Renewable Energy 169 (2021) 809e819

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Inter- and intra-annual wave energy resource assessment in the

south-western Black Sea coast
€ lbali a, Ajab Gul Majidi b, Adem Akpınar b, *
Bilal Bingo
a  University, Inego
Bursa Uludag €l Vocational School of Higher Education, Bursa, Turkey
b  University, Department of Civil Engineering, Go
Bursa Uludag €rükle Campus, Bursa, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study focuses on the inter- and intra-annual variation in theoretical wave power along the south-
Received 24 March 2020 western coast of the Black Sea. Long-term (1979e2009) hindcast developed using the calibrated
Received in revised form three-layer nested SWAN model was used for a detailed assessment of wave energy resource. Annual
11 December 2020
change, monthly and seasonal wave power variability indices were evaluated, and the Optimal Hotspot
Accepted 9 January 2021
Available online 13 January 2021
Index (OHI) was calculated for 62 sites along the coast to rate the hotspot locations. The assessment
shows the highest wave energy resources in western Karaburun with higher variability. However, the
western Sinop sites have lower wave energy resources compared to western Karaburun sites, in spite of
Keywords:
Wave power
considering the lower variability, these sites are more appropriate for wave energy extraction. The
Wave height location with the highest potential (KA5 100 m depth) has an average of 8.4 kW/m and a maximum of
Inter-annual variability 1015 kW/m wave power capacity. The east sites of Sinop and Filyos are comparatively less dynamic.
Black sea Moreover, it was found that the average peak values of wave heights are in February, and the lowest sea
state was in June. 2003 was the most, and 1989 was the least energetic years in the 31-year period.
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Today world and Turkey is increasingly moving toward the
diversification of energy resources. One of the concentrated areas
for sustainable energy is the vast, untapped potential of ocean
energy [1]. Marine energy resources can make a significant
contribution to clean and sustainable energy generation [2]. To
meet the necessity of the growing global energy demand and to
solve the problems regarding the energy security and the envi-
ronmental effects of global warming, referable to fossil fuels, has
led to the development of a large number of renewable energy
projects around the world. Sotenäs Wave Power Station in
Sweden, Orkney Wave Power Station in the UK, Agucadoura Wave
Farm in Portugal, and Ada Foah Wave Farm in Ghana are some
examples of wave energy projects [3]. Renewable energy is pro-
duced from resources that are not decreasing or can be replenished
in a time loop. The most common renewable energy sources are
hydropower, wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and ocean waves.
Oceans nearly cover three-fourth of the surface of the earth, which
only waves are capable of 8000e80,000 TW-hours potential [4].
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ademakpinar@uludag.edu.tr (A. Akpınar).
According to the statistics [5], the global capacity of marine energy
was 532 MW in 2018. South Korea (256 MW) and France (240 MW)
are presently at the top of the list of the installed capacity of tidal
and wave energy power around the world. Ocean wave energy is
the sum of potential and kinetic energy in which kinetic energy of
waves is generated from the horizontal and vertical motion of
particles. Potential energy is the result of the wavelength caused by
the displacement of water particles from the mean water surface
[6]. Several studies such as Bohai Sea [7], China’s seas [8e12], Beibu
Gulf [13,14], Peru [15], Uruguay [16], Aegean Sea [17], Indian shelf
seas [18], around Orkney, north of Scotland [19], Caribbean area
[20], Australia [21], Gulf of Oman [22], Balearic Sea [23], Portuguese
Nearshore [24], southern Caspian Sea [25], as well as globally [27]
have recently evaluated the temporal and spatial variations of the
wave power for wave energy harvesting.
Nevertheless, for more accurate wave characteristics estima-
tions locally, a high-resolution data set is needed. Liang et al. [28]
on Shandong peninsula in China, Rute Bento et al. [29] on the
Galway Bay, Silva et al. [30] on the Iberian Peninsula, Guillou and
Chapalain [31] on the Sea of Iroise, Monteforte et al. [32] in Sicily
(Italy), Gallagher et al. [33] in Ireland, Rusu and Guedes Soares [34]
in Archipelago of Azores and Hadadpour et al. [35] on the Caspian
Sea have focused on the spatial and temporal variations of wave

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.01.057
0960-1481/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 €lbali, A.G. Majidi and A. Akpınar
B. Bingo Renewable Energy 169 (2021) 809e819

power with high-resolution analysis at their specific study areas.

Several important studies on the spatial investigation of wave and rg2 Te Hm0
2
Pw ¼ y0:486H2m0 Te (1)
wave power conditions of the Black Sea [36e50] are already 64p
existing. However, there is no detailed study on the inter- and intra-
annul wave power assessment in the south-western Black Sea to where Pw is wave power in deep water, r is the water density
make a clear comparison of different depth points. (1030 kg/m3), g is the gravity constant (9.81 m/s2), m0 and m-1 are
The remaining structure of the present study is as follows: the the zeroth and the minus first moment of the wave spectrum,
details about the data set and the geographical details about the respectively [55].
study area are given in Section 2, the computational methods and
m1
mathematic formulas in Section 3, the results and discussion in Te ¼ (2)
m0
Sections 4 and 5, respectively, and finally the study is concluded in
Section 6. pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Hm0 ¼ 4 m0 (3)
2. Data set and study area
Different moments in the above statements are taken into ac-
count. The (nth) spectral moment equation is given below.
The data needed for this study was extracted from the dataset
produced by Refs. [51,52] using a calibrated nested layered wave ð 2ðp
∞
hindcast SWAN model (version 41.01AB) [53], forced with Climate
mn ¼ Sðf ; qÞf n dqdf (4)
Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) winds [54]. The layered nested
grid numerical model is based on three grid domains. Firstly, waves 0 0

