Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 34 (2014) 98–109

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Energy of marine currents in the Strait of Gibraltar and its potential as

a renewable energy resource
María Concepción Calero Quesada n, Jesús García Lafuente, José Carlos Sánchez Garrido,
Simone Sammartino, Javier Delgado
Physical Oceanography Group, University of Málaga, Spain

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A non-hydrostatic hydrodynamic model of the Strait of Gibraltar with high spatial and temporal
Received 18 October 2013 resolution has been used to assess suitable areas for energy extraction from marine currents. The model
Received in revised form shows great spatial variability of the available energy flux, ranging from 200 W m
2 to more than
11 February 2014
1800 W m
2. In addition to the mean energy flux, other properties and characteristics of the flow such
Accepted 18 February 2014
Available online 21 March 2014
as permanence and direction of the currents, vertical shear or occurrence of unwanted high frequency
internal waves have been merged into an index that is used in this work as a proxy for the suitability of a
Keywords: given place to install a power plant. This index highlights two zones gathering the required conditions:
Strait of Gibraltar the subsurface layer of the eastern half of the strait and the near-bottom layer of Espartel sill at the
Energy fluxes
westernmost gateway of the strait.
Tidal energy
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Unidirectional currents

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
1.1. Tidal energy resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
1.2. Marine currents in the Strait of Gibraltar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
2. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
2.1. Numerical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
2.2. Energy flux computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3. Flow characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.1. Averaged energy fluxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.2. Other relevant parameters (indicators) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.2.1. Time interval during which the energy flux is above a threshold value (TAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.2.2. Time interval during which the energy flux does not change sign (TFP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
3.2.3. Time interval during which the flow lays along a given direction (TFU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
3.2.4. High frequency phenomena or noise (FN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3.2.5. Vertical shear of the flow (FS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4. Assessing of suitability of the different areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.1. Quality function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5. Subinertial influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6. Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

n
Correspondence to: Campus Teatinos s/n, 29071 Málaga, Spain. Tel.: þ 34 952 132 849.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.02.038
1364-0321/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M.C. Calero Quesada et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 34 (2014) 98–109 99

