GIS-Based Optimal Siting of Offshore Wind Farms to Support Zero-Emission Ferry Routes
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Electrification in Maritime Transport
1.2. Renewable Energy Source Supply
1.3. Contribution of the Study
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design of Zero-Emission Ferry Lines
2.2. Offshore Wind Farm Site Selection
- The selected points maximize coverage within P;
- The distance between any two selected points is at least d = 12D.
- i.
- Initial candidate points are generated with the creation of a grid of candidate points within the bounding box of each polygon Pi with the existing spacing d;
- ii.
- An iterative point selection process is initialized with an empty list of selected points at first;
- a.
- For each candidate point, a buffer zone is calculated with a radius equal to d;
- b.
- The number of points within the buffer zone is calculated;
- c.
- The point with the maximum count of candidate points within its buffer is then selected, ensuring maximal coverage;
- d.
- Candidate points within distance d of the selected point are then removed from the candidate list;
- iii.
- The points that remain in the selected list after the iterative process are then generated as the solution to the problem.
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- The results confirm that offshore wind farms, even with conservative estimates, are capable of generating sufficient energy to support zero-emission ferry operations in both the Cyclades and Dodecanese/Eastern Aegean regions. In the Cyclades, a surplus of energy could be used to power local communities, reinforcing the notion that renewable energy sources (RES) can drive sustainable development in coastal and island regions. In the Dodecanese, the slight energy deficit can be addressed by leveraging additional nearby wind farm plots, demonstrating the flexibility and scalability of the proposed system;
- The transition to zero-emission maritime transport requires coordinated policy efforts that promote both the adoption of green technologies and the development of renewable energy infrastructure. Policymakers must consider the role of spatial decision support systems (SDSS) in guiding the sustainable electrification of ferry networks, ensuring that investments in offshore wind farms are aligned with energy needs and environmental objectives. The results of this study underscore the need for a long-term policy framework along with regulatory changes that will encourage RES integration into national and regional transport plans, particularly for maritime and insular regions, thus unlocking the full potential of offshore wind resources;
- While this study establishes the feasibility of offshore wind-powered zero-emission ferries, there are several areas that require further investigation. Future research should focus on the economic viability of scaling up wind farm developments, particularly in regions where demand may exceed current projections. Additionally, the integration of energy storage systems, such as batteries, could be explored to stabilize energy supply during periods of low wind availability. Finally, more detailed assessments of the environmental and social impacts of offshore wind farms, including their effects on marine biodiversity and local communities, are essential for developing truly sustainable energy solutions.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Smith, T.W.; Jalkanen, J.P.; Anderson, B.A.; Corbett, J.J.; Faber, J.; Hanayama, S.; O’Keeffe, E.; Parker, S.; Johansson, L.; Aldous, L.; et al. Third IMO GHG Study. Available online: https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Environment/Documents/Third%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Study/GHG3%20Executive%20Summary%20and%20Report.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2024).