are generated on a regular computational domain (coarse grid),
which covers the entire Black Sea. Secondly, a finer regular grid
covering the south-western part of the Black Sea with the boundary
condition inputs from the coarse grid is produced. Finally, using the
boundary conditions provided by the finer grid domain, the high
resolution sub-grid domains (Karaburun (SD3), Filyos (SD2) and
Sinop SD1)) wave database are produced (Fig. 1). In this nested
wave hindcast SWAN model is calibrated and validated separately
at each domain using the data of buoy stations installed in the
domains. The detailed information on the calibration and validation
of the coarse grid at three buoy stations Gelendzhik, Hopa, and
Sinop can be found in Akpınar et al., [46]. The complete calibration
and validation of the nested grid models can be found in Bingo € lbali
et al., [48]. The finer grid SWAN model is calibrated and validated
with Gloria buoy measurements. For each sub-grid domains, SWAN
model is calibrated and validated with the data at the measuring
stations located in the corresponding sub-grid domain. This model
was run for a 31-year period, and the hindcast data was collected at
2-h resolutions from 1979 to 2009. In the present study, the sig-
nificant wave height (Hm0), wave energy period (Tm-10), and the
mean wave direction (DIR) data needed for each location were
extracted from this dataset for a 31-year (1979e2009) time interval
at a temporal resolution of 2 h. The selection criteria for the sites
was the water depth (5, 25, 50, 75 and 100 m). The locations are
named as following: The first letter is formed as the result of the
initial letter of the name of the sub-domains (K for Karaburun, F for
Filyos and S for Sinop), the second letter is lettered from west to
east starting from A, and the third number is numbered starting
from 1 from the shallowest to the deepest. For example, KA1 rep-
resents the location designated at the westernmost axis in Kar-
aburun digital network for a depth of approximately 5 m. Three
locations (KD1, FC1, and SB1) are missing because of the sudden
slope changes in the bathymetry of the region, so the bathymetry
around 5 m doesn’t admit to select a location for wave energy
extraction. Therefore, lines KD, FC and SB have only four locations
(25, 50, 75 and 100 m depths) in Fig. 1.
3. Methodology
For analyzing and assessing the potential of the sea waves, it is
needed to have a look over the spatial and temporal changes of the
wave power. The wave power potential in deep water (d > 0.5 L) is
calculated according to one of the most common methods [17]
using the significant wave height and the energy period, presented
as follows:
810
The n takes 0, 1, 1, 2, and 4, and the zero, first, minus first,
second and fourth moments can be calculated. S(f,q) represents the
directional spectral energy density, and (f) and (q) represents the
frequency and direction [50,51].
For the determination of the most appropriate area on behalf of
the survivability and maintenance of the wave energy farms, the
monthly and seasonal variability indices are very important. The
monthly variability index (MVI) is calculated according to the
following equation [16]:
P M1  P M12
MVI ¼ (5)
Pw
The Seasonal variability index (SVI) is calculated according to the
following equation [16]:
P S1  P S4
SVI ¼ (6)
Pw
in which P M1 and P S1 are the mean wave power of the most ener-
getic month and season of the year (average of 31 years are used for
every month and season of the year in the present study), respec-
tively. P M12 and P S4 are the mean wave power of the least energetic
month and season of the year (average of 31 years are used for
every month and season of the year in the present study), respec-
tively. P w is the mean annual wave power (average of 31 years).
As the MVI and SVI parameters can only present the necessary
information about the stability of the sea states, it is also needed to
take the potential of the corresponding location into account as
well. Kamranzad et al. [26] defined Optimum Hotspot Identifier
(OHI) using a combination of mean wave power, frequency of wave
powers higher than 2 kW/m, and monthly variability index (MVI).
The OHI has a direct relation with P w and frequency of wave powers
greater than 2 kW/m (ftotaltime ) and indirect relation with MVI. The
OHI parameter is calculated by the following equation [26]:
P w  ftotaltimeð > ¼2kW=mÞ
OHI ¼ (7)
MVI
In the present study, the inter-annual variability of the theo-
retical wave power in the south-western coast of the Black Sea is
discussed in detail. The potential wave power assessment is
searched inter- and intra-annually by using a long-term wave data
set produced by Refs. [47,48] from 1979 to 2009 for 62 locations in
five different depths along the south-western Black Sea coast. After
 €lbali, A.G. Majidi and A. Akpınar
B. Bingo
Fig. 1. The coarse grid, fine grid, and nested sub-grid domains SD3, SD2, and SD1, the bathymetry of the entire Black Sea, and the position of the considered locations.
preparing the required data for the considered locations, the
theoretical wave power potential is computed. Before inter- and
intra-annual variability of wave parameters is discussed, a general
aspect of the wave power potential is determined. For this analysis,
the statistics of the different wave parameters are determined.
Firstly, the boxplot (minimum, 25th, 50th, 75th percentiles, and
maximum) of significant wave height (Hm0), maximum and average
values of Hm0, the frequency of Hm0 < 0.5 m, and Hm0 2 m are
examined. Secondly, the boxplot of wave energy period (Tm-10),
maximum and averaged values of Tm-10, and the frequency of Tm-
10 < 5 s are discussed. Thirdly, the wave directions of all locations
are visualized spatially. Fourth, the boxplot of wave power (Pw),
maximum and average values of Pw, and the frequency of
Pw > 10 kW/m are investigated. Fifth, spatial distributions of mean
and maximum Hm0 (m), mean and maximum Pw (kW/m), frequency
of Pw  2 kW/m (%), monthly and seasonal variability of Pw (kW/m),
and OHI parameter of Pw (kW/m) are discussed. This general view
presents all general wave climate information along the south-
western Black Sea coast. After this general evaluation, inter- and
intra-annual variations of mean and maximum Hm0 (m), mean and
maximum Pw (kW/m) are investigated.
4. Results
The boxplot for significant wave heights hindcasted for 62 lo-
cations located on 13 perpendicular lines starting from Karaburun
to Sinop is presented in Fig. 2. Every line is including five different
depths (5, 25, 50, 75, and 100 m) from offshore to the shoreline. The
data obtained for the locations are the result of a 31-year long-term
SWAN simulation between 1979 and 2009 time interval. The box-
plot of the Hm0 is observable up to 3 m; due to a brighter display, the
maximum Hm0 values for all locations in the area of interest are
presented as a colorbar in the middle panel. In all calculations of the
standard boxplot, the outliers are not used; they are dealt with as
error values. In the calculation of all mean values and frequencies,
including the outliers, the total data is considered. It can be seen
from these sub-plots that the median, average, and maximum
values of the Hm0 decrease from offshore to shallow water, and a
significant decrease is observed in maximum values at 5 m depth.
In terms of the median, average, and maximum Hm0, similar fea-
tures are observed in the locations in Sinop and Filyos sub-domains.
811
Renewable Energy 169 (2021) 809e819