1. Introduction are perpendicular to the main stream, being able to operate with
flow from any direction [4,9].
Renewable marine energy can be obtained from wind waves An intense work of design and optimization is currently being
and swell, tides, ocean currents and from ocean salinity and developed in this field. While all hydrokinetic devices operate
temperature gradients. Many different devices are employed at on the same conversions principles regardless of their areas
this aim, such as the direct-drive converters that transform the of applications, a set of subtle differences may appear in terms of
wave mechanical energy in electrical power, the hydrokinetic design and operational features of the farms. These include: design
turbines that convert the kinetic energy of the moving mass of of the turbine (size, directionality and placement), operation (flow
water into electricity in the case of marine currents, or the thermal characteristics, water density, control resource and prediction) and
oceanic plant, producing energy by the thermic differences end-use (grid-connectivity) [16]. Many studies indicate different
between deep and surface waters [1]. Ocean contains a large types of turbines, for instance, the Evopod tested in Ireland or the
amount of unexploited clean renewable energy resources that can Gorlov in USA, or the most promising, Delta Stream Turbine or the
play a significant role in the future of worldwide energy portfolios. Neptune Tidal Stream Device (2.4 MW of capacity) [10].
This kind of energy will supply future electrical energy needs in Several test models claim a superior performance of MCTs
the world: the U.S. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the located in marine channels than others installed in open flows, the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimate that the latter being more similar to windmills, resulting in an increase of
total potential of all the combined ocean renewable energies in both average and peak power coefficient [17]. In general MCTs
United States currently exceeds the national electric energy needs. present more technical limitations than wind turbines: the closer
A total of 13 GW of new hydrokinetic technologies could be proximity of the sea surface and the seafloor [18], the damages on
deployed by 2025, supplying at least the 10% of the USA electrical the turbine blades caused by cavitation [18] and other effects
needs [2]. Wave and tidal current energy could potentially supply related to the higher density of sea water with respect to the air. In
the 15% of the UK's electricity needs [3] and wave energy is likely many cases it results in the failure of the device, such as the blade
to have a significant role in Australia electric policy with the fracture on the Open-Hydro 16-m installed in the Bay of Fundy or
highest capacity expected (449 GW from 2023 to 2032) [4]. the Atlantis AR1000 [19]. Once the rotor is in motion, the blade
Several technologies and devices are currently operating with section starts to experience a relative component of tidal current
different efficiency depending on the available energy and the velocity at various angles of attack depending of the blade
device performance and maintenance [1]. The exploitation of parameters [20]. For all these reasons, the presence of a strong
renewable energy from ocean waves is widely developed in current and the persistence of a flow in a site are not sufficient
several countries as Australia, Americas, Portugal, South Africa, conditions to ensure its suitability for the installation of a turbine
parts of Scandinavia, United Kingdom [3], and Ireland [5]. Wind farm [21].
waves energy extraction has different technologies [6] and modes Besides the optimal design of the MCTs or their components,
of operation [7] with high energy potential (of the order of TW/yr). the hydrodynamic interactions between turbines may have sig-