- Zisi, V.; Psaraftis, H.N.; Zis, T. The Impact of the 2020 Global Sulfur Cap on Maritime CO2 Emissions. Marit. Bus. Rev. 2021, 6, 339–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crist, P. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Potential from International Shipping. In OECD/ITF Joint Transport Research Centre Discussion Papers; No. 2009/11; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rehmatulla, N.; Calleya, J.; Smith, T. The Implementation of Technical Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emission Reduction Measures in Shipping. Ocean Eng. 2017, 139, 184–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eide, M.S.; Endresen, Ø.; Skjong, R.; Longva, T.; Alvik, S. Cost-Effectiveness Assessment of CO2 Reducing Measures in Shipping. Marit. Policy Manag. 2009, 36, 367–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ju, Y.; Hargreaves, C.A. The Impact of Shipping CO2 Emissions from Marine Traffic in Western Singapore Straits during COVID-19. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 789, 148063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franc, P.; Sutto, L. Impact Analysis on Shipping Lines and European Ports of a Cap- and-Trade System on CO 2 Emissions in Maritime Transport. Marit. Policy Manag. 2014, 41, 61–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, H.; Spence, S.; Chen, H. A Comprehensive Review on Countermeasures for CO2 Emissions from Ships. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 134, 110222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cariou, P. Is Slow Steaming a Sustainable Means of Reducing CO2 Emissions from Container Shipping? Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2011, 16, 260–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Degiuli, N.; Martić, I.; Farkas, A.; Gospić, I. The Impact of Slow Steaming on Reducing CO2 Emissions in the Mediterranean Sea. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 8131–8141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woo, J.-K.; Moon, D.S.-H. The Effects of Slow Steaming on the Environmental Performance in Liner Shipping. Marit. Policy Manag. 2014, 41, 176–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pastra, A.; Zachariadis, P.; Alifragkis, A. The Role of Slow Steaming in Shipping and Methods of CO2 Reduction. In Sustainability in the Maritime Domain: Towards Ocean Governance and Beyond; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 337–352. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, J.; Fan, L.; Yang, Z.; Li, K.X. Slow Steaming of Liner Trade: Its Economic and Environmental Impacts. Marit. Policy Manag. 2014, 41, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hellenic Statistical Authority—EL.STAT Economy and Indices Statistics Section. Available online: http://www.statistics.gr (accessed on 7 May 2022).
- Bigano, A.; Sheehan, P. Assessing the Risk of Oil Spills in the Mediterranean: The Case of the Route from the Black Sea to Italy (February 2006). FEEM Working Paper No. 32.2006. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=886715 (accessed on 4 August 2024).
- Iliopoulou, C.; Kepaptsoglou, K.; Schinas, O. Energy Supply Security for the Aegean Islands: A Routing Model with Risk and Environmental Considerations. Energy Policy 2018, 113, 608–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schinas, O.D. Exploring the Possibility for Hub-and-Spoke Services in the Greek Coastal System. Int. J. Ocean Syst. Manag. 2009, 1, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christiansen, M.; Fagerholt, K.; Nygreen, B.; Ronen, D. Chapter 4 Maritime Transportation. Handb. Oper. Res. Manag. Sci. 2007, 14, 189–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- XRTC Business Consultants 19th Annual Study on Greek Shipping 2020: “Responsibility and Realism, the Prerequisites for Tackling the New Reality”. 2020. Available online: https://xrtc.gr/industry-reports/ (accessed on 4 August 2024).
- Ammar, N.R. Energy- and Cost-Efficiency Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Using Slow Steaming of Ships: Case Study RO-RO Cargo Vessel. Ships Offshore Struct. 2018, 13, 868–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cullinane, K.; Cullinane, S. Atmospheric Emissions from Shipping: The Need for Regulation and Approaches to Compliance. Transp. Rev. 2013, 33, 377–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koumentakos, A. Developments in Electric and Green Marine Ships. Appl. Syst. Innov. 2019, 2, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raucci, C.; Smith, T.; Rehmatulla, N.; Palmer, K.; Balani, S.; Pogson, G. Zero-Emission Vessels 2030: How Do We Get There? Low Carbon Pathways 2050 series; Lloyd’s Register Group Limited; UMAS: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Sæther, S.R.; Moe, E. A Green Maritime Shift: Lessons from the Electrification of Ferries in Norway. Energy Res Soc Sci 2021, 81, 102282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarkowski, M. Towards a More Sustainable Transport Future—The Cases of Ferry Shipping Electrification in Denmark, Netherland, Norway and Sweden. In Innovations and Traditions for Sustainable Development; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 177–191. [Google Scholar]