In contrast, it is observed that more severe waves are formed in the
Karaburun sub-domain. At locations in Karaburun, the median
values of the Hm0 are changing between 0.4 and 0.8 m, and mean
Hm0 is between 0.57 and 1.14 m, in maximum this range changes in
2.6e12.82 m at KE1 and KA5 respectively. In the Filyos sub-domain,
the median, mean, and maximum values of the Hm0 changes be-
tween 0.2 and 0.6 m, 0.34e0.79 m, and 4.28e9.02 m at FB1 and
FD5, respectively. In the Sinop sub-domain, while the median and
mean values of the Hm0 is changing between 0.3 e 0.7 m and
0.42e0.92 m, maximum Hm0 has a range from 4.00 m to 9.52 m at
SD1 and SA5, respectively. The Hm0 is decreased from west to east,
and it was determined that the lowest Hm0 values have appeared in
the 5 m depth in Filyos FB1 and westernmost 5 m depth location
SA1 in Sinop among all considered locations. The median and
maximum values of the Hm0 at the locations in the Sinop sub-
domain are considerably lower than those of the Karaburun sub-
domain locations. Also found that the median Hm0 values of the
westernmost part of the Sinop sub-domain with a lower maximum
value are similar to the median values in easternmost Karaburun
areas. By having a look to the power matrices of the existing WECs,
they cannot extract energy from the waves with less than 0.5 m of
Hm0. The frequency of Hm0 < 0.5 m and the frequency of Hm0  2.0 m
are also presented in the upper panel in Fig. 2. It is known that
lower Hm0 values from 0.5 m are thought as the calm sea state.
Therefore, the frequency of the calm sea state at any location can be
important because the higher probability for Hm0 < 0.5 m will
present lower design waves for the coastal protection structures
but low energy to capture by the wave energy converters (WECs).
The higher probability for Hm0  2.0 m will give high energy, which
will be suitable for the installation of WECs. It is interesting if the
location KA1 (4 m depth, 3.2%) in Karaburun is compared with
location SD5 (100 m depth, 3.7%) in Sinop, the frequency of the Hm0
greater than 2 m is almost equal. In all Karaburun and west of Sinop,
higher Hm0 are frequent and decreasing from offshore to the
coastline gradually. The Hm0 less than 0.5 m shows KA5 (only 25%)
in Karaburun and SA5 (only 27.6%) in Sinop as the best locations
and considering the stability of WECs because of the maximum
values of these two locations SA5 (max. 9.5 m) is a better choice for
wave power farms with a 3.3 m difference in the maximum Hm0.
FB1 and SB2 with 81% and 65% of Hm0 less than 0.5 m get the worst
situation in the study area, respectively.
 €lbali, A.G. Majidi and A. Akpınar
B. Bingo
Fig. 2. The boxplot of the significant wave height (Hs, Hm0) in the lower panel, mean Hm0 as a blue line over the lower panel, the maximum Hm0 as colorbar in the middle panel, and
the frequencies of Hm0 < 0.5 m (blue histogram) and Hm0  2.0 m (red line) in the upper panel for all locations considered in the study.
The changes in long-term average values of the wave energy
periods at all locations considered are compared and visualized in
Fig. 3. Since maximum values can be seen in the boxplots of the
periods, a colorbar was not added for maximum values as in Hm0. In
contrast to the situation with significant wave height, the mean
wave energy periods are higher in the locations in the Filyos and
Sinop sub-domains compared to the sites in the Karaburun sub-
domain. It is also observed that the periods of 5 m depth loca-
tions are mostly higher than the period values at deeper locations.
The median values of the energy period range from 4 s to 5 s except
for the easternmost line in the Karaburun domain, and their
maximum values range from 12 s to 14 s. It is also seen that the
energy period in Karaburun and Filyos sub-domains tends to in-
crease from the offshore to the shoreline. It is understood that the
median, average, and maximum energy period values in the Filyos
sub-domain are higher than those in the Karaburun sub-domain. It
has been determined that the locations in the Sinop sub-domain
have lower median, average, and maximum wave energy periods
compared to locations in the other sub-domains.
As can be seen from the power matrices of the WEC systems,
nearly all of the existing WEC systems cannot convert energy from
the waves with periods less than 5 s. Therefore, the upper panel
(the brown histogram) in Fig. 3 presents the probability of Tm-10 <
5 s. At all 62 locations, more than half of the waves in the study area
own a period (Tm-10) of less than 5 s, which means that more than
50% of the waves do not affect the common full-scale WECs. The
figure reports the increase of the wave periods from offshore to the
coast generally, and site FB1 (53.5%) with 13 m depth has the least
wave periods shorter than 5 s where site KE5 (100 m depth) has
only 21% of wave periods higher than 5 s.
Beside the Hm0 and the Tm-10, the energy output is also depen-
dent on the fetch distance and dominant wind direction, locally.
The predominant wind direction of the Black Sea is from the west-
southwest, and these wind conditions favor developing the waves
from west to east. The spatial distribution of mean wave directions
812
Renewable Energy 169 (2021) 809e819
hindcasted for all 62 locations is presented in Fig. 4. The wave di-
rection is changing between NNW and E along the coastline. From
offshore to the shoreline, except for lines KA and SD, the dominant
wave direction is changing from E to N slightly because of the
coastline front direction. The wave direction of the locations with
the same depth is gradually transformed from ENE to N from line
KA to FB, and then it is almost constant between FC to SB between N
and NNE. In the Sinop sub-domain, because of the nose-shaped
natural barrier, the direction starts to change from NNW to NE
rapidly.
Fig. 5 presents the boxplot of wave power, the maximum wave
power, and the frequency of Pw  10 kW/m for 62 locations located
on 13 perpendicular lines from offshore to the shoreline, including
five different depths (5, 25, 50, 75, and 100 m) starting from Kar-
aburun to Sinop obtained from the results of 31-year long term
SWAN simulation at the time interval of 1979e2009. The boxplot of
the Pw shows a limit at a maximum of 11.5 kW/m, so its maximum
values do not seem there. Therefore, maximum wave power values
at all locations in the area of interest are also given as a colorbar in
the middle panel in Fig. 5. This figure shows that the median and
maximum values of the wave power are decreasing in all areas of all
sub-domains from offshore to the shoreline. It should be noted that
the difference between the median in the boxplot and the mean Pw
in Fig. 5 is strikingly high. It is because of the outliers which are not
considered in the calculation of the median value of boxplots (in
standard boxplot outliers are dealt with as error values), but they
are considered in the calculation of mean Pw. In the Karaburun sub-
domain, the median value of the wave power is around 0.6e1.2 kW/
m, and the mean wave power is approximately 2.4e8.2 kW/m,
excluding the eastern line KE, and for the maximum, this range is
42e1015 kW/m. The wave power is decreased from west to east,
and it was determined that the lowest wave power occurred in the
FB1 and SD1, having 13 m depths location among all considered
locations. In the Filyos sub-domain, the largest and smallest median
wave power values were determined as 0.8 kW/m at FD5 and
 €lbali, A.G. Majidi and A. Akpınar
B. Bingo Renewable Energy 169 (2021) 809e819