Some of the most interesting ongoing projects are the Pelamis nificant impact in the efficiency of the devices and the electrical
Wave Power (PWP) in Portugal (2.25 MW), in Orkney (3 MW) and power output decays considerably. The two most important
Cronwall (5 MW) in UK [8]. control variables for energy cost are the farm size and the turbine
distribution in a farm [22]. Different models are used to find the
optimal configuration of tidal turbine farms, by the solution of an
1.1. Tidal energy resource optimization problem [23]. On the other hand, there are different
types of devices that operate in specific conditions and prototypes
Marine currents carry a huge deal of energy, too, but this still under development, whose technical characteristics can be
technology is currently under pilot phase or research projects [9]. adapted to ocean currents. For instance, the Northeast Normal
Some of the most suitable places to extract this type of energy University in China, developed a floating horizontal axis turbine
are Ireland, the Amazon River, the English Channel, the Strait provided with a flex shaft with a vertically arranged generator
of Gibraltar [10], Fiji Island [11], the Strait of Messina [12], the designed to avoid some disadvantages of horizontal axis turbine,
southern coast of Iran [13] or South Korea [14]. Most of the plants such as needing pitch adjusting and efficiency dropping in reverse
are already functioning, as the case of the coast of Welsh (UK) with flow [24]. In Ria de Arousa, Spain, a parametric approach based on
its 8 MW, while others are currently being completed, as the one four performance parameters was proposed to compare two types
in Korea that will supply 300 MW by 2015 [8]. In some places the of turbines, the Evopod and the Gorlov. It was found that the
extraction of marine energy can be combined by two types of Evopod achieves greater site-specific turbine efficiency and energy
energy, as the case of wave and tidal mixed systems in UK [15]. output whereas the Gorlov turbine presents higher availability and
There are different energy conversion systems in MCTs: rotat- capacity factors or, in other words, more operation hours and
ing devices and reciprocating devices. The extraction of energy equivalent hours per year, essentially due to its lower cut-in
from ocean currents by rotating devices has the same physical velocity and power rating [25].
basis as the extraction from wind and a similar technology. These
are named marine current turbines (MCTs). The generated power 1.2. Marine currents in the Strait of Gibraltar
is directly proportional to the fluid density and the cube of the
speed. In places suitable for the extraction of marine energy, ocean The Strait of Gibraltar holds areas where ocean currents are
currents are typically one order magnitude less than wind speed, strong, around a velocity of 2 m s
1 [26,27] compared with
but the sea water density is about three orders of magnitude 3 m s
1 in the Strait of Messina [12] or about 2 m s
1 in Ireland
greater than the air density and, therefore, the power generated is [28], which makes it suitable to install power marine farms. The
of the same order of magnitude in both environments. strait is the scenario of a two-way exchange of marked spatial
MCTs can have two different configurations: the axial turbines, variability induced by interaction of the flow with the several
the most frequently employed, where the axis rotates horizontally topographic constraints as Tarifa Narrows (TN hereinafter), Camar-
parallel to the current stream and, with a special configuration of inal Sill (CS) and Espartel Sill (ES) shown in Fig. 1 [29–32]. Atlantic
the blades (variable pitch) can operate in opposite flows, and the water, less saline and warmer, flows at the surface into the
cross-flow turbines where the main axis is vertical and the blades Mediterranean while a Mediterranean undercurrent, saltier and
100 M.C. Calero Quesada et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 34 (2014) 98–109