- Bellone, M.; Lundh, M.; Wahde, M.; MacKinnon, S. Electrification and Automation in Maritime Applications: Employing AI Techniques for Energy Optimization and Efficiency. IEEE Electrif. Mag. 2019, 7, 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reddy, N.P.; Zadeh, M.K.; Thieme, C.A.; Skjetne, R.; Sorensen, A.J.; Aanondsen, S.A.; Breivik, M.; Eide, E. Zero-Emission Autonomous Ferries for Urban Water Transport: Cheaper, Cleaner Alternative to Bridges and Manned Vessels. IEEE Electrif. Mag. 2019, 7, 32–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vicenzutti, A.; Mauro, F.; Bucci, V.; Bosich, D.; Sulligoi, G.; Furlan, S.; Brigati, L. Environmental and Operative Impact of the Electrification of a Double-Ended Ferry. In Proceedings of the 2020 Fifteenth International Conference on Ecological Vehicles and Renewable Energies (EVER), Monte-Carlo, Monaco, 10–12 September 2020; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Anwar, S.; Zia, M.Y.I.; Rashid, M.; de Rubens, G.Z.; Enevoldsen, P. Towards Ferry Electrification in the Maritime Sector. Energies 2020, 13, 6506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zis, T.P.V.; Psaraftis, H.N.; Tillig, F.; Ringsberg, J.W. Decarbonizing Maritime Transport: A Ro-Pax Case Study. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2020, 37, 100565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karountzos, O.; Kagkelis, G.; Iliopoulou, C.; Kepaptsoglou, K. GIS-Based Analysis of the Spatial Distribution of CO2 Emissions and Slow Steaming Effectiveness in Coastal Shipping. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2024, 17, 661–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karountzos, O.; Kagkelis, G.; Kepaptsoglou, K. A Decision Support GIS Framework for Establishing Zero-Emission Maritime Networks: The Case of the Greek Coastal Shipping Network. J. Geovisualization Spat. Anal. 2023, 7, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luderer, G.; Madeddu, S.; Merfort, L.; Ueckerdt, F.; Pehl, M.; Pietzcker, R.; Rottoli, M.; Schreyer, F.; Bauer, N.; Baumstark, L.; et al. Impact of Declining Renewable Energy Costs on Electrification in Low-Emission Scenarios. Nat. Energy 2021, 7, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pfeifer, A.; Prebeg, P.; Duić, N. Challenges and Opportunities of Zero Emission Shipping in Smart Islands: A Study of Zero Emission Ferry Lines. eTransportation 2020, 3, 100048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sourianos, E.; Kyriakou, K.; Hatiris, G.A. GIS-based spatial decision support system for the optimum siting of offshore windfarms. Eur. Water 2017, 58, 337–343. [Google Scholar]
- Taoufik, M.; Fekri, A. GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Analysis of Offshore Wind Farm Development in Morocco. Energy Convers. Manag. X 2021, 11, 100103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karountzos, X.O. GIS-Assisted Optimal Design of Maritime Transport Systems; National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), School of Rural, Surveying and Geoinformatics Engineering: Athens, Greece, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- ESRI Optimal Path as Line (Spatial Analyst). Available online: https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/tool-reference/spatial-analyst/optimal-path-as-line.htm (accessed on 4 August 2024).
- ESRI Iterate Feature Selection. Available online: https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/tools/modelbuilder-toolbox/iterate-feature-selection.htm (accessed on 4 August 2024).
- ESRI Euclidean Distance (Spatial Analyst). Available online: https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/tool-reference/spatial-analyst/euclidean-distance.htm (accessed on 4 August 2024).
- ESRI Understanding Euclidean Distance Analysis. Available online: https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/tool-reference/spatial-analyst/understanding-euclidean-distance-analysis.htm (accessed on 4 August 2024).
- E-Ferry Project The E-Ferry Ellen Information Package. Final Validation and Evaluation Report. 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5cfbf7f6f&appId=PPGMS (accessed on 4 August 2024).