Fig. 3. The boxplot of the wave energy periods (Te, Tm-10) in the lower panel, mean wave energy periods (blue line over the lower panel), and the frequency of Tm-10 < 5 s (brown
histogram) in the upper panel for 62 locations, located on 13 perpendicular lines from offshore to the shoreline including five different depths (5, 25, 50, 75 and 100 m) starting from
Karaburun to Sinop obtained from the results of 31-year long term SWAN simulation at the time interval of 1979e2009.

Fig. 4. The spatial distribution of the occurrence frequency of the mean wave direction (DIR) for 62 locations considered in the study.

0.1 kW/m at FB2, respectively. It has been determined that the
smallest value of the maximum wave power occurs at the location
where the median value is the lowest in this sub-domain. However,
the maximum value is not observed at the station, where the me-
dian wave power is the largest. In this sub-domain, the maximum
wave power (567 kW/m) is generated at FA5 with a median and an
average of 0.7 kW/m and 3.3 kW/m, respectively. These median and
maximum wave power values are lower than the values in the
Karaburun sub-domain. However, the median and maximum
values of the energy density at the Sinop sub-domain locations are
considerably lower than those of the Karaburun sub-domain loca-
tions. Found that the median energy density value of the west-
ernmost part of the Sinop sub-domain with a lower maximum
value is similar to the median values in easternmost Karaburun
areas. In the upper panel of Fig. 5, the probability of Pw greater than
10 kW/m shows the first 4 perpendicular lines of Karaburun with
the highest frequency and the westernmost line in Sinop as the
lowest. Comparing the Pw at the locations with 100 m depths, the
most energetic site KA5 reports 15%, and the least dynamic site SD5
reports 5.7% of their power that is higher than 10 kW/m.
In the wave energy assessment, the occurrence of energy level is
an essential criterion to measure the amount of energy. When the
density of wave power is greater than 2 kW/m, it is worth being
exploited, and greater than 20 kW/m is a rich energy region [57,58].
The frequency of Pw  2 kW/m is presented in Fig. 6 (left upper
panel) for all 62 locations. As expected, the highest frequency of
Pw  2 kW/m is in Karaburun (50% at KA5), followed by western
locations in the Sinop sub-domain. The variability of the wave