12’ 0

−100

6’ SPAIN −200
Algeciras Bay
−300
Tarifa

Depth (m)
36oN −400
Tangier TN
−500
MB Basin
54’ −600
CS Ceuta
−700
ES
48’ −800
Tanger
MOROCCO −900

42’ −1000
12’ 6oW 48’ 36’ 24’ 12’

Fig. 1. Bathymetry of the Strait of Gibraltar showing the toponyms mentioned in this study: ES stand for Espartel Sill, CS for Camarinal Sill and TN for Tarifa Narrows, the
narrowest section of the strait. The asterisk over Espartel sill indicates the location of a long-term monitoring station mentioned in the text.

cooler, flows out into the Atlantic. Numerical [27,33–35], theore- superposition of the flows exchanged in absence of atmospheric
tical [31,36,37] and experimental [27,29,38] models/analysis sug- forcing and the barotropic flow induced by that forcing. The
gest that TN exerts hydraulic control on the inflow while CS and ES situation is completely different in the case of tides because the
do so on the outflow, offering a scenario of hydraulically controlled strength and frequency of tidal flows produce about strong non-
exchange. Therefore, the flows in the strait occur mainly along its linear interactions between mean and tidal flows that invalidate
axis in two principal orientations: 10–151 from the east counter- any linear superposition. For this reason, this work focuses on
clockwise and 190–1951, the opposite orientation. the energy fluxes in the strait that is only forced by tides, and
This two-way exchange is strongly modulated by tides that are addresses the effect of meteorologically induced subinertial fluc-
intense enough to reverse the instantaneous flow in most areas tuations on these fluxes briefly in Section 5.
and depths of the strait twice a day and flood the hydraulic control The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the high
at CS [27,29,34,38]. Hydraulic controls at TN and ES are much less resolution numerical model that has been used, which has been
influenced by tidal flows and are quasi-permanent features employed in previous studies and has shown to reproduce
[34,38,39]. Therefore, the surface Atlantic stream nearby and east satisfactorily the hydrodynamics of the exchange at tidal frequen-
of TN keeps flowing eastwards permanently while the deep cies [35]. Section 3 computes the energy fluxes averaged over
Mediterranean water does the same to the opposite direction different periods and vertical layers in order to assess the suit-
nearby and west of ES, featuring two zones of unidirectional flow ability of the different areas of the strait and identify other
regardless of tidal forcing [27,29,32,38]. hydrodynamic parameters of practical relevance for technological
A remarkable feature linked to tides is the formation of a large issues. In Section 4 all the previous information is merged into a
amplitude internal hydraulic jump over the western edge of CS single quality function that helps identify the most suitable places
during the rising tide due to the supercritical-to-subcritical transi- to install marine-current power plants. The subinertial modulation
tion of the Mediterranean undercurrent downstream the sill of the flow is briefly addressed in Section 5 and conclusions are
[30,40,41]. The jump is released when the Mediterranean current shown in Section 6.
weakens (about 2 h before high water) and the hydraulic control
at CS is lost. It progresses to the Mediterranean as a tidal bore,
generating a train of large amplitude, short-period internal waves 2. Methodology
along its leading edge [35,38,42] whose associated wave-velocity
field induces remarkable fluctuations able to change the total In order to obtain a synoptic estimation of the flow in the area
velocity by more than 1 m s
1 in few minutes. These fluctuations of study, aimed at calculating the energy fluxes there, a numerical
may be usable or not for extracting energy, depending on the approach has been applied.
characteristics of the devices [43,44] but, in general, of such large
amplitude and high frequency oscillations are unwanted for 2.1. Numerical model
technical reasons and will be considered as noise in the present
study [45]. Notice, however, that these waves do not fulfill The numerical model is the Massachusetts Institute of Techno-
the most important noise characteristic, which is its random logy general circulation model (MITgcm), which solves the fully
nature. Actually they are predictable [30,35,41,42] because their non-linear non-hydrostatic Navier–Stokes equations under the
appearance is strictly linked to tides, an archetypical periodic Boussinesq approximation for an incompressible fluid. Next we
phenomenon. briefly outline the model setup and its initialization for the
Atmospheric forcing also induces moderate fluctuations of the numerical simulation used in this study. Further details on the
flow speed in the subinertial frequency band (few days to weeks) model configuration, validation and performance can be consulted
[46,47]. The estimation of energy fluxes and their variability in the in [48].
Strait of Gibraltar should take into account this forcing. However, The model formulation includes implicit free surface and
the subinertial fluctuations occur at relatively low frequency partial step topography [49,50] and its domain extends from
for which the response of the exchange can be considered as 6.31W to 4.781W that is discretized by non-uniform curvilinear
a succession of steady-states (quasi-steady fluctuations [36]). orthogonal horizontal grid of 1440  210 points. The along-strait
It means that the final solution can be achieved as the linear spatial resolution, Δx, is between 46 and 63 m in CS area and is
 M.C. Calero Quesada et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 34 (2014) 98–109 101