- Gagatsi, E.; Estrup, T.; Halatsis, A. Exploring the Potentials of Electrical Waterborne Transport in Europe: The E-Ferry Concept. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 1571–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Haaren, R.; Fthenakis, V. GIS-Based Wind Farm Site Selection Using Spatial Multi-Criteria Analysis (SMCA): Evaluating the Case for New York State. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 3332–3340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanegas-Cantarero, M.M.; Pennock, S.; Bloise-Thomaz, T.; Jeffrey, H.; Dickson, M.J. Beyond LCOE: A Multi-Criteria Evaluation Framework for Offshore Renewable Energy Projects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 161, 112307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mukhamediev, R.I.; Mustakayev, R.; Yakunin, K.; Kiseleva, S.; Gopejenko, V. Multi-Criteria Spatial Decision Making Supportsystem for Renewable Energy Development in Kazakhstan. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 122275–122288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanssen, F.; May, R.; van Dijk, J.; Rød, J.K. Spatial Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Tool Suite for Consensus-Based Siting of Renewable Energy Structures. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 2018, 20, 1840003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doorga, J.R.S.; Hall, J.W.; Eyre, N. Geospatial Multi-Criteria Analysis for Identifying Optimum Wind and Solar Sites in Africa: Towards Effective Power Sector Decarbonization. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 158, 112107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Satir, M.; Murphy, F.; McDonnell, K. Feasibility Study of an Offshore Wind Farm in the Aegean Sea, Turkey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 2552–2562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagiorgas, H.S.; Mihalakou, G.; Rehman, S.; Al-Hadhrami, L.M. Offshore Wind Speed and Wind Power Characteristics for Ten Locations in Aegean and Ionian Seas. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 121, 975–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Windplus, S.A. WindFloat Atlantic: World’s First Semi-Submersible Floating Offshore Wind Farm. Available online: https://www.windfloat-atlantic.com/ (accessed on 4 August 2024).
- Matysik, S.; Bauer, L. Wind Turbine Models. Available online: https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/318-vestas-v164-8.0 (accessed on 4 August 2024).
Type | No | Description | Unsuitable Areas |
---|---|---|---|
Exclusion Criteria | EC1 | Water depth | <50 m and >175 m. |
EC2 | Proximity to marine protected areas | <2000 m | |
EC3 | Proximity to shipping routes | <1 nautical mile | |
EC4 | Military areas (Restricted Hellenic Airspace) | All areas | |
EC5 | Proximity to wildlife sanctuaries | <2000 m | |
EC6 | Wind Speed (10m) | <6.5 m/s | |
EC7 | Proximity to underwater cables | <1000 m | |
EC8 | Proximity to coastline | <5000 m | |
EC9 | Distance from existing ports/coastline | >25,000 m | |
EC10 | Proximity to coastal water bodies | <1000 m | |
Type | No. | Description | Factor |
Evaluation Criteria | EV1 | Proximity to coastline of islands with hub-ports of future zero-emission ferry lines | Technical/Economic (<10 km) |
EV2 | Short-term and long-term energy yield | Technical/Economic |
Plot ID | Wind Speed (m/s) | Yearly Energy Yield (GWh) Short-Term Scenario (max. 5 Wind Turbines) | Yearly Energy Yield (GWh)—Long-Term Scenario (Maximum Installations) | Plot Location | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