813
 €lbali, A.G. Majidi and A. Akpınar
B. Bingo
Fig. 5. The boxplot of wave power in the lower panel, the maximum wave power as the colorbar in the middle panel, and the frequency of Pw  10 kW/m in the upper panel for 62
locations located on 13 perpendicular lines from offshore to the shoreline including five different depths (5, 25, 50, 75 and 100 m) starting from Karaburun to Sinop obtained from
the results of 31-year long term SWAN simulation at the time interval of 1979e2009.
power also significantly affects the energy conversion from the
energies of the incoming waves in a region. The larger monthly or
seasonal variability indices represent a larger monthly or seasonal
change in wave energy. The lower monthly or seasonal variability
indices mean a more stable energy resource. The variability index is
the ratio of the difference of the monthly or seasonal average wave
power of the most dynamic month or season and the monthly or
seasonal average wave power of the least month or season to the
annual average wave power. Therefore, monthly and seasonal
variability indices of wave power are calculated from offshore to the
coastline and along the southwest coastline of the study area, and
the results are presented in Fig. 6 (upper right and lower left
panels).
Another critical parameter is the Optimum Hotspot Identifier
(OHI) developed by Kamranzad et al., [26]. In order to identify the
most suitable and comfortable areas for wave energy extraction,
the OHI (kW/m) parameter combines P w the frequency of the wave
power, which is greater than 2 kW/m, and the MVI of the wave
power. The most suitable area is prescribed by the highest mean
wave power and the highest frequency but the lowest monthly
variability. The OHI parameter is calculated for all considered lo-
cations and presented in Fig. 6 (lower right panel). As it can be seen
from this plot, the OHI parameter shows Karaburun, especially KA5,
followed by KA4 and KA3 as the most suitable locations for wave
energy extraction in the study area.
After investigating the statistics and the spatial distributions of
the several important wave parameters, the inter-annual changes
of mean and maximum Hm0 in months for the 31-year long-term
dataset was analyzed. The monthly mean and maximum Hm0 of
15 locations located on the lines KA, FB, and SA for the period from
1979 to 2009 are presented in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. The line
KA in Karaburun is the most energetic line in the study area.
Generally, November, December, January, and February are the
most intensive months, and June is the calmest month along with
the 31-year long-term wave dataset. Among all the 15 locations
814
Renewable Energy 169 (2021) 809e819
considered in Figs. 7 and 8, FB1 with 5 m depth and KA5 with 100 m
depth are the calmest and the most dynamic locations, respectively.
In the long-term hindcast, site KA5 presents the highest average
Hm0 in February 2003 (2.94 m), while 1989 is the least dynamic year
almost for all 15 locations. The inter- and intra-annual changes in
maximum Hm0 of the same 15 locations plotted spatially in Fig. 8.
The highest maximum Hm0 value is 12.82 m at location KA5 in
January-2004, and as expected, November, December, January and
February, present the highest maximum values for Hm0 at all sites.
The monthly mean and maximum Pw of the same 15 locations are
presented in Figs. 9 and 10. The changes of Pw at these sites are
similar to the changes in Hm0. Line KA has the highest mean Pw
values, but the Pw variability during the year is higher than the
locations of FB and SA lines. The locations of FA have the lowest
power values during all months of the year compared to locations
of SA and KA. The highest mean Pw in Fig. 9 is 64.8 kW/m in
December 2001 at KA5. The important information presented in
Fig. 10 is the high variability in Pw of KA2, KA3, KA4 and KA5 lo-
cations during the 12 months of the year. For example, in 2003 the
maximum Pw of the most energetic month (January) is approxi-
mately 500 times higher than the maximum Pw of the least ener-
getic month (July) at KA5. However, the maximum Pw at the
locations of line SA are more homogeneously distributed among
the months of the year. The highest maximum Pw in Fig. 10 is
1015 kW/m in January 2004. The mean and maximum Pw has
higher values in November, December, January and February.
However, May, June, July and August are the calmest months in the
31-year hindcast.
5. Discussion
The traditional approach to the selection of a suitable area for
wave energy extraction is the emphasis on the mean wave power.
In spite of being an important metric, it is not enough for the
characterization of the wave energy resource assessment. The
 €lbali, A.G. Majidi and A. Akpınar
B. Bingo Renewable Energy 169 (2021) 809e819

Fig. 6. Spatial distribution of the frequency of Pw  2 kW/m (%) (upper left panel), monthly variability index of Pw (kW/m) (upper right panel), seasonal variability index of Pw (kW/
m) (lower left panel), and OHI parameter of Pw (kW/m) (lower right panel) obtained from the results of the 31-year long term SWAN simulation for 13 perpendicular lines (62
locations in total) to the coastline between 1979 and 2009.

Fig. 7. The inter-annual changes of monthly mean Hm0 (m) along the 31-year time interval (1979e2009) for 15 locations located on three perpendicular lines to the shoreline (KA1 -
KA5, FB1 e FB5, and SA1 - SA5).

approach proposed for the wave energy resource assessment is average (64.8 kW/m in December 2001) and the highest maximum
based on the variability of different important wave parameters in a Pw value as 1015 kW/m in January 2004. On behalf of the mean Hm0,
long-term wave (1979e2009) dataset, both inter- and intra- the winter seasons of 1979e1987 and 2003 to 2006 have more
annually. During the time interval, KA5 presented the highest intensive sea states than the other years, especially 1989 and 2000.

815
 €lbali, A.G. Majidi and A. Akpınar
B. Bingo Renewable Energy 169 (2021) 809e819

Fig. 8. The inter-annual changes of monthly maximum Hm0 (m) along the 31-year time interval (1979e2009) for 15 locations located on three perpendicular lines to the shoreline
(KA1 - KA5, FB1 e FB5, and SA1 - SA5).

Fig. 9. The inter-annual changes of monthly mean Pw (kW/m) along the 31-year time interval (1979e2009) for 15 locations located on three perpendicular lines to the shoreline
(KA1 - KA5, FB1 e FB5, and SA1 - SA5).

Generally, the difference of the maximum and mean Hm0 is higher which can be a positive point for the maintenance and survivability
in the sites located in Karaburun than the locations in Filyos and of wave energy converters. As expected, a shorter time interval
Sinop. As line SA, the most active line in both Filyos and Sinop gives higher variability, so it is seen that the monthly variability is
presents a lower difference between mean and maximum Hm0, higher than the seasonal variability. The inter-annual variability of