always less than 70 m between ES and TN. The across-strait spatial computed as
resolution, Δy, is less than 340 m in the middle of the strait
1 1 Nt N k
between ES and CS, 175–200 m in CS and less than 200 m between Ek ðx; yÞ ¼ ∑ ∑ Eðx; y; zj ; t i Þ ð2Þ
Nk Nt i ¼ 1 j ¼ 1
CS and TN. The model has 53 vertical levels 7.5 m thick in the
upper 300 m that increases gradually until 105 m maximum where Nt is the number data within the selected time intervals and
thickness for the remaining 13 deeper levels. Nk is the number of grid points within vertical layer k. Obviously
The initial conditions of temperature and salinity were derived the estimated energy flux depends on the interval over which the
from the climatologic Medar–MedAtlas Database [51] for the time average is carried out.
month of April. The steady two-way exchange is obtained by
laterally forcing the model with the mean velocity, temperature,
and salinity fields extracted from the outputs of the model 3. Flow characteristics
developed by Sannino et al. [33], which aimed at the study of
the mean water exchange through the Strait of Gibraltar and its With regards to the suitability of a marine region for renewable
internal hydraulics. Wave reflections at the open boundaries were energy, the most important variable is the available energy flux
minimized adopting the flow relaxation scheme proposed by in the zone although there are also other characteristics of the
Carter [52] for the velocity field. A spin-up period of 11 days of flow that are relevant. All of them are addressed in the next
simulation was necessary to achieve the steady state without tidal subsections.
forcing. Subsequently, tidal forcing was introduced by imposing
the barotropic tidal current of the main diurnal (O1, K1) and 3.1. Averaged energy fluxes
semidiurnal (M2, S2) constituents at the open boundaries and
leaving the model to reach a periodic stationary solutions, which Fig. 2 shows the temporal mean value of the energy flux in the
was achieved after 8 days approximately. Then the model was run selected layers (actually, the mean value of the climatic April used
during a climatological month to generate outputs of the different in the simulation). The mean has been computed using absolute
baroclinic fields every 20 min, which is the dataset analyzed in values (the energy flux in Eq. (1) is positive (negative) if the flow
this study. moves to the east (west)) in order to determine an upper bound to
A similar approach has been employed by the Georgia Tech the available energy flux.
Research Corporation who utilized a ROM system to obtain the Layer 1 (Fig. 2a) presents moderate values over the central area
intensity of tidal currents in the United States [53,54]. of the strait associated with the Atlantic inflow and larger fluxes
over CS. Layers 5 and 6 show the highest fluxes in the western part
of the strait, in the Mediterranean outflow (Fig. 2e and f). Values in
the intermediate layers 2–4 are low except in a narrow band over
2.2. Energy flux computation CS (Fig. 2b–d) because they embrace partially the interfacial layer
where the velocity is small. Layer 7 (Fig. 2g) also shows very
The along-strait component of the energy flux has been reduced values in the eastern half of the strait, where the
computed according to Mediterranean outflow moves to the west slowly, and high values
west of ES where the outflow plunges down in the Atlantic Ocean
1 as a density current. This short overview indicates that layers 1,
E ¼ ρðu2 þv2 Þu ð1Þ
2 5 and 6 deserve further analysis while the remaining layers are of
secondary relevance and are no longer considered. Layer 5 shows
where u is the along-strait component of the velocity, v the cross- spatial patterns very similar to layer 6, a reason for which – and for
strait component and ρ the density of sea water that, for the purposes the sake of conciseness – we hardly present maps for that layer.
of this study, has been taken as constant (ρ ¼ 1027.5 kg m
3). The
across-strait component could be calculated similarly but the pre- 3.2. Other relevant parameters (indicators)
valence of along-strait over cross-strait velocity makes that compo-
nent negligible. Only the along-strait energy flux is considered in the The preliminary analysis carried out in the previous section
subsequent calculations. hides the high spatial-temporal variability of the flows and, hence,
The energy flux has been calculated at each point of the 3D energy fluxes in the strait. See, for instance, the fortnightly
grid. These values have been vertically averaged in the layers variation of the energy flux in layer 1 from spring (Fig. 3a) to
defined in Table 1. The upper part of the water column, (0–26.25) neap (Fig. 3b) tides. Fig. 3c and d shows that the energy flux in this
m, has been excluded since it is not exploitable for maritime safety layer is mainly achieved by positive (towards the Mediterranean
reasons. Although the Strait of Gibraltar holds areas deeper than Sea) flows while it diminishes if only periods of negative, west-
the last layer in the table (Fig. 1), they are not of practical interest ward flows are considered in the time average.
because of the great depth and the weakness of the currents. The A fundamental aspect in the installation of turbine farms is the
contoured energy flux at k-th vertical layer has been then selection of the technology employed, namely, the MCTs. For these
reasons and regarding the performance of the devices, it is
Table 1
certainly worth analyzing other time-varying parameters of the
Layers and their range depth used for the vertical average of the energy flux. Last
column indicates the number of grid points inside each layer.
flow, rather than only the energy flux as done in [53,54]. Five of
such time-varying parameters are considered in this study. The
Layer Range depth (m) Grid points time interval over which we have calculated their values is the
whole month of the model.
1 26.25–71.25 7
2 71.25–116.25 7
3 116.25–161.25 7 3.2.1. Time interval during which the energy flux is above a threshold
4 161.25–206.25 7 value (TAT)
5 206.25–273.75 10 Many kinds of MCTs have a threshold speed below which they
6 273.75–326.25 6
7 326.25–532.50 6
are not energetically efficient and it is therefore reasonable to
define a parameter that accounts for this limitation. Time interval
102 M.C. Calero Quesada et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 34 (2014) 98–109