6.5–7.49 | 7.5–8.49 | ||||
Wind Turbines | |||||
27 | 7 | 15.81 | 22.13 | East of Euboea | |
28 | 12 | 15.81 | 37.94 | East of Euboea | |
33 | 8 | 15.81 | 25.30 | Southwest of Naxos | |
39 | 9 | 15.81 | 28.46 | Southeast of Syros | |
41 | 23 | 6 | 17.01 | 101.61 | East of Mykonos |
42 | 9 | 15.81 | 28.46 | Between Syros-Tinos-Mykonos | |
54 | 20 | 15.81 | 63.24 | Northwest of Chios | |
57 | 213 | 15.81 | 673.51 | South of Lemnos | |
58 | 201 | 3 | 16.41 | 650.01 | East of Lemnos |
66 | 7 | 15.81 | 22.13 | Northeast of Naxos | |
67 | 7 | 15.81 | 22.13 | North of Naxos | |
82 | 11 | 15.81 | 34.78 | West of Lesbos | |
83 | 21 | 15.81 | 66.40 | West of Lesbos | |
87 | 9 | 43.33 | 43.33 | West of Lesbos | |
101 | 9 | 15.81 | 28.46 | North of Astypalaia | |
107 | 15 | 15.81 | 47.43 | Northeast of Donousa | |
109 | 20 | 15.81 | 63.24 | West of Patmos | |
115 | 40 | 15.81 | 126.48 | Southeast of Chios | |
119 | 6 | 15.81 | 18.97 | West of Lesbos | |
128 | 15 | 15.81 | 47.43 | Southwest of Rhodes | |
137 | 5 | 15.81 | 15.81 | West of Kos | |
147 | 21 | 15.81 | 66.40 | North of Patmos | |
149 | 25 | 15.81 | 79.05 | North of Agathonisi |
Designation | Port | Distance from Previous (n.miles) | Remaining Energy for Next Leg (kWh) | Charging Time at Port (mins) | Consumption per Round Trip (MWh) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hub | Patmos | 0 | 3800 | 8.16 | |
Spoke 1 | Leipsoi | 11 | 3520 | 15 | |
Spoke 2 | Arkoi | 14 | 3000 | 15 | |
Spoke 3 | Agathonisi | 26 | 920 | 72 | |
Hub | Ikaria | 0 | 3800 | 1.60 | |
Spoke | Fournoi | 10 | 3000 | 20 | |
Hub | Kos | 0 | 3800 | 9.648 | |
Spoke 1 | Nisyros | 23 | 2760 | 20 | |
Spoke 2 | Tilos | 19.2 | 2024 | 20 | |
Spoke 3 | Chalki | 18.1 | 576 | 80.6 | |
Hub | Patmos | 0 | 3800 | 3.36 | |
Spoke 2 | Leros | 21 | 2120 | 42 | |
Hub | Naxos | 0 | 3800 | 13.248 | |
Spoke 1 | Iraklia | 18 | 2760 | 10 | |
Spoke 2 | Schinousa | 2.2 | 2984 | 10 | |
Spoke 3 | Ano Koufonisi | 7.1 | 2816 | 10 | |
Spoke 4 | Donousa | 14.1 | 1688 | 52.8 | |
Hub | Milos | 0 | 3800 | 4.16 | |
Spoke | Kimolos | 13 | 3000 | 26 | |
Hub | Ios | 0 | 3800 | 5.792 | |
Spoke 1 | Sikinos | 7.1 | 3432 | 5 | |
Spoke 2 | Folegandros | 11 | 2752 | 31.2 | |
Hub | Mykonos | 0 | 3800 | 1.76 | |
Spoke | Delos | 5.5 | 3360 | 11 | |
Hub | Santorini | 0 | 3800 | 8.00 | |
Spoke | Anaphi | 25 | 1800 | 50 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Karountzos, O.; Giannaki, S.; Kepaptsoglou, K. GIS-Based Optimal Siting of Offshore Wind Farms to Support Zero-Emission Ferry Routes. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 1585. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12091585
Karountzos O, Giannaki S, Kepaptsoglou K. GIS-Based Optimal Siting of Offshore Wind Farms to Support Zero-Emission Ferry Routes. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2024; 12(9):1585. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12091585
Chicago/Turabian StyleKarountzos, Orfeas, Stamatina Giannaki, and Konstantinos Kepaptsoglou. 2024. "GIS-Based Optimal Siting of Offshore Wind Farms to Support Zero-Emission Ferry Routes" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 12, no. 9: 1585. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12091585
APA StyleKarountzos, O., Giannaki, S., & Kepaptsoglou, K. (2024). GIS-Based Optimal Siting of Offshore Wind Farms to Support Zero-Emission Ferry Routes. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 12(9), 1585. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12091585