816
 €lbali, A.G. Majidi and A. Akpınar
B. Bingo
Fig. 10. The inter-annual changes of monthly maximum Pw (kW/m) along the 31-year time interval (1979e2009) for 15 locations located on three perpendicular lines to the
shoreline (KA1 - KA5, FB1 e FB5, and SA1 - SA5).
winds in the south-western of the Black Sea is shown to be strongly
related to the local monsoon effect and the dynamics of tempera-
ture contrasts [55]. This can be one of the strongest reasons that the
mean and maximum Pw has higher values in November, December,
January and February are the most intensive months, March, April,
September and October are the average and May, June, July and
August are the calmest months within the 31-year long-term
(1979e2009) wave hindcast. It is observed that the areas with
high theoretical wave power has higher variability indices, and
areas with lower theoretical wave power have lower variability.
This indicates that the installation of wave energy converter sys-
tems is more suitable in the stations of Karaburun sub-domain, but
the systems to be installed in these areas should be installed with
the sensitivity to resist severe storms. The energy density of Sinop
is lower than Karaburun but because of the stability of the wave
conditions in the sites of line SA in Sinop are more suitable for the
installation of smaller wave energy converter systems.
A case study carried out by Andre s et al. [56] on Canary Island
coasts, which is one of the most energetic coasts (North Atlantic
Ocean), presents an average and maximum wave power of
z16.5 kW/m and 798 kW/m in a 17-year dataset at the reference
site B02, respectively. These values can be compared with the site
KA5 (100 m water depth) with a mean of 8.4 kW/m and a maximum
of 1015 kW/m of wave power in the present study. Another
research study by Rusu and Onea [37] on the assessment of the
wave energy and the performance of various WECs along the Eu-
ropean coasts is performed. It can be clearly observed that the
present study area has a higher wave power capacity comparing to
some insight into their study. For instance, they obtained 4.18 kW/
m, 3.42 kW/m, and 3.23 kW/m mean wave power at P19, P20, and
P21 in the Romanian and Bulgarian coasts of the Black Sea,
respectively. These three locations have approximately 50 m water
depth. In the Karaburun sub-domain of the present study, the sites
with the same water depth present 6.4 kW/m (KA3), 5.2 kW/m
(KB3) and 5.1 kW/m (KC3) of mean wave power (Fig. 5). From the
817
Renewable Energy 169 (2021) 809e819
present study, it can be said that the potential for the future wave
power production in moderately wave power rich seas is sub-
stantial. Social concerns and activities can reduce the areas to be
exploited, but more important are economic concerns with the
final technical issues and solutions.
6. Summary and conclusion
A 31-year long-term nested high resolution calibrated and
validated wave hindcast for the south-western of the Black Sea was
used. The derived SWAN wave hindcast enabled us to derive reli-
able estimates of wave power potential distribution, perform inter-
annual analysis, annual variability, identifying hotspot areas. The
percentiles of Hm0, Tm-10, Pw, the frequency of Hm0 <0.5 m and Pw
10 kW/m, the monthly and seasonal variability, and OHI param-
eters are discussed in detail. The considered 62 locations are
distributed on 13 perpendicular lines or 5 parallel lines to the
coastline on five different depths. The results proved that the study
area has the potential for wave energy extraction. The west of
Karaburun and west of Sinop are the most intensive and dynamic
areas. As the wave energy converters work on different principles
and have to be installed at the specified depth. The area is inves-
tigated for 5, 25, 50, 75, and 100 m depths separately. The most
energetic site is (KA5 100 m depth) with an average capacity of
8.4 kW/m and a maximum of 1015 kW/m, which is quite high in
semi-enclosed seas. Generally, the sites with higher energy ca-
pacity are more variable; the average and maximum Hm0 decreases
from offshore to the shoreline. The average and maximum Hm0
values are the highest at the locations in the Karaburun sub-domain
(mean 1.2 m and max 12.8 m at KA5) and the lowest in the Filyos
sub-domain (mean 0.3 m and max 4.3 m at FB1) compared to other
stations.
As predicted from the changes in significant wave height and
theoretical wave power, decrease from deep to shallow water. The
theoretical Pw at the locations in the Karaburun sub-domain is
 €lbali, A.G. Majidi and A. Akpınar
B. Bingo
higher than the locations in other sub-domains. The sites in the
west of Sinop in the averages (Fig. 7), and the sites in the west of
[9]
Filyos in the maximums (Fig. 8), follow the most intensified area
(Karaburun). In addition, the wave power has the highest energy
potential in the entire working area at the stations on the west- [10]
ernmost line of the Karaburun sub-domain, especially location KA5
(100 m depth). Inter-annually, there is a peak and a concavity in the [11]
wave power distribution, with the highest peak occurring in
February and the lowest sea state in June. Intra-annually, 2003 is [12]
the most energetic year, and 1989 is the least energetic year during
the 31-year analysis. The wave power variability is found to be the
[13]
most in western Karaburun and the least in the west of Sinop based
on the monthly and seasonal variability indices. Considering the
potential and stability factors, western Karaburun and western [14]
Sinop locations are the most suitable sites for wave energy farms in
the study area. This study shows the inter- and intra-annual wave [15]
power assessment in the south-western part of the Black Sea.
However, the amount of power that can be utilized in an affordable
[16]
way is dependent on many factors. The existing wave energy con-
verter systems are designed for ocean wave states so, they must be [17]
examined and scaled-down according to the wave conditions of the
desired area. Future energy studies will also provide a framework [18]
for which projects and under which conditions they will be
applicable.
[19]
CRediT authorship contribution statement
[20]
Bilal Bingo € lbali: Investigation, Software, Resources, Formal
analysis, Data curation. Ajab Gul Majidi: Writing - original draft,
Visualization, Resources, Software, Data curation. Adem Akpınar:
[21]
Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing,
Supervision.
[22]
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing [23]
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. [24]
Acknowledgments
[25]
The authors would like to thank The Scientific and Technological
Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) for supporting our previous [26]
project with grant number 214M436. The wave data used in the
present study was produced within that project. This research was [27]
_
also funded by TÜBITAK grant number 118R024.
[28]
References
[1] A Commercial Case for Wave and Tidal Power, Oil Gas Middle East, 2020. [29]
https://www.oilandgasmiddleeast.com/article-4955-a-commercial-case-for-
wave-and-tidal-power. (Accessed 24 October 2020).
[2] A. Martinez, G. Iglesias, Wave exploitability index and wave resource classi- [30]
