation (accessed on 11 September 2020). 9. Watson, S.; Moro, A.; Reis, V.; Baniotopoulos, C.; Barth, S.; Bartoli, G.; Bauer, F.; Boelman, E.; Bosse, D.; Cherubini, A.; et al. Future emerging technologies in the wind power sector: A European perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 113, 109270. [CrossRef] 10. The European O shore Wind Industry. Key Trends and Statistics. 2019. Available online: https://windeurope. org/about-wind/statistics/o shore/european-o shore-wind-industry-key-trends-statistics-2019/ (accessed on 11 September 2020). 11. ETIPOCEAN. EU-Funded Ocean Energy Projects. Framework Programme 7 & Horizon2020; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. 12. SET-Plan. Ocean Energy-Implementation Plan. Available online: https://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/set_ plan_ocean_implementation_plan.pdf (accessed on 11 September 2020). 13. SET-Plan. Towards an Integrated Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan: Accelerating the European Energy System Transformation; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. 14. SET-Plan. Secretariat Initiative for Global Leadership in Offshore Wind; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. 15. Magagna, D.; Uihlein, A. 2014 JCR Ocean Energy Status Report; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. 16. International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2020. 17. Pérez-Collazo, C.; Greaves, D.; Iglesias, G. A review of combined wave and offshore wind energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 42, 141–153. [CrossRef] 18. Astariz, S.; Vazquez, A.; Iglesias, G. Evaluation and comparison of the levelized cost of tidal, wave, and o shore wind energy. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2015, 7, 053112. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 17 of 19 19. Zanopol, A.T.; Onea, F.; Rusu, E. Evaluation of the coastal influence of a generic wave farm operating in the romanian nearshore. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2014, 15, 597–605. 20. Rusu, E.; Guedes Soares, C. Coastal impact induced by a Pelamis wave farm operating in the Portuguese nearshore. Renew. Energy 2013, 58, 34–49. [CrossRef] 21. Silva, D.; Rusu, E.; Guedes Soares, C. The E ect of a Wave Energy Farm Protecting an Aquaculture Installation. Energies 2018, 11, 2109. [CrossRef] 22. Nassar, W.M.; Anaya-Lara, O.; Ahmed, K.H.; Campos-Gaona, D.; Elgenedy, M. Assessment of Multi-Use O shore Platforms: Structure Classification and Design Challenges. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1860. [CrossRef] 23. Serri, L.; Sempreviva, A.-D.; Pontes, T.; Murphy, J.; Lynch, K.; Airoldi, D. Resource Data and GIS Tool for O shore Renewable Energy Projects in Europe; Hydraulics & Maritime Research Centre: Cork, Ireland, 2012. 24. Loukogeorgaki, E.; Vagiona, D.; Vasileiou, M. Site Selection of Hybrid O shore Wind and Wave Energy Systems in Greece Incorporating Environmental Impact Assessment. Energies 2018, 11, 2095. [CrossRef] 25. Veigas, M.; Iglesias, G. A Hybrid Wave-Wind O shore Farm for an Island. Int. J. Green Energy 2015, 12, 570–576. [CrossRef] 26. Rusu, E.; Onea, F. A parallel evaluation of the wind and wave energy resources along the Latin American and European coastal environments. Renew. Energy 2019, 143, 1594–1607. [CrossRef] 27. Stoutenburg, E.D.; Jenkins, N.; Jacobson, M.Z. Power output variations of co-located o shore wind turbines and wave energy converters in California. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 2781–2791. [CrossRef] 28. Bosserelle, C.; Reddy, S.; Krüger, J. Waves and Coasts in the Pacific—Cost Analysis of Wave Energy in the Pacific; Pacific Community: Nouméa, New Caledonia, 2015; ISBN 978-982-00-0944-8. 29. Chan, D.; Mo, J. Life Cycle Reliability and Maintenance Analyses of Wind Turbines. Energy Procedia 2017, 110, 328–333. [CrossRef] 30. Ribeiro, A.S.; DeCastro, M.; Rusu, L.; Bernardino, M.; Dias, J.M.; Gomez-Gesteira, M. Evaluating the Future Efficiency of Wave Energy Converters along the NW Coast of the Iberian Peninsula. Energies 2020, 13, 3563. [CrossRef] 31. Harrison, G.P.; Wallace, A.R. Sensitivity of wave energy to climate change. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2005, 20, 870–877. [CrossRef] 32. López-Ruiz, A.; Bergillos, R.J.; Ortega-Sánchez, M. The importance of wave climate forecasting on the decision-making process for nearshore wave energy exploitation. Appl. Energy 2016, 182, 191–203. [CrossRef] 33. deCastro, M.; Costoya, X.; Salvador, S.; Carvalho, D.; Gómez-Gesteira, M.; Sanz-Larruga, F.J.; Gimeno, L. An overview of o shore wind energy resources in Europe under present and future climate. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 1436, 70–97. [CrossRef] 34. Moemken, J.; Reyers, M.; Feldmann, H.; Pinto, J.G. Future Changes of Wind Speed and Wind Energy Potentials in EURO-CORDEX Ensemble Simulations. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2018, 123, 6373–6389. [CrossRef] 35. Sta ell, I.; Pfenninger, S. Using bias-corrected reanalysis to simulate current and future wind power output. Energy 2016, 114, 1224–1239. [CrossRef] 36. EURO-CORDEX—Coordinated Downscaling Experiment—European Domain. Available online: https://www. euro-cordex.net/ (accessed on 23 June 2020). 37. Zheng, C.W.; Xiao, Z.N.; Peng, Y.H.; Li, C.Y.; Du, Z.B. bo Rezoning global o shore wind energy resources. Renew. Energy 2018, 129, 1–11. [CrossRef] 38. Astariz, S.; Iglesias, G. The collocation feasibility index—A method for selecting sites for co-located wave and wind farms. Renew. Energy 2017, 103, 811–824. [CrossRef] 39. Martínez-Asensio, A.; Tsimplis, M.N.; Marcos, M.; Feng, X.; Gomis, D.; Jordà, G.; Josey, S.A. Response of the North Atlantic wave climate to atmospheric modes of variability. Int. J. Climatol. 2016, 36, 1210–1225. [CrossRef] 40. Chen, G.; Chapron, B.; Ezraty, R.; Vandemark, D. A Global View of Swell and Wind Sea Climate in the Ocean by Satellite Altimeter and Scatterometer. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2002, 19, 1849–1859. [CrossRef] 41. Woolf, D.K. Variability and predictability of the North Atlantic wave climate. J. Geophys. Res. 2002, 107, 3145. [CrossRef] 42. Jiang, H.; Chen, G. A Global View on the Swell and Wind Sea Climate by the Jason-1 Mission: A Revisit. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2013, 30, 1833–1841. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 18 of 19 43. Chen, G. A new look at the zonal pattern of the marine wind system from TOPEX measurements. Remote Sens. Environ. 2002, 79, 15–22. [CrossRef] 44. Clément, A.; McCullen, P.; Falcão, A.; Fiorentino, A.; Gardner, F.; Hammarlund, K.; Lemonis, G.; Lewis, T.; Nielsen, K.; Petroncini, S.; et al. Wave energy in Europe: Current status and perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2002, 6, 405–431. [CrossRef] 45. Rusu, L.; Onea, F. The performance of some state-of-the-art wave energy converters in locations with the worldwide highest wave power. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 75, 1348–1362. [CrossRef] 46. deCastro, M.; Salvador, S.; Gómez-Gesteira, M.; Costoya, X.; Carvalho, D.; Sanz-Larruga, F.J.; Gimeno, L. Europe, China and the United States: Three di erent approaches to the development of o shore wind energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 109, 55–70. [CrossRef] 47. Palha, A.; Mendes, L.; Fortes, C.J.; Brito-Melo, A.; Sarmento, A. The impact of wave energy farms in the shoreline wave climate: Portuguese pilot zone case study using Pelamis energy wave devices. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 62–77. [CrossRef] 48. Mahajan, V.; Linstone, H.A.; Turo , M. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. J. Mark. Res. 1976, 13. [CrossRef] 49. Costoya, X.; DeCastro, M.; Santos, F.; Sousa, M.C.; Gómez-Gesteira, M. Projections of wind energy resources in the Caribbean for the 21st century. Energy 2019, 178, 356–367. [CrossRef] 50. Costoya, X.; deCastro, M.; Carvalho, D.; Gómez-Gesteira, M. On the suitability of o shore wind energy resource in the United States of America for the 21st century. Appl. Energy 2020, 262, 114537. [CrossRef] 51. Gibbons, J.D.; Chakraborti, S. Nonparametric Statistical Inference, 5th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; ISBN 9781420077612. 52. Costoya, X.; Rocha, A.; Carvalho, D. Using bias-correction to improve future projections of o shore wind energy resource: A case study on the Iberian Peninsula. Appl. Energy 2020, 262, 114562. [CrossRef] 53. Santos, F.; Gómez-Gesteira, M.; DeCastro, M.; Añel, J.A.; Carvalho, D.; Costoya, X.; Dias, J.M. On the accuracy of CORDEX RCMs to project future winds over the Iberian Peninsula and surrounding ocean. Appl. Energy 2018, 228, 289–300. [CrossRef] 54. SWAN. SWAN User Manual Version 41.31; Delft University of Technology, Environmental Fluid Mechanics Section: Delft, The Netherlands, 2019; p. 143. 55. International Electrotechnical Commission. Marine Energy—Wave, Tidal and Other Water Current Converters—Part 201: Tidal Energy Resource Assessment And Characterization; International Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. 56. Durrant, T.; Hemer, M.; Trenham, C.; Greenslade, D. CAWCR Wave Hindcast 1979–2010. v8; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation: Canberra, Australia, 2012. 57. Hemer, M.; Trenham, C.; Durrant, T.; Greenslade, D. CAWCR Global Wind-Wave 21st Century Climate Projections. v2; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation: Canberra, Australia, 2015. 58. Perkins, S.E.; Pitman, A.J.; Holbrook, N.J.; McAneney, J. Evaluation of the AR4 climate models’ simulated daily maximum temperature, minimum temperature, and precipitation over Australia using probability density functions. J. Clim. 2007, 20, 4356–4376. [CrossRef] 59. Pastor, J.; Liu, Y. Wave Energy Resource Analysis for Use in Wave Energy Conversion. J. O shore Mech. Arct. Eng. 2015, 137, 011903. [CrossRef] 60. Elliott, D.L.; Holladay, C.G.; Barchet, W.R.; Foote, H.P.; Sandusky, W.F. Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States. DOE/CH 10093-10094; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: Richland, WA, USA, 1986. 61. Zheng, C.; Pan, J. Assessment of the global ocean wind energy resource. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 33, 382–391. [CrossRef] 62. Kamranzad, B.; Hadadpour, S. A multi-criteria approach for selection of wave energy converter/location. Energy 2020, 204, 117924. [CrossRef] 63. Kamranzad, B.; Etemad-Shahidi, A.; Chegini, V. Developing an optimum hotspot identifier for wave energy extracting in the northern Persian Gulf. Renew. Energy 2017, 114, 59–71. [CrossRef] 64. Reeve, D.E.; Chen, Y.; Pan, S.; Magar, V.; Simmonds, D.J.; Zacharioudaki, A. An investigation of the impacts of climate change on wave energy generation: The Wave Hub, Cornwall, UK. Renew. Energy 2011, 36, 2404–2413. [CrossRef] 65. Iglesias, G.; Carballo, R. Choosing the site for the first wave farm in a region: A case study in the Galician Southwest (Spain). Energy 2011, 36, 5525–5531. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 19 of 19 66. Rusu, E.; Guedes Soares, C. Numerical modelling to estimate the spatial distribution of the wave energy in the Portuguese nearshore. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 1501–1516. [CrossRef] 67. Gaetani, M.; Vignati, E.; Monforti-Ferrario, F.; Huld, T.; Dosio, A.; Raes, F. Climate Modelling and Renewable Energy Resource Assessment; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional aliations. © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Applied Sciences Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Assessment of Hybrid Wind-Wave Energy Resource for the NW Coast of Iberian Peninsula in a Climate Change Context

Loading next page...
 
/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/assessment-of-hybrid-wind-wave-energy-resource-for-the-nw-coast-of-bZc7wu0Wr6
Publisher
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright
© 1996-2020 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer The statements, opinions and data contained in the journals are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
ISSN
2076-3417
DOI
10.3390/app10217395
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

applied sciences Article Assessment of Hybrid Wind-Wave Energy Resource for the NW Coast of Iberian Peninsula in a Climate Change Context 1 , 2 3 1 Americo Ribeiro * , Xurxo Costoya , Maite de Castro , David Carvalho , 1 1 3 Joao Miguel Dias , Alfredo Rocha and Moncho Gomez-Gesteira CESAM, Physics Department, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal; david.carvalho@ua.pt (D.C.); joao.dias@ua.pt (J.M.D.); alfredo.rocha@ua.pt (A.R.) CRETUS Institute, Group of Nonlinear Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain; jorge.costoya.noguerol@usc.es Environmental Physics Laboratory (EphysLab), CIM-UVIGO, University of Vigo, Campus da Auga building, 32004 Ourense, Spain; mdecastro@uvigo.es (M.d.C.); mggesteira@uvigo.es (M.G.-G.) * Correspondence: americosribeiro@ua.pt Received: 29 September 2020; Accepted: 19 October 2020; Published: 22 October 2020 Abstract: O shore renewable energy has a high potential for ensuring the successful implementation of the European decarbonization agenda planned for the near future. Hybrid wind-wave farms can reduce installation and maintenance costs, and increase the renewable energy availability of a location by compensating for the wind’s intermittent nature with good wave conditions. In addition, wave farms can provide protection to wind farms, and the combined wind/wave farm can provide coastal protection. This work aims to assess the future hybrid wind-wave energy resource for the northwest coast of Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045), under the RCP 8.5 greenhouse gas emission scenario. This assessment was accomplished by applying a Delphi classification method to define four categories, aiming to evaluate the richness (wind and wave energy availability, downtime), the variability (temporal variation), the environmental risk (extreme events), and cost parameters (water depth and distance to coast) of the wind and wave resources. The combined index (CI), which classifies the hybrid wind-wave resource, shows that most of the NW Iberian Peninsula presents good conditions (CI > 0.6) for exploiting energy from wind and wave resources simultaneously. Additionally, there are some particularly optimal areas (CI > 0.7), such as the region near Cape Roca, and the Galician coast. Keywords: hybrid wind-wave farm; wind energy; wave energy; climate change; resource classification 1. Introduction The development of marine energies has become essential for the green energy sector, in order to mitigate the human influence on climate change, and move towards 100% clean energy, as stated in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development released by the UN in 2015 [1]. Pursuing this goal, both the European Parliament and the European Council have endorsed 60% emission reductions by 2030 [2], and long-term climate neutrality for the EU by 2050. Europe’s decarbonization plan to achieve the net-zero greenhouse gas emission target relies heavily on an o shore renewable energy strategy [3]. The strategic roadmap is to deliver up to 100 GW of capacity by 2050, which represents approximately 10% of Europe’s electricity consumption [3,4]. The European Commission, through its member states, has made great e orts to achieve this goal by promoting projects that address ocean energy eciency [3–7], and the competitiveness of o shore wind [8–10] and ocean energies [11,12]. In fact, the European Union is currently the world leader in Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395; doi:10.3390/app10217395 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 2 of 19 o shore wind [13] and intends to advance in the implementation of the actions of its Strategic Energy Technology (SET) plan [14]. The current development of wind technologies has reduced the cost, maintenance, and equipment of wind turbines, and, at the same time, has increased wind turbine eciency and availability [8,10,15]. This makes wind power cheaper than photovoltaic power, while costing about half of atomic power [16]. Therefore, an explosion in the o shore wind industry is expected, which may positively influence the development of other technologies with high synergy [15,17], such as wave energy conversion. In fact, one of the strategies of the EU SET plan is to increase competitiveness by exploiting wave energy at the same time as wind power. Hybrid wind-wave farms can reduce installation and maintenance costs [17,18] and increase the availability of a location by compensating for the winds intermittent nature with good wave conditions. Furthermore, the wave farm can provide protection to the wind farm, and the combined wind-wave farm can provide coastal protection [19–21]. Several authors have assessed the combined exploitation of wind and wave resources [22] in Europe [17,23–25], and worldwide [26,27]. These studies determined the most suitable locations for wind exploitation, and the specific wave energy conversion (WEC) devices for those locations. Current wind and wave energy technology is intended to have a useful life of at least 20 years [28,29], therefore, when using this combined energy resource, it is important to take into account not only current climatic conditions but also the e ect of climate change on wind and wave energy resources in the near future [30]. Climate change is expected to a ect future wind and wave yields [31–33]. The global climate models (GCMs) from Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) have been tested and verified as reliable sources for future wind and wave variables [34,35]. The EURO-CORDEX initiative, the European branch of the Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX) project [36], used a wide range of regional climate models (RCMs) driven by several CMIP5 GCMs, under di erent greenhouse gas emission scenarios, to project wind and the significant height and period of waves, with a high spatial and temporal resolution. However, to assess the feasibility of operating a hybrid wind-wave farm in a specific location, it is necessary to take into account not only wave and wind resources for the near future but also environmental conditions and cost factors [37,38]. The NW Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula, from 36.5 to 45.5 N and from 6 to 11 W (Figure 1), covers the coast of Portugal and Galicia (Spain). The wind-wave climate is characterized by a high seasonal, and energetic, behavior [39,40], the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) being the greatest source of inter-annual variability in the wave climate in this region [41]. However, the wave field is still dominated by the swell component (over 78%) during most of the year [42], because of being located in a mid-latitude of a western region [43]. These features makes this region one of the maximum oceanic energy resources in Europe [44], and one of the highest marine energy potentials in the world [45]. In particular, the west coast of the Iberian Peninsula is one of the most energetic coasts, in which di erent projects for the exploitation of wind and wave resources have been built or approved [46,47]. In fact, the first project to install a commercial-scale wave energy extraction in the world was in the Pilot Zone o the coast of Portugal [47]. The aim of this study was to assess the present and near future wind and wave energy resources along the Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula. A Delphi classification method [48] that takes into account wind and wave resources, stability, risk, and installation and maintenance costs was applied for the analysis. The originality of the present study relies not only on the evaluation of the combined resources using a Delphi, as done in previous studies, but also in the consideration of other factors besides the wind/wave power resources, to assess the feasibility of a hybrid wind-wave energy farm at a particular location for future exploitation conditions. This methodology contributes to the knowledge and applicability for global-to-local scale studies, and predicts future wind-wave energy resource for researchers and ocean energy entrepreneurs. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 3 of 19 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19 Figure 1. Study area with the main toponyms used in the study. Figure 1. Study area with the main toponyms used in the study. The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, the data is presented, followed by the methodology The aim of this study was to assess the present and near future wind and wave energy resources applied to assess energy resources. Results and discussion can be found in Section 3. Finally, conclusions along the Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula. A Delphi classification method [48] that takes into are presented in the Section 4. account wind and wave resources, stability, risk, and installation and maintenance costs was applied for the analysis. The originality of the present study relies not only on the evaluation of the combined 2. Data and Methods resources using a Delphi, as done in previous studies, but also in the consideration of other factors besides the wind/wave power resources, to assess the feasibility of a hybrid wind-wave energy farm 2.1. Wind Data at a particular location for future exploitation conditions. This methodology contributes to the Daily wind speed at 10 m height was retrieved from regional climate simulations within the knowledge and applicability for global-to-local scale studies, and predicts future wind-wave energy CORDEX project [36] (Table 1) under the RCP8.5 greenhouse emission scenario. RCMs at a spatial resource for researchers and ocean energy entrepreneurs. resolution of 0.11 were considered from 2026 to 2045. The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, the data is presented, followed by the methodology applied to assess energy resources. Results and discussion can be found in Section 3. Table 1. Regional climate models (RCMs) from the Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Finally, conclusions are presented in the Section 4. Experiment (CORDEX) project (http://www.cordex.org/) used in this study. GCM = global climate models. 2. Data and Methods GCM RCM INSTITUTE CNRM-CM5 CCLM4-8-17 CLMcom 2.1. Wind Data CNRM-CM5 RCA4 SMHI EC-EARTH RACMO22E KNMI Daily wind speed at 10 m height was retrieved from regional climate simulations within the IPSL-CM5A-MR RCA4 SMHI CORDEX project [36] (Table 1) under the RCP8.5 greenhouse emission scenario. RCMs at a spatial IPSL-CM5A-MR WRF331F INERIS resolution of 0.11° were considered from 2026 to 2045. MPI-ESM-LR CCLM4-8-17 CLMcom MPI-ESM-LR REMO2009 MPI-CSC Table 1. Regional climate models (RCMs) from the Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX) project (http://www.cordex.org/) used in this study. GCM = global climate A multi-model ensemble approach was applied by using a consensus criterion [49,50] in order to models. reduce biases of each of the models that make up the multi-model. This consensus criterion determines the concordance of the multi-model GCM ensemble wind RCM speed INSTITUTE di erence (future minus past) with the CNRM-CM5 CCLM4-8-17 CLMcom di erent models, by imposing two conditions to evaluate the statistical significance of the pixels. CNRM-CM5 RCA4 SMHI The first condition states that at least 75% of all models present the same sign of the multi-model mean EC-EARTH RACMO22E KNMI in every pixel. The second condition imposes that at least 80% of the models that met the first condition IPSL-CM5A-MR RCA4 SMHI pass the Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon test [51] (a 5% significant level was considered at each pixel). IPSL-CM5A-MR WRF331F INERIS MPI-ESM-LR CCLM4-8-17 CLMcom MPI-ESM-LR REMO2009 MPI-CSC Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 4 of 19 For further information on the consensus criterion, the reader is referred to [49,50]. The accuracy of this ensemble of RCMs was previously analyzed in the area under scope [52,53]. 2.2. Wave Data Wave data parameters (H and T ) for the future period, 2026–2045, were obtained through s p the simulating waves nearshore (SWAN) model [54]. The model was previously implemented and validated for the northwest Iberian Peninsula coast [30]. The simulations consider the recommendations of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) for a reconnaissance-stage model [55], which are required for an energy resource assessment. The SWAN simulations are the dynamical downscaling (0.11  0.11 ) of the MIROC5 GCM. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) database for wave hindcast [56] and wind-wave climate projections [57] o ers eight di erent GCMs simulations. These simulations were statistically analyzed through the overlap percentage between the probability distribution functions (PDFs) [58] of the waves hindcast and the GCMs projections. The MIROC5 was found to be the most accurate model [30]. The time required to perform each of the SWAN simulations limits the use of only one GCM out of the eight possible. Winds provided by MIROC5 CCLM4-8-17 RCM [36] were also used in the SWAN simulations. 2.3. Methods The synergy between the wind and the waves can optimize the harvest of marine resources in the same area using hybrid farms. Thus, when assessing the energy resource, focusing on the harvest through hybrid systems, various factors must be taken into consideration, both specific to each resource and common to both. The assessment applied in this study is based on di erent indices representing the resource richness, variability, risk, and cost of wind energy resource, previously used by Costoya et al. [49,50], and applied in a similar way for the wave energy resource. 2.3.1. Wind Power Resource The wind power density (WPD in watts m ) was determined by: WPD =  W , (1) a H where  is the air density (1.225 kgm at 15 C and 1000 hPa) and W is the wind speed at the selected a H hub height (120 m). WPD is the power available to be converted by a wind turbine at a specific location. An important detail, when investigating wind energy changes due to global warming, is related to changes in the air density due to temperature increases. However, these are found not be relevant since a 5 k temperature increase represents only a 1% decrease of the WPD (for the same wind speed). Since WPD is independent of the turbine power curve, it is a suitable wind energy metric for this study. 2.3.2. Wave Power Resource Wave energy resource was evaluated by means of the wave power (WP in kWm ) following the expression: WP = H T , (2) where H is the significant wave height,  is seawater density (1025 kgm ), g is the gravitational acceleration, and T is the energy period estimated on the peak period (T ) [30,59]. Harvesting energy e p from waves is not straightforward, as each wave energy converter has a characteristic power matrix that varies with its design. In this sense, wave power can be applied to any wave energy converter since it is independent of the power matrix. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 5 of 19 2.3.3. Assessment of Future Wind Energy Resource Eight indices were considered to assess the future wind energy resource in the northwest Iberian Peninsula coast, following the methodology applied by [38,49,50] to assess the richness of the wind resource, the variability, the environmental risk, and cost parameters. These indices are: Annual average wind speed (W ), rich level occurrence (RLO), downtime (DWNT), coefficient of variation index (C ), monthly ann v variability index (M ), risk of extreme wind speeds (Risk), water depth (WD), and distance to coast (DC). The richness of the wind resource parameter accounts for the potential wind energy resource available, which is independent of the converter device. The W index is divided into seven partitions ann following the NREL classification scheme [60]. The rich level occurrence measured by means of the RLO index is defined as the frequency of WPD higher than 200 Wm . The e ectiveness in the exploitation of the wind energy resource is also a key factor because wind turbines only operate in a particular range that allows the production of energy. The upper (cut-o speed) and lower (cut-in speed) thresholds of this range are usually around 4 and 25 ms , respectively [49,50]. In this sense, the DWNT index provides a measure of the total time with useful wind speed occurrence (EWSO) in which a wind turbine is producing electricity. The temporal variability of the wind energy resource is another important factor, since a stable energy supply throughout the year would optimize the energy harvest eciency. In this context, the coecient of variation (C ) index is defined as: C = , (3) where S and x are the standard deviation and the WPD mean, respectively. Additionally, the monthly variability (M ) index was also considered. This index is defined as: P P M1 M12 M = , (4) year where P is the annual mean of the WPD, and P and P represent the WPD for the most and year M1 M12 least energetic months, respectively. The risk index was also considered, to take into account extreme wind speeds (EWS) that can highly a ect the safety of ocean engineering. This index was calculated by means of the EWS over a 50-year period calculated based on the Gumbel curve method. Finally, water depth and distance to coast indices were also considered for every grid pixel. These indices represent the cost factors related to grid connection and marine engineering. For this purpose, the ETOPO bathymetry and the Global Self-consistent, Hierarchical, High-resolution Geography (GSHHG) coastline databases were used to calculate WD and DC indices, respectively. The assessment of the future wind resource based on the indices described above was carried out following a Delphi classification method similar to the one described in [37,49,61]. First, each index was normalized to encompass all of them in a single parameter (the C index) since, as mentioned wind above, each index has its magnitude and units. The normalization process followed is similar to the one applied by [49,50], in such a way that both positive and negative indices were turned into positive factors with the optimal value equal to 1 and the worst equal to 0. The partitions of the [0, 1] interval were calculated considering a 1/(n 1) step, where n is the number of categories (10 or 5, depending on the index). Most of the indices were normalized using 10 partitions (Table 2) ,with the exception of the W index normalized using 7 (as mentioned before), and WD and DC which were normalized ann using 5 partitions (Table 3). Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 6 of 19 Table 2. Normalization criterion used for rich level occurrence (RLO), downtime (DWNT), coecient of variation index (C ), monthly variability index (M ), and extreme wind speeds (EWS) indices related v v to richness factors, variability factors, and environmental risk factors. Normalized. RLO (%) DWNT (%) C M EWS (ms ) v v 0/9 <10 <10 >1.9 >2.5 >27 1/9 10–20 10–20 1.7–1.9 2.25–2.5 25.5–27.0 2/9 20–30 20–30 1.5–1.7 2.0–2.25 24.0–25.5 3/9 30–40 30–40 1.3–1.5 1.75–2.0 22.5–24.0 4/9 40–50 40–50 1.1–1.3 1.5–1.75 21.0–22.5 5/9 50–60 50–60 0.9–1.1 1.25–1.5 19.5–21.0 6/9 60–70 60–70 0.7–0.9 1.0–1.25 18.0–19.5 7/9 70–80 70–80 0.5–0.7 0.75–1.0 16.5–18.0 8/9 80–90 80–90 0.3–0.5 0.5–0.75 15.0–16.5 9/9 >90 >90 <0.3 <0.5 <15.0 Table 3. Normalization criterion used for water depth (WD) and distance to coast (DC) indices related to cost factors. WD (m) DC (deg) >500 >4 100–500 3–4 50–100 2–3 25–50 0.5–2 0–25 <0.5 The weight coecients for wind energy indices based on the Delphi classification method are described in Table 4. Table 4. Weight coecient in the wind energy classification. The standard deviation was calculated as  = A A /N, where A is the weight coecient, A is the mean value of A and N is the i=1 number of experts (10) consulted in [37]. Richness Variability Risk Cost W RLO DWNT C M EWS WD DC ann v v 0.22 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.22 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.10 0.02 Thus, the wind energy classification index (C ) was calculated for each grid point as: wind C = W  I , (5) wind i i i=1 where I and W are the indices and weights described in Table 4. i i 2.3.4. Assessment of Future Wave Energy Resource The assessment of the future wave energy resource was similar to the one used for the future wind resource, since both wind and wave resources share the same characteristics and constraints. Previous studies assessed the wave energy resource [38,62,63], taking into account several parameters which evaluated the energy production (linked to a specific WEC), extreme events, availability of the optimal wave height, accessibility, and monthly variability of the resource. Future wave energy resource was classified following a method similar to previous studies [38,49], based on a Delphi technique. In particular, experts were selected from the steering committee of, and participants in, the COST Action WECANet: A pan-European Network for Marine Renewable Energy (https://www.wecanet.eu/). Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 7 of 19 As a first step, experts were questioned about the factors that they considered to be influential for wave energy converters. Experts were consulted only about general factors that did not depend on the particular features of a particular type of device. These factors, which include drivers that depend on the resource (mainly the amount of wave energy and its variability), on the environmental risk, and on cost constraints, were proposed and agreed by the experts. In a second step, a normalization method was adopted to compare di erent factors. Finally, as the last step, experts were consulted again to determine the weight of each factor following the protocol described latter. Similarly as previously done for wind, the C index was calculated considering seven indices wave that evaluated the wave resource richness, variability, environmental risk, and cost parameters: wave energy resource (WP), downtime (DWNT), coecient of variation index (C ), monthly variability index (M ), risk of extreme wave heights (Risk), water depth (WD), and distance to coast (DC). The richness of the wave resource parameter (WP) includes the potential wave energy resource available in the area under study, and is independent of the wave energy converter. Like for wind energy converters, wave converters also operate on a particular range of T and H . In this context, p s and following [64], the DWNT index was defined with upper and lower thresholds set to H = 8 m and H = 1 m, which represent the level of “power outages” due to extreme wave conditions, and the time of calms, respectively. The temporal variability of the wave energy was also considered for the wave energy exploitation by means of the C and M indices that were calculated as for the wind resource, but changing the v v WPD for WP. Similar to EWS, a risk factor that takes into account extreme wave heights (EWH) was also considered. This index was calculated by means of the maximum H over a 50-year period, calculated based on the Gumbel curve method. The calculation of the cost factors (WD and DC) was performed for every grid pixel, using the same method applied for the wind resource, and the same normalization process described in Table 3. The other indices were also subjected to the same normalization process applied in the wind energy classification. The normalization criterion is described in Table 5. Table 5. Normalization criterion used for wave energy resource (WP), DWNT, C , M , and extreme v v wave heights (EWH) indices related to richness factors, variability factors, environmental risk factors, and cost factors. Normalized DWNT (%) C M EWH (m) WP (kWm ) v v 0/9 <10 <10 >1.9 >2.5 >21 1/9 10–20 10–20 1.7–0.9 2.25–2.5 20–21 2/9 20–30 20–30 1.5–1.7 2.0–2.25 19–20 3/9 30–40 30–40 1.3–1.5 1.75–2.0 18–19 4/9 40–50 40–50 1.1–1.3 1.5–1.75 17–18 5/9 50–60 50–60 0.9–1.1 1.25–1.5 16–17 6/9 60–70 60–70 0.7–0.9 1.0–1.25 15–16 7/9 70–80 70–80 0.5–0.7 0.75–1.0 14–15 8/9 80–90 80–90 0.3–0.5 0.5–0.75 13–14 9/9 >90 >90 <0.3 <0.5 <13 The weight coecients for wave energy indices based on the Delphi classification method are described in Table 6. In particular, experts were selected from the steering committee and participants in the COST Action WECANet: A pan-European Network for Marine Renewable Energy (https://www.cost.eu/actions/CA17105/). As a first step, experts were questioned about the factors that they considered to be influential for wave energy converters. Experts were consulted only about general factors that did not depend on the particular features of a particular type of device. These factors, which include drivers that depend on the resource (mainly the amount of wave energy and its variability), on the environmental risk, and on cost constraints, were proposed and agreed Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 8 of 19 by the experts. In a second step, a normalization method was adopted to compare di erent factors. Finally, in the last step, experts were consulted again to determine the weight of each factor following the protocol previously described. Table 6. Weight coecient in the wave energy classification. Factors averaged to the fifteen wave energy P 2 experts and engineers consulted. The standard deviation was calculated as  = A A /N, i=1 where A is the weight coecient, A is the mean value of A and N is the number of experts (15). Richness Variability Risk Cost WP DWNT Cv Mv EWH WD DC 0.44 0.05 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.10 0.01 In this case, the indices that account for the wave resource richness are only two, compared to the three for the wind resource. This is because the wave energy harvest is usually done in terms of the average WP [65,66], in contrast to the wind resource that is usually done in terms of the W ann and EWSO. Similar to the wind energy classification index, the wave energy classification index (C ) wave was calculated for each grid point as: C = W  I (6) wave i i i=1 where I and W are the indices and weights described in Table 6. i i Finally, the classification of the hybrid wind-wave energy resource was determined by a combined index (CI) of wind and wave energy resources defined as: C + C wind wave CI = (7) 2.3.5. Sensitivity Test of the Energy Resource Parameters The classification indices used in Equations (5) and (6) were calculated for each grid pixel (k) by means of an expression that can be generalized as: k k k C = hW i I (8) i i i=1 where N is the number of indices, I is the normalized value of each index (i) calculated for every pixel (k), andhW i is the mean weight of each index obtained from Tables 2–6. Note that each weight in Tables 4 and 6 is described as a mean and a standard deviation. Although the mean weight value of the weight coecients (hW i) will be considered throughout most of the study (Equations (5) and (6)), a sensitivity test was carried out following a Monte Carlo approach to analyze the dependence of the classification indices (C ) on the variability of the weight coecients. The procedure applied to each pixel can be summarized as follows: 1. Random variation. Each weight was allowed to vary randomly k k k k W = hW i + R  W (9) i i i where R is a random number with equal probability between 1, and  is the standard deviation provided by Tables 4 and 6 for wind and waves, respectively. A di erent random number was used for each pixel (k). Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 9 of 19 2. Renormalization. Before the random variation, weights were normalized in such a way that hW i = 1 (10) i=1 However, that normalization cannot be guaranteed after random variation. Consequently, weights must be renormalized by Wn = (11) hW i i=1 3. The classification indices were recalculated using the new weights k k k C = Wn  I (12) j i i i=1 where the subscript (j) refers to the di erent realizations of the Monte Carlo approach. In particular, j = 100,000 realizations will be considered in the present analysis. k k 4. The RMSE associated to each pixel was calculated between the reference index (C ) and the di erent realizations, C . k k C C j=1 j RMSE = (13) 5. In a similar way, the RMSE associated to each realization was calculated as C C k=1 j RMSE = (14) where N is the number of pixels. 6. The mean value of the classification index was calculated as the average of all realizations by using the following expression k k hC i = C (15) j j j=1 3. Results and Discussion The assessment of the potential energy resource for a hybrid wind-wave farm was carried out along the northwest coast of the Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). First, spatial maps of all the wind and wave indices that make up the categories of resource richness, variability, risk, and cost were calculated. The method used in this study is similar to the one developed by [62], where the authors proposed a multi-criteria approach for wave energy converters. They used similar coecients (resource, variability, downtime, risk, and cost) although their study was more focused on particular devices for three specific locations. In the case of this research, which is based on previous studies carried out for wind energy converters [37,49,50,61], the analysis is focused on a large area covering the Atlantic part of the Iberian Peninsula under near future conditions. Previous works also focused on particular locations [25,65], although as far as we know, none on them considered future wind and wave conditions. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 10 of 19 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19 The richness category accounts for the available resource in terms of W , RLO, and DWNT ann for the wind resource (Figure 2), and WP and DWNT for the wave resource (Figure 3). W index ann (Figure 2a) shows the maximum value of 1 in the ocean, and decreases to less than half near land. This is consistent with the WPD values shown for this region in [67]. The RLO index pattern is similar to the one of W , with the lowest values (around 0.1) being detected along the coast, and the maximum ann values, of around 0.7, in the northwest region. The DWNT index shows a smaller di erence (0.2) Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19 between the ocean and the coastal regions. (a) (b) (c) Figure 2. Richness indices for wind energy resource. Annual average wind speed (a), rich level occurrence (b), and downtime (c) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). Wave richness resource shows some similarities to that of the wind, mostly due to the waves being generated as a result of the wind forcing on the water surface. WP index (Figure 3a) shows its (a) (b) (c) maximum (0.7) on the northwest region, as the RLO index. The lowest WP values are found near the coast, in particular in the Gulf of Cadiz (<0.2). Regarding wave DWNT index (Figure 3b), it should be Figure 2. Richness indices for wind energy resource. Annual average wind speed (a), rich level Figure 2. Richness indices for wind energy resource. Annual average wind speed (a), rich level noted that it reaches the maximum value of 1 in most of the study area, except in the Gulf of Cadiz. occurrence (b), and downtime (c) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). occurrence (b), and downtime (c) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). Wave richness resource shows some similarities to that of the wind, mostly due to the waves being generated as a result of the wind forcing on the water surface. WP index (Figure 3a) shows its maximum (0.7) on the northwest region, as the RLO index. The lowest WP values are found near the coast, in particular in the Gulf of Cadiz (<0.2). Regarding wave DWNT index (Figure 3b), it should be noted that it reaches the maximum value of 1 in most of the study area, except in the Gulf of Cadiz. (a) (b) Figure 3. Richness indices for wave energy resource. Wave power (a) and downtime (b) in the NW Figure 3. Richness indices for wave energy resource. Wave power (a) and downtime (b) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). Wave richness resource shows some similarities to that of the wind, mostly due to the waves The indices that account for the wind power resource variability, Cv and Mv, are represented in being generated as a result of the wind forcing on the water surface. WP index (Figure 3a) shows its Figure 4a,b, respectively. In general, the highest Cv values of 0.5 are in the ocean region south of Cape (a) (b) maximum (0.7) on the northwest region, as the RLO index. The lowest WP values are found near Finisterre, which is not optimal for energy production. However, the Mv index is very good (>0.8) for the same region. These Mv and Cv indices suggest the presence of short events linked to seasonal Figure 3. Richness indices for wave energy resource. Wave power (a) and downtime (b) in the NW fronts. Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). The indices that account for the wind power resource variability, Cv and Mv, are represented in Figure 4a,b, respectively. In general, the highest Cv values of 0.5 are in the ocean region south of Cape Finisterre, which is not optimal for energy production. However, the Mv index is very good (>0.8) for the same region. These Mv and Cv indices suggest the presence of short events linked to seasonal fronts. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 11 of 19 the coast, in particular in the Gulf of Cadiz (<0.2). Regarding wave DWNT index (Figure 3b), it should be noted that it reaches the maximum value of 1 in most of the study area, except in the Gulf of Cadiz. The indices that account for the wind power resource variability, C and M , are represented v v in Figure 4a,b, respectively. In general, the highest C values of 0.5 are in the ocean region south of Cape Finisterre, which is not optimal for energy production. However, the M index is very good Ap (> p0.8) l. Sci. for 2020 the , 10, same x FOR P region. EER REVIEW These M and C indices suggest the presence of short events linked 11 of 19 to v v seasonal fronts. (a) (b) Figure 4. Variability indices for wind energy resource. Variation coefficient (a) and monthly Figure 4. Variability indices for wind energy resource. Variation coecient (a) and monthly variability variability (b) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). (b) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). Th The e beh behavior avior of of th the e w wave ave po power wer reso resour urce ce var variability iability shows shows a a hi high gh resemb resemblance lance with with th the e on one e shown for the wind. A Cv index (Figure 5a) of around 0.4 is obtained for the northern part of the area, shown for the wind. A C index (Figure 5a) of around 0.4 is obtained for the northern part of the area, with with hi higher gher values values ((~0.5) ~0.5) in in th the e southe southern rn part. part. M M v (Fi (Figur guree 5b 5b) ) sh shows ows vvalues alues hhigher igher th than an 0. 0.6 6 in in the the southwest region of the study area and in a small fringe along the north coast of Spain. For the rest southwest region of the study area and in a small fringe along the north coast of Spain. For the rest of of the thar e ea areunder a under study stu,dy, M M shows v show values s values of 0.5. of 0.5. Once Onc again, e again, theth lowest e lowest values valu of es C of and Cv and M M indices v indice arse v v v are located in the Gulf of Cadiz. located in the Gulf of Cadiz. Figure 6 represents the risk category that considers the EWS and EWH indices, which a ect the safety related to the maneuverability of energy devices. The wind risk index (Figure 6a) shows high values (>0.8) along a narrow fringe in the coastal region, moderate values in the southwest region (0.6), and low values (<0.3) in the northwest region. The wave risk index (Figure 6b) shows close to 1 in most of the area, apart from the northwest region, where values of 0.5 are shown. It is noticeable that the lowest risk values (the worst risk conditions) in both wind and wave energy resources occur in the same region, the northwest section of the study area. This is precisely the region with the highest values of W , RLO, and WP indices. ann The cost category, represented by DC (Figure 7a) and WD (Figure 7b) is the same for both wind and wave resources, since they only depend on topographic constraints. (a) (b) Figure 5. Variability indices for wave energy resource. Variation coefficient (a) and monthly variability (b) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). Figure 6 represents the risk category that considers the EWS and EWH indices, which affect the safety related to the maneuverability of energy devices. The wind risk index (Figure 6a) shows high values (>0.8) along a narrow fringe in the coastal region, moderate values in the southwest region (0.6), and low values (<0.3) in the northwest region. The wave risk index (Figure 6b) shows close to 1 in most of the area, apart from the northwest region, where values of 0.5 are shown. It is noticeable Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19 (a) (b) Figure 4. Variability indices for wind energy resource. Variation coefficient (a) and monthly variability (b) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). The behavior of the wave power resource variability shows a high resemblance with the one shown for the wind. A Cv index (Figure 5a) of around 0.4 is obtained for the northern part of the area, with higher values (~0.5) in the southern part. Mv (Figure 5b) shows values higher than 0.6 in the southwest region of the study area and in a small fringe along the north coast of Spain. For the rest of the area under study, Mv shows values of 0.5. Once again, the lowest values of Cv and Mv indices Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 12 of 19 are located in the Gulf of Cadiz. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19 (a) (b) that the lowest risk values (the worst risk conditions) in both wind and wave energy resources occur in the same region, the northwest section of the study area. This is precisely the region with the Figure 5. Variability indices for wave energy resource. Variation coecient (a) and monthly variability Figure 5. Variability indices for wave energy resource. Variation coefficient (a) and monthly highest values of Wann, RLO, and WP indices. (b) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). variability (b) in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). Figure 6 represents the risk category that considers the EWS and EWH indices, which affect the safety related to the maneuverability of energy devices. The wind risk index (Figure 6a) shows high values (>0.8) along a narrow fringe in the coastal region, moderate values in the southwest region (0.6), and low values (<0.3) in the northwest region. The wave risk index (Figure 6b) shows close to 1 in most of the area, apart from the northwest region, where values of 0.5 are shown. It is noticeable (a) (b) Figure 6. Risk indices for wind (a) and wave (b) energy resource in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the Figure 6. Risk indices for wind (a) and wave (b) energy resource in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). near future (2026–2045). The classification indices calculated following Equation (5) for wind and Equation (6) for waves are The cost category, represented by DC (Figure 7a) and WD (Figure 7b) is the same for both wind shown in Figure 8. The Wind index (C , panel a) shows elevated values (>0.6 in most of the area). and wave resources, since they only dep wiend on t nd opographic constraints. Only a very narrow fringe along the cost shows values lower than 0.5. High values can be observed in a wider fringe (~50 km wide) along the coast, the highest ones being (around 0.7) observed from Cape São Vicente to Cape Roca. The wave classification index (C , panel b) shows the same pattern as the one wave observed for the wind index but with lower values (between 0.4 and 0.7) in the whole region. In this case, the coastal fringe with the highest values covers from Cape Roca to approximately Cape Peña. (a) (b) Figure 7. Cost indices: (a) distance to coast (DC), and (b) water depth (WD) for wind and wave energy resources in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). The classification indices calculated following Equation (5) for wind and Equation (6) for waves are shown in Figure 8. The Wind index (Cwind, panel a) shows elevated values (>0.6 in most of the area). Only a very narrow fringe along the cost shows values lower than 0.5. High values can be observed in a wider fringe (~50 km wide) along the coast, the highest ones being (around 0.7) observed from Cape São Vicente to Cape Roca. The wave classification index (Cwave, panel b) shows the same pattern as the one observed for the wind index but with lower values (between 0.4 and 0.7) Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19 that the lowest risk values (the worst risk conditions) in both wind and wave energy resources occur in the same region, the northwest section of the study area. This is precisely the region with the highest values of Wann, RLO, and WP indices. (a) (b) Figure 6. Risk indices for wind (a) and wave (b) energy resource in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). The cost category, represented by DC (Figure 7a) and WD (Figure 7b) is the same for both wind Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 13 of 19 and wave resources, since they only depend on topographic constraints. (a) (b) Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19 Figure 7. Cost indices: (a) distance to coast (DC), and (b) water depth (WD) for wind and wave energy Figure 7. Cost indices: (a) distance to coast (DC), and (b) water depth (WD) for wind and wave energy in the whole region. In this case, the coastal fringe with the highest values covers from Cape Roca to resources in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). resources in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). approximately Cape Peña. The classification indices calculated following Equation (5) for wind and Equation (6) for waves are shown in Figure 8. The Wind index (Cwind, panel a) shows elevated values (>0.6 in most of the area). Only a very narrow fringe along the cost shows values lower than 0.5. High values can be observed in a wider fringe (~50 km wide) along the coast, the highest ones being (around 0.7) observed from Cape São Vicente to Cape Roca. The wave classification index (Cwave, panel b) shows the same pattern as the one observed for the wind index but with lower values (between 0.4 and 0.7) (a) (b) Figure 8. Classification of the wind (a) and wave (b) energy resource in the NW Iberian Peninsula for Figure 8. Classification of the wind (a) and wave (b) energy resource in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). the near future (2026–2045). The patterns observed in Figure 8 are similar to the ones depicted in Figures 9 and 10 obtained The patterns observed in Figure 8 are similar to the ones depicted in Figures 9 and 10 obtained through the sensitivity analysis described in Section 2.3.5. In particular, Figures 9a and 10a calculated through the sensitivity analysis described in Section 2.3.5. In particular, Figures 9a and 10a calculated with Equation (15) are similar to Figure 8a,b, respectively. The RMSE values (Figures 9b and 10b) with Equation (15) are similar to Figure 8a,b, respectively. The RMSE values (Figures 9b and 10b) obtained from Equation (13) are at least one order of magnitude smaller than the average classification obtained from Equation (13) are at least one order of magnitude smaller than the average indices. This fact is corroborated by the distribution of the RMSE calculated from Equation (14) classification indices. This fact is corroborated by the distribution of the RMSEj calculated from (Figures 9c and 10c). Equation (14) (Figures 9c and 10c). (a) (b) Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19 in the whole region. In this case, the coastal fringe with the highest values covers from Cape Roca to approximately Cape Peña. (a) (b) Figure 8. Classification of the wind (a) and wave (b) energy resource in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045). The patterns observed in Figure 8 are similar to the ones depicted in Figures 9 and 10 obtained through the sensitivity analysis described in Section 2.3.5. In particular, Figures 9a and 10a calculated with Equation (15) are similar to Figure 8a,b, respectively. The RMSE values (Figures 9b and 10b) obtained from Equation (13) are at least one order of magnitude smaller than the average classification indices. This fact is corroborated by the distribution of the RMSEj calculated from Equation (14) (Figures 9c and 10c). Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 14 of 19 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19 (a) (b) (c) (c) ⟨ ⟩ Figure 9. Sensitivity analysis for wind energy. (a) Map of the mean classification index, 𝐶 ⟨ ⟩ Figure 9. Sensitivity analysis for wind energy. (a) Map of the mean classification index, 𝐶 k Figure 9. Sensitivity analysis for wind energy. (a) Map k of the mean classification index,hC i calculated calculated from Equation (15); (b) Map of the RMSE calculated from Equation (14); and (c) RMSEj calculated from Equation (15); (b) Map of the RMSE calculated from Equation (14); and (c) RMSEj histogram calculated from Equation (13) k . from Equation (15); (b) Map of the RMSE calculated from Equation (14); and (c) RMSE histogram histogram calculated from Equation (13). calculated from Equation (13). (a) (b) (a) (b) (c) (c) Figure 10. Sensitivity analysis for wave energy. (a) Map of the mean classification index, ⟨𝐶 ⟩ Figure 10. Sensitivity analysis for wave energy. (a) Map of the mean classification index,hC 𝑗 i calculated Figure 10. Sensitivity analysis for wave energy. (a) Map of the mean classification index, ⟨𝐶 j ⟩ calculated from Equation (15); (b) Map of the RMSE calculated from Equation (14); and (c) RMSEj from Equation calculate (15); d fro (b m) Equatio Map of n (the 15); (RMSE b) Map of calculated the RMSE ca frlcu om late Equation d from Equation (14); and (14); an (cd ) RMSE (c) RMSEhistogram j histogram calculated from Equation (13). histogram calculated from Equation (13). calculated from Equation (13). The combined index (CI) to classify the hybrid wind-wave energy resource (Figure 11) shows The combined index (CI) to classify the hybrid wind-wave energy resource (Figure 11) shows strong similarities to the patterns observed in Figure 8. In general, the CI is lower than Cwind (Figure strong similarities to the patterns observed in Figure 8. In general, the CI is lower than Cwind (Figure 8a) and higher than Cwave (Figure 8b). The narrow coastal fringe with low values, and the wider coastal 8a) and higher than Cwave (Figure 8b). The narrow coastal fringe with low values, and the wider coastal fringe with high values (from Cape Peñas to Cape São Vicente) can also be observed in this case. Once fringe with high values (from Cape Peñas to Cape São Vicente) can also be observed in this case. Once again, the lowest values, around 0.5, are observed in the Gulf of Cadiz. again, the lowest values, around 0.5, are observed in the Gulf of Cadiz. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 15 of 19 The combined index (CI) to classify the hybrid wind-wave energy resource (Figure 11) shows strong similarities to the patterns observed in Figure 8. In general, the CI is lower than C (Figure 8a) wind and higher than C (Figure 8b). The narrow coastal fringe with low values, and the wider coastal wave fringe with high values (from Cape Peñas to Cape São Vicente) can also be observed in this case. Once again, the lowest values, around 0.5, are observed in the Gulf of Cadiz. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19 Figure 11. Classification of the combined wind-wave energy resource in the NW Iberian Peninsula Figure 11. Classification of the combined wind-wave energy resource in the NW Iberian Peninsula for for the near future (2026–2045). the near future (2026–2045). 4. Conclusions 4. Conclusions The viability of exploiting the energy to be produced in hybrid wind-wave farms in the NW The viability of exploiting the energy to be produced in hybrid wind-wave farms in the NW Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045) was investigated using a Delphi method to classify Iberian Peninsula for the near future (2026–2045) was investigated using a Delphi method to classify wind and wave energy resources. This classification was based on di erent indices that represent the wind and wave energy resources. This classification was based on different indices that represent the resource richness, variability, risk, and cost of the energy resources. resource richness, variability, risk, and cost of the energy resources. The richness category shows the same patterns for both energy resources, with the highest values The richness category shows the same patterns for both energy resources, with the highest in the NW corner of the study area. The variability of the resource also shows a similar pattern for values in the NW corner of the study area. The variability of the resource also shows a similar pattern both wind and waves, with the highest values located south of Cape Finisterre. Both resource and for both wind and waves, with the highest values located south of Cape Finisterre. Both resource and variability factors are higher (better) for wind than for wave resource, the downtime factor being better variability factors are higher (better) for wind than for wave resource, the downtime factor being for waves. better for waves. The best risk conditions occur along the coastal region, both for wind and waves. In the oceanic The best risk conditions occur along the coastal region, both for wind and waves. In the oceanic part, the conditions improve from north to south. In general, the risk index is worst for wind than part, the conditions improve from north to south. In general, the risk index is worst for wind than for for waves. waves. Finally, a macroscopic evaluation of the hybrid wind-wave resource shows that most of the NW Finally, a macroscopic evaluation of the hybrid wind-wave resource shows that most of the NW Iberian Peninsula presents good conditions (CI > 0.6) for harvesting energy from wind and wave Iberian Peninsula presents good conditions (CI > 0.6) for harvesting energy from wind and wave resources simultaneously. In particular, there are some optimal areas (CI > 0.7), such as the region resources simultaneously. In particular, there are some optimal areas (CI > 0.7), such as the region near Cape Roca and the Galician coast, which had already been highlighted in previous studies on near Cape Roca and the Galician coast, which had already been highlighted in previous studies on wind [46] and wave [30] resources. wind [46] and wave [30] resources. The assessment carried out in this study must be considered as a decision support toolkit in the The assessment carried out in this study must be considered as a decision support toolkit in the identification of the best locations for hybrid wind-wave farms, or in the management, adaptation, identification of the best locations for hybrid wind-wave farms, or in the management, adaptation, and resilience of projected and ongoing plans. This assessment only considers the resource from a and resilience of projected and ongoing plans. This assessment only considers the resource from a physical point of view and can be complemented with the technical features of di erent devices, legal, physical point of view and can be complemented with the technical features of different devices, and environmental constraints, the costs linked to the support of the electric grid connection, and other legal, and environmental constraints, the costs linked to the support of the electric grid connection, indices that consider the relation between the maximum production values of both wind and wave and other indices that consider the relation between the maximum production values of both wind resources and the grid energy demand. and wave resources and the grid energy demand. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.R. (Americo Ribeiro), X.C., M.d.C. and M.G-G.; methodology, X.C. and M.G-G.; formal analysis, A.R. (Americo Ribeiro), X.C., M.d.C., D.C., A.R. (Alfredo Rocha) and M.G.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R. (Americo Ribeiro); writing—review and editing, A.R. (Americo Ribeiro), X.C., M.d.C., D.C., J.M.D., A.R. (Alfredo Rocha) and M.G.-G.; visualization, X.C., M.d.C., D.C., J.M.D., A.R. (Alfredo Rocha) and M.G.-G.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: The first author of this work has been supported by the Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT) through a doctoral grant (SFRH/BD/114919/2016). Thanks are also due to FCT/MCTES for the financial support to CESAM (UIDB/50017/2020+UIDP/50017/2020), through national funds. This work was partially supported by Xunta de Galicia under project ED431C 2017/64-GRC (Grupos de Referencia Competitiva) and by Ministry of Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 16 of 19 Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.R. (Americo Ribeiro), X.C., M.d.C. and M.G-G.; methodology, X.C. and M.G-G.; formal analysis, A.R. (Americo Ribeiro), X.C., M.d.C., D.C., A.R. (Alfredo Rocha) and M.G.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R. (Americo Ribeiro); writing—review and editing, A.R. (Americo Ribeiro), X.C., M.d.C., D.C., J.M.D., A.R. (Alfredo Rocha) and M.G.-G.; visualization, X.C., M.d.C., D.C., J.M.D., A.R. (Alfredo Rocha) and M.G.-G.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: The first author of this work has been supported by the Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT) through a doctoral grant (SFRH/BD/114919/2016). Thanks are also due to FCT/MCTES for the financial support to CESAM (UIDB/50017/2020+UIDP/50017/2020), through national funds. This work was partially supported by Xunta de Galicia under project ED431C 2017/64-GRC (Grupos de Referencia Competitiva) and by Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of the Government of Spain under the project “WELCOME ENE2016-75074-C2-1-R” funded by European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). This study is also part of the project “WECAnet: A pan-European network for Marine Renewable Energy” (CA17105), which received funding from the HORIZON2020 Framework Programme by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology), a funding agency for research and innovation networks. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results. References 1. United Nations—Climate Action. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/ (accessed on 11 September 2020). 2. European Comission. Regulation Of The European Parliament And Of The Council Establishing The Framework For Achieving Climate Neutrality And Amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 (European Climate Law); European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. 3. ETIPOCEAN. Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda for Ocean Energy; Ocean Energy Europe: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. 4. SET-Plan. Temporary Working Group Ocean Energy; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. 5. Ocean Energy Forum. Ocean Energy Strategic Roadmap: Building Ocean Energy for Europe; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2016. 6. Ocean Energy Systems. Annual Report: An overview of Ocean Energy Activities in 2019; Ocean Energy Systems: Lisbon, Portugal, 2020. 7. Maisondieu, C.; Healy, M. The impact of the MARINET initiative on the development of Marine Renewable Energy. Int. J. Mar. Energy 2015, 12, 77–86. [CrossRef] 8. SET-Plan. O shore Wind Implementation Plan. Available online: https://setis.ec.europa.eu/o shore-wind- implementation (accessed on 11 September 2020). 9. Watson, S.; Moro, A.; Reis, V.; Baniotopoulos, C.; Barth, S.; Bartoli, G.; Bauer, F.; Boelman, E.; Bosse, D.; Cherubini, A.; et al. Future emerging technologies in the wind power sector: A European perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 113, 109270. [CrossRef] 10. The European O shore Wind Industry. Key Trends and Statistics. 2019. Available online: https://windeurope. org/about-wind/statistics/o shore/european-o shore-wind-industry-key-trends-statistics-2019/ (accessed on 11 September 2020). 11. ETIPOCEAN. EU-Funded Ocean Energy Projects. Framework Programme 7 & Horizon2020; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. 12. SET-Plan. Ocean Energy-Implementation Plan. Available online: https://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/set_ plan_ocean_implementation_plan.pdf (accessed on 11 September 2020). 13. SET-Plan. Towards an Integrated Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan: Accelerating the European Energy System Transformation; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. 14. SET-Plan. Secretariat Initiative for Global Leadership in Offshore Wind; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. 15. Magagna, D.; Uihlein, A. 2014 JCR Ocean Energy Status Report; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. 16. International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2020. 17. Pérez-Collazo, C.; Greaves, D.; Iglesias, G. A review of combined wave and offshore wind energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 42, 141–153. [CrossRef] 18. Astariz, S.; Vazquez, A.; Iglesias, G. Evaluation and comparison of the levelized cost of tidal, wave, and o shore wind energy. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2015, 7, 053112. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 17 of 19 19. Zanopol, A.T.; Onea, F.; Rusu, E. Evaluation of the coastal influence of a generic wave farm operating in the romanian nearshore. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2014, 15, 597–605. 20. Rusu, E.; Guedes Soares, C. Coastal impact induced by a Pelamis wave farm operating in the Portuguese nearshore. Renew. Energy 2013, 58, 34–49. [CrossRef] 21. Silva, D.; Rusu, E.; Guedes Soares, C. The E ect of a Wave Energy Farm Protecting an Aquaculture Installation. Energies 2018, 11, 2109. [CrossRef] 22. Nassar, W.M.; Anaya-Lara, O.; Ahmed, K.H.; Campos-Gaona, D.; Elgenedy, M. Assessment of Multi-Use O shore Platforms: Structure Classification and Design Challenges. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1860. [CrossRef] 23. Serri, L.; Sempreviva, A.-D.; Pontes, T.; Murphy, J.; Lynch, K.; Airoldi, D. Resource Data and GIS Tool for O shore Renewable Energy Projects in Europe; Hydraulics & Maritime Research Centre: Cork, Ireland, 2012. 24. Loukogeorgaki, E.; Vagiona, D.; Vasileiou, M. Site Selection of Hybrid O shore Wind and Wave Energy Systems in Greece Incorporating Environmental Impact Assessment. Energies 2018, 11, 2095. [CrossRef] 25. Veigas, M.; Iglesias, G. A Hybrid Wave-Wind O shore Farm for an Island. Int. J. Green Energy 2015, 12, 570–576. [CrossRef] 26. Rusu, E.; Onea, F. A parallel evaluation of the wind and wave energy resources along the Latin American and European coastal environments. Renew. Energy 2019, 143, 1594–1607. [CrossRef] 27. Stoutenburg, E.D.; Jenkins, N.; Jacobson, M.Z. Power output variations of co-located o shore wind turbines and wave energy converters in California. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 2781–2791. [CrossRef] 28. Bosserelle, C.; Reddy, S.; Krüger, J. Waves and Coasts in the Pacific—Cost Analysis of Wave Energy in the Pacific; Pacific Community: Nouméa, New Caledonia, 2015; ISBN 978-982-00-0944-8. 29. Chan, D.; Mo, J. Life Cycle Reliability and Maintenance Analyses of Wind Turbines. Energy Procedia 2017, 110, 328–333. [CrossRef] 30. Ribeiro, A.S.; DeCastro, M.; Rusu, L.; Bernardino, M.; Dias, J.M.; Gomez-Gesteira, M. Evaluating the Future Efficiency of Wave Energy Converters along the NW Coast of the Iberian Peninsula. Energies 2020, 13, 3563. [CrossRef] 31. Harrison, G.P.; Wallace, A.R. Sensitivity of wave energy to climate change. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2005, 20, 870–877. [CrossRef] 32. López-Ruiz, A.; Bergillos, R.J.; Ortega-Sánchez, M. The importance of wave climate forecasting on the decision-making process for nearshore wave energy exploitation. Appl. Energy 2016, 182, 191–203. [CrossRef] 33. deCastro, M.; Costoya, X.; Salvador, S.; Carvalho, D.; Gómez-Gesteira, M.; Sanz-Larruga, F.J.; Gimeno, L. An overview of o shore wind energy resources in Europe under present and future climate. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 1436, 70–97. [CrossRef] 34. Moemken, J.; Reyers, M.; Feldmann, H.; Pinto, J.G. Future Changes of Wind Speed and Wind Energy Potentials in EURO-CORDEX Ensemble Simulations. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2018, 123, 6373–6389. [CrossRef] 35. Sta ell, I.; Pfenninger, S. Using bias-corrected reanalysis to simulate current and future wind power output. Energy 2016, 114, 1224–1239. [CrossRef] 36. EURO-CORDEX—Coordinated Downscaling Experiment—European Domain. Available online: https://www. euro-cordex.net/ (accessed on 23 June 2020). 37. Zheng, C.W.; Xiao, Z.N.; Peng, Y.H.; Li, C.Y.; Du, Z.B. bo Rezoning global o shore wind energy resources. Renew. Energy 2018, 129, 1–11. [CrossRef] 38. Astariz, S.; Iglesias, G. The collocation feasibility index—A method for selecting sites for co-located wave and wind farms. Renew. Energy 2017, 103, 811–824. [CrossRef] 39. Martínez-Asensio, A.; Tsimplis, M.N.; Marcos, M.; Feng, X.; Gomis, D.; Jordà, G.; Josey, S.A. Response of the North Atlantic wave climate to atmospheric modes of variability. Int. J. Climatol. 2016, 36, 1210–1225. [CrossRef] 40. Chen, G.; Chapron, B.; Ezraty, R.; Vandemark, D. A Global View of Swell and Wind Sea Climate in the Ocean by Satellite Altimeter and Scatterometer. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2002, 19, 1849–1859. [CrossRef] 41. Woolf, D.K. Variability and predictability of the North Atlantic wave climate. J. Geophys. Res. 2002, 107, 3145. [CrossRef] 42. Jiang, H.; Chen, G. A Global View on the Swell and Wind Sea Climate by the Jason-1 Mission: A Revisit. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2013, 30, 1833–1841. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 18 of 19 43. Chen, G. A new look at the zonal pattern of the marine wind system from TOPEX measurements. Remote Sens. Environ. 2002, 79, 15–22. [CrossRef] 44. Clément, A.; McCullen, P.; Falcão, A.; Fiorentino, A.; Gardner, F.; Hammarlund, K.; Lemonis, G.; Lewis, T.; Nielsen, K.; Petroncini, S.; et al. Wave energy in Europe: Current status and perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2002, 6, 405–431. [CrossRef] 45. Rusu, L.; Onea, F. The performance of some state-of-the-art wave energy converters in locations with the worldwide highest wave power. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 75, 1348–1362. [CrossRef] 46. deCastro, M.; Salvador, S.; Gómez-Gesteira, M.; Costoya, X.; Carvalho, D.; Sanz-Larruga, F.J.; Gimeno, L. Europe, China and the United States: Three di erent approaches to the development of o shore wind energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 109, 55–70. [CrossRef] 47. Palha, A.; Mendes, L.; Fortes, C.J.; Brito-Melo, A.; Sarmento, A. The impact of wave energy farms in the shoreline wave climate: Portuguese pilot zone case study using Pelamis energy wave devices. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 62–77. [CrossRef] 48. Mahajan, V.; Linstone, H.A.; Turo , M. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. J. Mark. Res. 1976, 13. [CrossRef] 49. Costoya, X.; DeCastro, M.; Santos, F.; Sousa, M.C.; Gómez-Gesteira, M. Projections of wind energy resources in the Caribbean for the 21st century. Energy 2019, 178, 356–367. [CrossRef] 50. Costoya, X.; deCastro, M.; Carvalho, D.; Gómez-Gesteira, M. On the suitability of o shore wind energy resource in the United States of America for the 21st century. Appl. Energy 2020, 262, 114537. [CrossRef] 51. Gibbons, J.D.; Chakraborti, S. Nonparametric Statistical Inference, 5th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; ISBN 9781420077612. 52. Costoya, X.; Rocha, A.; Carvalho, D. Using bias-correction to improve future projections of o shore wind energy resource: A case study on the Iberian Peninsula. Appl. Energy 2020, 262, 114562. [CrossRef] 53. Santos, F.; Gómez-Gesteira, M.; DeCastro, M.; Añel, J.A.; Carvalho, D.; Costoya, X.; Dias, J.M. On the accuracy of CORDEX RCMs to project future winds over the Iberian Peninsula and surrounding ocean. Appl. Energy 2018, 228, 289–300. [CrossRef] 54. SWAN. SWAN User Manual Version 41.31; Delft University of Technology, Environmental Fluid Mechanics Section: Delft, The Netherlands, 2019; p. 143. 55. International Electrotechnical Commission. Marine Energy—Wave, Tidal and Other Water Current Converters—Part 201: Tidal Energy Resource Assessment And Characterization; International Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. 56. Durrant, T.; Hemer, M.; Trenham, C.; Greenslade, D. CAWCR Wave Hindcast 1979–2010. v8; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation: Canberra, Australia, 2012. 57. Hemer, M.; Trenham, C.; Durrant, T.; Greenslade, D. CAWCR Global Wind-Wave 21st Century Climate Projections. v2; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation: Canberra, Australia, 2015. 58. Perkins, S.E.; Pitman, A.J.; Holbrook, N.J.; McAneney, J. Evaluation of the AR4 climate models’ simulated daily maximum temperature, minimum temperature, and precipitation over Australia using probability density functions. J. Clim. 2007, 20, 4356–4376. [CrossRef] 59. Pastor, J.; Liu, Y. Wave Energy Resource Analysis for Use in Wave Energy Conversion. J. O shore Mech. Arct. Eng. 2015, 137, 011903. [CrossRef] 60. Elliott, D.L.; Holladay, C.G.; Barchet, W.R.; Foote, H.P.; Sandusky, W.F. Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States. DOE/CH 10093-10094; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: Richland, WA, USA, 1986. 61. Zheng, C.; Pan, J. Assessment of the global ocean wind energy resource. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 33, 382–391. [CrossRef] 62. Kamranzad, B.; Hadadpour, S. A multi-criteria approach for selection of wave energy converter/location. Energy 2020, 204, 117924. [CrossRef] 63. Kamranzad, B.; Etemad-Shahidi, A.; Chegini, V. Developing an optimum hotspot identifier for wave energy extracting in the northern Persian Gulf. Renew. Energy 2017, 114, 59–71. [CrossRef] 64. Reeve, D.E.; Chen, Y.; Pan, S.; Magar, V.; Simmonds, D.J.; Zacharioudaki, A. An investigation of the impacts of climate change on wave energy generation: The Wave Hub, Cornwall, UK. Renew. Energy 2011, 36, 2404–2413. [CrossRef] 65. Iglesias, G.; Carballo, R. Choosing the site for the first wave farm in a region: A case study in the Galician Southwest (Spain). Energy 2011, 36, 5525–5531. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7395 19 of 19 66. Rusu, E.; Guedes Soares, C. Numerical modelling to estimate the spatial distribution of the wave energy in the Portuguese nearshore. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 1501–1516. [CrossRef] 67. Gaetani, M.; Vignati, E.; Monforti-Ferrario, F.; Huld, T.; Dosio, A.; Raes, F. Climate Modelling and Renewable Energy Resource Assessment; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional aliations. © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Journal

Applied SciencesMultidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Oct 22, 2020

There are no references for this article.