Wm−2 Wm−2
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

12’
Layer: 1 Layer: 2
6’ SPAIN SPAIN

36oN

54’

48’
MOROCCO MOROCCO
42’

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

12’
Layer: 3 Layer: 4
6’ SPAIN SPAIN

36oN

54’

48’
MOROCCO MOROCCO
42’

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

12’
Layer: 5 Layer: 6
6’ SPAIN SPAIN

36oN

54’

48’
MOROCCO MOROCCO
42’

12’ 900
Layer: 7 800
6’ SPAIN
700

600
36oN
Wm−2

500
54’ 400

300
48’
200
MOROCCO
42’ 100
12’ 6oW 48’ 36’ 24’ 12’

Fig. 2. Mean energy flux in the layers indicated in Table 1 and shown in the insets. The color bar, common for all panels, indicates the energy flux in W m
2.

during which the energy flux is above a threshold value (TAT) is 1 and 6, which are the only ones that show values above 50% over
expressed as the percentage of time that the energy flux holds an extended area. Layers 2–4 (not shown) have patterns similar to
above the selected threshold, which in this study has been set to layer 1, with smaller percentages over a smaller area (basically CS),
200 W m
2 corresponding to a flow speed of 0.73 m s
1 according while layer 5 (not shown) recalls layer 6 with significantly lower
to Eq. (1). Fig. 4 presents the spatial distributions of TAT in layers percentages. Regarding this indicator, the zone of ES exhibits the
 M.C. Calero Quesada et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 34 (2014) 98–109 103

12’
Layer: 1 Layer: 1
6’ Flux: Mean SPAIN Flux: Mean SPAIN
Period: ST Period: NT

36oN

54’

48’
MOROCCO MOROCCO
42’
12’
Layer: 1 Layer: 1
6’ Flux: Positive SPAIN Flux: Negative SPAIN
Period: ST Period: ST

36oN

54’

48’
MOROCCO MOROCCO
42’
12’ 6oW 48’ 36’ 24’ 12’ 12’ 6oW 48’ 36’ 24’ 12’

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Wm−2
Fig. 3. Panels (a) and (b): Mean energy flux in layer 1 during spring (ST) and neap tides (NT), respectively. Panels (c) and (d): Mean energy flux associated with positive
(eastward) and negative (westward) flow during ST period.

12’
Layer: 1 Layer: 6
6’ Flux: Mean SPAIN Flux: Mean SPAIN
Period: Total Period: Total

36oN

54’

48’
MOROCCO MOROCCO
42’
12’ 6oW 48’ 36’ 24’ 12’ 12’ 6oW 48’ 36’ 24’ 12’

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
TAT (%)
Fig. 4. Percentage of time when the mean energy flux (TAT parameter in the text) is greater than 200 W m
2. Panel (a) is for layer 1 and panel (b) is for layer 6.

best conditions, with percentages over 90% in area of approxi- Mediterranean. As expected here, TFP is higher than 50% every-
mately 60 km2. where in the strait area (any value below 50% would indicate a
prevalence of westward flow) with enhanced values in the eastern
half of the strait due to the internal hydraulics of the exchange.
3.2.2. Time interval during which the energy flux does not change The opposite is observed in the deep layer 6 (Fig. 5b) where TFP is
sign (TFP) nearly 90% for negative flow (towards the Atlantic) in the west half
Some devices only extract energy from marine currents when they of the strait and, particularly, over ES area, remaining above 50%
are oriented upstream, that is, when they are pointing to the direction elsewhere.
the current comes from [9]. The time interval during which the
energy flux does not change sign (TFP) is of interest for such devices
whenever they are mounted on structures that keep them facing at a 3.2.3. Time interval during which the flow lays along a given
fixed, pre-selected direction. TFP is also expressed as a percentage. direction (TFU)
Fig. 5a presents the TFP of positive sign in layer 1, that is, the Even when the energy flux does not change sign, the direction of
percentage of time the current in this layer flows towards the the flow can fluctuate, decreasing the efficiency and performance of
104 M.C. Calero Quesada et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 34 (2014) 98–109

12’
Layer: 1 Layer: 6
6’ Flux: Positive SPAIN Flux: Negative SPAIN
Period: Total Period: Total
36oN

54’

48’
MOROCCO MOROCCO
42’
12’ 6oW 48’ 36’ 24’ 12’ 12’ 6oW 48’ 36’ 24’ 12’

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
TFP (%)
Fig. 5. Percentage of time during which the energy flux does not change sign (TFP parameter in the text). Panel (a) corresponds to positive (eastward) energy flux in layer 1.
Panel (b) is negative (westward) energy flux in layer 6.