fication, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 134 (2020) 110393, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2020.110393.
[3] List of Wave Power Stations, Wikipedia, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ [31]
index.php?title¼List_of_wave_power_stations&amp;oldid¼945769517.
(Accessed 23 March 2020).
[4] M. Melikoglu, Current status and future of ocean energy sources: a global [32]
review, Ocean Eng. 148 (2018) 563e573, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.oceaneng.2017.11.045.
[5] Marine Energy Capacity Worldwide 2018, Statista, 2020. https://www.statista. [33]
com/statistics/476267/global-capacity-of-marine-energy/. (Accessed 27
February 2020).
[6] A. Anvar, D.Y. Li, Ocean Wave Kinetic Energy Harvesting System for Auto-
mated Sub Sea Sensors 6 (2012) 5. [34]
[7] Z. Wang, S. Dong, X. Li, C. Guedes Soares, Assessments of wave energy in the
Bohai Sea, China, Renew. Energy 90 (2016) 145e156, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2015.12.060. [35]
[8] Y. Wan, J. Zhang, J. Meng, J. Wang, A wave energy resource assessment in the
818
Renewable Energy 169 (2021) 809e819
China’s seas based on multi-satellite merged radar altimeter data, Acta Oce-
anol. Sin. 34 (2015) 115e124, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13131-015-0627-6.
C.W. Zheng, C.Y. Li, Variation of the wave energy and significant wave height
in the China Sea and adjacent waters, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 43 (2015)
381e387, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.001.
S. Wu, C. Liu, X. Chen, Offshore wave energy resource assessment in the East
China Sea, Renew. Energy 76 (2015) 628e636, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2014.11.054.
B. Liang, F. Fan, F. Liu, S. Gao, H. Zuo, 22-Year wave energy hindcast for the
China East Adjacent Seas, Renew. Energy 71 (2014) 200e207, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2014.05.027.
A. Mirzaei, F. Tangang, L. Juneng, Wave energy potential assessment in the
central and southern regions of the South China Sea, Renew. Energy 80 (2015)
454e470, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.02.005.
G. Zhou, J. Huang, T. Yue, Q. Luo, G. Zhang, Temporal-spatial distribution of
wave energy: a case study of Beibu Gulf, China, Renew. Energy 74 (2015)
344e356, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.08.014.
G. Zhou, J. Huang, G. Zhang, Evaluation of the wave energy conditions along
the coastal waters of Beibu Gulf, China, Energy 85 (2015) 449e457, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.094.
M. Lo pez, M. Veigas, G. Iglesias, On the wave energy resource of Peru, Energy
Convers. Manag. 90 (2015) 34e40, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2014.11.012.
R. Alonso, S. Solari, L. Teixeira, Wave energy resource assessment in Uruguay,
Energy 93 (2015) 683e696, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.08.114.
€
N. Jadidoleslam, M. Ozger, N. Agıraliog
lu, Wave power potential assessment of
Aegean Sea with an integrated 15-year data, Renew. Energy 86 (2016)
1045e1059, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.09.022.
V. Sanil Kumar, T.R. Anoop, Wave energy resource assessment for the Indian
shelf seas, Renew. Energy 76 (2015) 212e219, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2014.11.034.
S.P. Neill, M.J. Lewis, M.R. Hashemi, E. Slater, J. Lawrence, S.A. Spall, Inter-
annual and inter-seasonal variability of the Orkney wave power resource,
Appl. Energy 132 (2014) 339e348, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2014.07.023.
C.M. Appendini, C.P. Urbano-Latorre, B. Figueroa, C.J. Dagua-Paz, A. Torres-
Freyermuth, P. Salles, Wave energy potential assessment in the Caribbean
Low Level Jet using wave hindcast information, Appl. Energy 137 (2015)
375e384, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.10.038.
J. Morim, N. Cartwright, A. Etemad-Shahidi, D. Strauss, M. Hemer, A review of
wave energy estimates for nearshore shelf waters off Australia, Int. J. Mar.
Energy. 7 (2014) 57e70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijome.2014.09.002.
B. Kamranzad, V. Chegini, A. Etemad-Shahidi, Temporal-spatial variation of
wave energy and nearshore hotspots in the Gulf of Oman based on locally
generated wind waves, Renew. Energy 94 (2016) 341e352, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2016.03.084.
S. Ponce de Leo  n, A. Orfila, G. Simarro, Wave energy in the Balearic Sea.
Evolution from a 29 year spectral wave hindcast, Renew. Energy 85 (2016)
1192e1200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.07.076.
E. Rusu, C. Guedes Soares, Coastal impact induced by a Pelamis wave farm
operating in the Portuguese nearshore, Renew. Energy 58 (2013) 34e49,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.03.001.
B. Kamranzad, A. Etemad-Shahidi, V. Chegini, Sustainability of wave energy
resources in southern Caspian Sea, Energy 97 (2016) 549e559, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.11.063.
B. Kamranzad, A. Etemad-Shahidi, V. Chegini, Developing an optimum hotspot
identifier for wave energy extracting in the northern Persian Gulf, Renew.
Energy 114 (2017) 59e71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.026.
B.G. Reguero, I.J. Losada, F.J. Me ndez, A global wave power resource and its
seasonal, interannual and long-term variability, Appl. Energy 148 (2015)
366e380, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.03.114.
B. Liang, F. Fan, Z. Yin, H. Shi, D. Lee, Numerical modelling of the nearshore
wave energy resources of Shandong peninsula, China, Renew. Energy 57
(2013) 330e338, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.01.052.
A. Rute Bento, P. Martinho, C. Guedes Soares, Numerical modelling of the
wave energy in Galway Bay, Renew. Energy 78 (2015) 457e466, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.01.024.
D. Silva, A.R. Bento, P. Martinho, C. Guedes Soares, High resolution local wave
energy modelling in the Iberian Peninsula, Energy 91 (2015) 1099e1112,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.08.067.
N. Guillou, G. Chapalain, Numerical modelling of nearshore wave energy
resource in the Sea of Iroise, Renew. Energy 83 (2015) 942e953, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.05.021.
M. Monteforte, C. Lo Re, G.B. Ferreri, Wave energy assessment in Sicily (Italy),
Renew. Energy 78 (2015) 276e287, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2015.01.006.
S. Gallagher, R. Tiron, E. Whelan, E. Gleeson, F. Dias, R. McGrath, The nearshore
wind and wave energy potential of Ireland: a high resolution assessment of
availability and accessibility, Renew. Energy 88 (2016) 494e516, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.11.010.
L. Rusu, C. Guedes Soares, Wave energy assessments in the Azores islands,
Renew. Energy 45 (2012) 183e196, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2012.02.027.
S. Hadadpour, A. Etemad-Shahidi, E. Jabbari, B. Kamranzad, Wave energy and
hot spots in Anzali port, Energy 74 (2014) 529e536, https://doi.org/10.1016/
 €lbali, A.G. Majidi and A. Akpınar
B. Bingo Renewable Energy 169 (2021) 809e819

