Page 16 - Vannucchi_Cappietti_2016
P. 16

Sustainability 2016, 8, 1300                                                       16 of 21
                  Sustainability 2016, 8, 1300                                                    16 of 21
                  Sustainability 2016, 8, 1300                                                    16 of 21












                                       (a)                                      (b)
                                       (a)                                      (b)











                                       (c)                                      (d)
                                       (c)                                      (d)
                      Figure 11. Comparison between the Sardinia site and the Azores site: (a) Pe* vs. Pw* offshore devices;
                     Figure 11. Comparison between the Sardinia site and the Azores site: (a) P e * vs. P w * offshore
                      Figure 11. Comparison between the Sardinia site and the Azores site: (a) Pe* vs. Pw* offshore devices;
                      (b) Pe* vs. Pw* nearshore devices; (c) Cw* vs.  Pw* offshore devices; and (d) Cw* vs. Pw* nearshore
                     devices; (b) P e * vs. P w * nearshore devices; (c) C w * vs. P w * offshore devices; and (d) C w * vs. P w *
                      (b) Pe* vs. Pw* nearshore devices; (c) Cw* vs.  Pw* offshore devices; and (d) Cw* vs. Pw* nearshore
                      devices.
                     nearshore devices.
                      devices.








                                       (a)                                      (b)
                                       (a)                                      (b)










                                       (c)                                      (d)
                                       (c)                                      (d)
                      Figure 12. Comparison between the Sicily site and the Azores site: (a) Pe* vs. Pw* offshore devices; (b)
                      Figure 12. Comparison between the Sicily site and the Azores site: (a) Pe* vs. Pw* offshore devices; (b)
                      Pe* vs. Pw* nearshore devices; (c) Cw* vs. Pw* offshore devices; and (d) Cw* vs. Pw* nearshore devices.
                     Figure 12. Comparison between the Sicily site and the Azores site: (a) P e * vs. P w * offshore
                      Pe* vs. Pw* nearshore devices; (c) Cw* vs. Pw* offshore devices; and (d) Cw* vs. Pw* nearshore devices.
                     devices; (b) P e * vs. P w * nearshore devices; (c) C w * vs. P w * offshore devices; and (d) C w * vs. P w *
                      At the Tuscany offshore site (Figure 9a), the most suited device is the Wave Dragon, since, for a
                     nearshore devices.
                      At the Tuscany offshore site (Figure 9a), the most suited device is the Wave Dragon, since, for a
                  relative power availability around 20 (that is, Tuscany potentials are 20 times lower than the Azores
                  relative power availability around 20 (that is, Tuscany potentials are 20 times lower than the Azores
                  potentials), it has the lower relative power output (just 6.8) among the tested offshore WECs. At the
                     At the Tuscany offshore site (Figure 9a), the most suited device is the Wave Dragon, since,
                  potentials), it has the lower relative power output (just 6.8) among the tested offshore WECs. At the
                  Tuscany hotspot (Figure 9b), all of the tested nearshore WECs had similar performance. Although
                for a relative power availability around 20 (that is, Tuscany potentials are 20 times lower than
                  Tuscany hotspot (Figure 9b), all of the tested nearshore WECs had similar performance. Although
                  the energy potential at the nearshore oceanic site is 14 times higher than in the Tuscany hotspot, the
                the Azores potentials), it has the lower relative power output (just 6.8) among the tested offshore
                  the energy potential at the nearshore oceanic site is 14 times higher than in the Tuscany hotspot, the
                  power output is just six times higher. It is also worth mentioning that the relative capture width, Cw*,
                WECs. At the Tuscany hotspot (Figure 9b), all of the tested nearshore WECs had similar performance.
                  power output is just six times higher. It is also worth mentioning that the relative capture width, Cw*,
                  for the offshore case is most of the times lower than 1 and in the case of Italian hotspots the Cw* is
                Although the energy potential at the nearshore oceanic site is 14 times higher than in the Tuscany
                  for the offshore case is most of the times lower than 1 and in the case of Italian hotspots the Cw* is
                  always lower than 1. It proves that the tested WECs technology can convert a larger part of the
                hotspot, the power output is just six times higher. It is also worth mentioning that the relative capture
                  always lower than 1. It proves that the tested WECs technology can convert a larger part of the
                  Italian potentials than the EU oceanic site potentials. On the basis of this analysis, Table  6
                width, C w *, for the offshore case is most of the times lower than 1 and in the case of Italian hotspots the
                  Italian potentials than the EU oceanic site potentials. On the basis of this analysis, Table  6
                C w * is always lower than 1. It proves that the tested WECs technology can convert a larger part of the
   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21