12’
Layer: 1 Layer: 5
6’ Flux: Positive SPAIN Flux: Negative SPAIN
Period: Total Period: Total
36oN

54’

48’
MOROCCO MOROCCO
42’
12’ 6oW 48’ 36’ 24’ 12’ 12’ 6oW 48’ 36’ 24’ 12’

12’ 100
Layer: 6 90
6’ Flux: Negative SPAIN 80
Period: Total 70
36oN 60
TFU (%)

50
54’ 40
30
48’ 20
MOROCCO 10
42’ 0
12’ 6oW 48’ 36’ 24’ 12’

Fig. 6. Percentage of time during which the energy flux keeps the direction within given intervals (TFU parameter in the text). Panel (a) is the case of energy flux toward the
Mediterranean Sea within [
251, 251] in layer 1. Panel (b) is the same for layer 6 within the interval [1601, 2101] (towards the Atlantic Ocean).

the device [22]. A suitable condition is that the flow keeps tight flow over CS has greater fluctuations than in the eastern strait,
along a favored direction, which obviously would be the axis of the which makes CS a less suitable area regarding this parameter.
strait in this case. Again, time interval during which the flow lays Fig. 6b and c presents TFU in layers 5 and 6, respectively. As
along a given direction (TFU) is expressed as a percentage. Two expected, the general pattern is the opposite to layer 1 with
directions have been considered with an angular tolerance of 251: negative flows most of the time, particularly in the central
the first one towards the Mediterranean along the axis, whose channel. The percentage in layer 6 reaches nearly 100% in ES area
limits have been set to [
251, 251] and the second one towards the and it is slightly less in layer 5. Over CS, TFU is around 50%
Atlantic within the interval [1601, 2101]. Although this parameter (Fig. 6b), which indicates important fluctuations of the flow
overlaps with TFP, it is more restrictive and identifies areas of rather direction, much like the case of layer 1 already discussed. In
unidirectional flows, a very crucial condition for the aforemen- summary, the eastern part of the strait in layer 1 and the western
tioned devices [9,20]. part in lower layer 6 are the best areas regarding TFU, a non-
Fig. 6a, which shows TFU in layer 1, indicates that in the central surprising result that stems from the hydraulic control associated
channel the average energy flux is mainly towards the Mediterra- with the internal hydraulics of the strait [34,38,39].
nean, the percentage increasing to almost 90% to the East of TN.
Recalling the results shown in Fig. 5a it is clear that the positive
energy flux in this area is very directional, with only small 3.2.4. High frequency phenomena or noise (FN)
fluctuations around the direction of the axis of the strait. Over As mentioned in Section 1, the high frequency internal waves
CS, the TFU percentage is around 50%, significantly less than the periodically generated in the strait may contribute negatively to
70% of TFP there visible in Fig. 5a. Instead, the direction of the the mean lifetime of some devices due to the rapid fluctuations of
 M.C. Calero Quesada et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 34 (2014) 98–109 105

12’
Layer: 1 Layer: 6
6’ Flux: Mean SPAIN Flux: Mean SPAIN
Period: Total Period: Total

36oN

54’

48’
MOROCCO MOROCCO
42’
12’ 6oW 48’ 36’ 24’ 12’ 12’ 6oW 48’ 36’ 24’ 12’

0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15 0.175 0.2 0.225 0.25
FN (m/s)
Fig. 7. Noise or RMS high frequency velocity (FN parameter in the text). Panel (a) is for layer 1 and panel (b) is for layer 6.