j.energy.2014.07.018.
[36] E. Rusu, Wave energy assessments in the Black Sea, J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 14
(2009) 359e372, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-009-0053-6.
[37] L. Rusu, F. Onea, Assessment of the performances of various wave energy
converters along the European continental coasts, Energy 82 (2015) 889e904,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.01.099.
[38] L. Rusu, Assessment of the wave energy in the Black Sea based on a 15-year
hindcast with data assimilation, Energies 8 (2015) 10370e10388, https://
doi.org/10.3390/en80910370.
[39] Y. Saprykina, S. Kuznetsov, Analysis of the variability of wave energy due to
climate changes on the example of the Black Sea, Energies 11 (2018) 2020,
https://doi.org/10.3390/en11082020.
[40] L. Rusu, Evaluation of the near future wave energy resources in the Black Sea
under two climate scenarios, Renew. Energy 142 (2019) 137e146, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.04.092.
[41] E. Uzlu, A. Akpınar, M.I._ Ko €mürcü, Restructuring of Turkey’s electricity market
and the share of hydropower energy: the case of the Eastern Black Sea Basin,
Renew. Energy 36 (2011) 676e688, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2010.08.012.
[42] A. Akpınar, G.Ph van Vledder, M.I. _ Ko €
€mürcü, M. Ozger, Evaluation of the nu-
merical wave model (SWAN) for wave simulation in the Black Sea, Continent.
Shelf Res. (2012) 80e99, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2012.09.012, 50e51.
[43] A. Akpınar, M.I. _ Ko
€mürcü, Wave energy potential along the south-east coasts
of the Black Sea, Energy 42 (2012) 289e302, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2012.03.057.
[44] A. Akpınar, M.I. _ Ko€mürcü, Assessment of wave energy resource of the Black
Sea based on 15-year numerical hindcast data, Appl. Energy 101 (2013)
502e512, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.06.005.
[45] G.Ph Van Vledder, A. Akpınar, Wave model predictions in the Black Sea:
sensitivity to wind fields, Appl. Ocean Res. 53 (2015) 161e178, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2015.08.006.
[46] A. Akpınar, B. Bingo €lbali, G.Ph Van Vledder, Wind and wave characteristics in
the Black Sea based on the SWAN wave model forced with the CFSR winds,
Ocean Eng. 126 (2016) 276e298, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.oceaneng.2016.09.026.
[47] A. Akpınar, B. Bingo €lbali, G.Ph Van Vledder, Long-term analysis of wave power
potential in the Black Sea, based on 31-year SWAN simulations, Ocean Eng.
130 (2017) 482e497, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.12.023.
€ lbali, A. Akpınar, H. Jafali, G.P.V. Vledder, Downscaling of wave climate
[48] B. Bingo
in the western Black Sea, Ocean Eng. 172 (2019) 31e45, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.11.042.
[49] A. Akpınar, H. Jafali, E. Rusu, Temporal variation of the wave energy flux in
hotspot areas of the Black Sea, Sustainability 11 (2019) 1e17.
[50] B. Bingo€ lbali, H. Jafali, A. Akpınar, S. Bekirog
lu, Wave energy potential and
variability for the south west coasts of the Black Sea: the WEB-based wave
energy atlas, Renew. Energy (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2020.03.014.
[51] B. Bingo€lbali, Wave Climatology, and Development of a Wave Hindcast Model
with the Nested Grid System for the South-Western Coasts of the Black Sea,
Uludag University, Thesis, 2018.
[52] A. Akpınar, S. Bekiroglu, G. Ph Van Vledder, B. Bingo € lbali, H. Jafali, Temporal
and spatial analysis of wave energy potential along the southern west coasts
of the Black Sea, TÜBITAK_ Project, 2015. No: 214M436.
[53] N. Booij, R.C. Ris, L.H. Holthuijsen, A third-generation wave model for coastal
regions: 1. Model description and validation, J. Geophys. Res. Oceans. 104
(1999) 7649e7666, https://doi.org/10.1029/98JC02622.
[54] S. Saha, S. Moorthi, H.-L. Pan, X. Wu, J. Wang, S. Nadiga, P. Tripp, R. Kistler,
J. Woollen, D. Behringer, H. Liu, D. Stokes, R. Grumbine, G. Gayno, J. Wang, Y.-
T. Hou, H. Chuang, H.-M.H. Juang, J. Sela, M. Iredell, R. Treadon, D. Kleist, P. Van
Delst, D. Keyser, J. Derber, M. Ek, J. Meng, H. Wei, R. Yang, S. Lord, H. van den
Dool, A. Kumar, W. Wang, C. Long, M. Chelliah, Y. Xue, B. Huang, J.-K. Schemm,
W. Ebisuzaki, R. Lin, P. Xie, M. Chen, S. Zhou, W. Higgins, C.-Z. Zou, Q. Liu,
Y. Chen, Y. Han, L. Cucurull, R.W. Reynolds, G. Rutledge, M. Goldberg, The
NCEP climate Forecast system Reanalysis, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 91 (2010)
1015e1058, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010BAMS3001.1.
[55] D. Silva, E. Rusu, C. Soares, Evaluation of various technologies for wave energy
conversion in the Portuguese nearshore, Energies 6 (2013) 1344e1364,
https://doi.org/10.3390/en6031344.
[56] O. Andre s, F. Castro, L. Rusu, Efficiency assessments for different WEC types in
the Canary Islands. Dev. Marit. Transp. Exploit. Sea Resour., 2014,
pp. 879e887, https://doi.org/10.1201/b15813-111.
[57] C Zheng, J Pan, J Li, Assessing the China Sea wind energy and wave energy
resources from 1988 to 2009, Ocean Eng. (2013) 39e48, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.oceaneng.2013.03.006.
[58] C Zheng, L Shao, W Shi, Q Su, G Lin, X Li, X Chen, An assessment of global
ocean wave energy resources over the last 45 a, Acta Oceanol. Sin. 33 (2014)
92e101, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13131-014-0418-5.

819