12’
Layer: 1 Layer: 6
6’ Flux: Mean SPAIN Flux: Mean SPAIN
Period: Total Period: Total

36oN

54’

48’
MOROCCO MOROCCO
42’
12’ o o
6 W 48’ 36’ 24’ 12’ 12’ 6 W 48’ 36’ 24’ 12’

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

FS (s−1)
Fig. 8. Velocity shear (FS parameter in the text). Panel (a) is for layer 1 and panel (b) is for layer 6.

the velocity field. For this reason they can be considered as noise, The main source of vertical shear is the bottom friction and
which has been quantified as the root mean square of the high- only those layers involving the presence of the seafloor show
pass velocity series obtained after filtering the original series with relatively large values of FS. A good example is layer 1 (Fig. 8a) that
a numerical filter of 2 h
1 cut-off frequency. This indicator, high shows only two near shore spots in CS area where FS is important,
frequency phenomena (FN), has therefore units of m s
1. and both sites are located over the shallow seafloor. Another
Fig. 7a and b shows FN in layers 1 and 6, respectively. It is well- example is layer 6 (Fig. 8b) where FS is relatively large in ES and to
known that internal waves are mainly found in the eastern half of the west (the only places where the flow feels the seafloor) and
the strait progressing to the Mediterranean from CS, where they nearly null elsewhere.
are generated. Fig. 7a clearly reflects this fact and shows that FN in
the upper layer 1 concentrates at east of CS. Similar patterns are
found in layers 2 and 3 (not shown) with FN decreasing toward the 4. Assessing of suitability of the different areas
seafloor in this area. From layers 4 to 6, the spatial pattern changes
and FN starts showing significant values west of CS due to Table 2 summarizes the findings discussed in previous section
supercritical-to-subcritical flow transitions that takes place in following a subjective qualification. The areas with a priori favor-
the Tangier Basin [35,38,42]. Fig. 7b illustrates this feature and able conditions for installing marine turbine farms have been
also (and more importantly) that FN is reduced drastically over ES identified for each of the most suitable layers 1, 5 and 6 (column
to increase again westwards of this sill due to new hydraulic 2 in Table 2). Layer 1 shows good conditions in the eastern part of
transitions [35]. the strait and also over CS while flow properties in layers 5 and
6 are much better in the western half of the strait, particularly over
CS (layer 5) and ES (layer 6). Conditions over ES in layer 5 are also
favorable although to a lesser extent than in the underlying layer
3.2.5. Vertical shear of the flow (FS) 6, a reason for which ES is not included in layer 5 in Table 2.
Blades of a wind-like turbine, working undersea, are subjected The intensity of the energy flux (I hereinafter) is the most
to forces typically 10 times stronger than the ones undergone in important variable to select the right place and Table 2 indicates
air. The mean lifetime of the turbine, especially of those with that all locations are rather suitable with regards to this variable,
horizontal axis depends on vibrations supported by the rotor axis, with a slightly disadvantage in the eastern strait in layer 1. CS is a
which are enhanced in sheared flow. Vertical shear of the flow (FS) good place in layers 1 and 5 due to the strength currents over the
measures the maximum shear within each layer in s
1. whole water column (CS is the bottleneck of the strait) but it
106 M.C. Calero Quesada et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 34 (2014) 98–109

Table 2 “restrictive” parameters to the first group and “non-restrictive” to

Quality assessment of the variables and indicators in the favorable locations the second group.
discussed in the text. The first column indicates the layer (see Table 1), the second
In this function, which is always positive, the energy flux
column specifies the most suitable locations in each layer and the remaining
columns refer to the different indicators, which have been rated according to: A weighs much more than any other parameter, since it is the main
¼ very good /excellent; B ¼ good; C ¼ medium; D ¼ poor. variable and appears in the equation in a single squared summand.
Other parameter like TAT is of much interest and it is allowed to
Layer Selected area I Indicators range from 0 to 3. The TFU, parameterized through XTFU, should
TAT TFP TFU FN FS
have more relevance for those devices that require uni-
directionality of the flow, in which case the function V may be
1 TN B C A A D B biased. Being aware of the difficulty of addressing the large variety
CS A B C C D B of items to be considered in practice, we still consider that the
5 CS A C B B C B
quality function (3) summarizes the main aspects to be taken into
6 ES A A A A B C
account for decision-makers and contains enough information to
help selecting the best location for energy plants based on marine
currents.
The maximum values of function V found in the area are
Table 3 slightly greater than 30 and are located principally in the deep
Numerical values assigned to the parameters (XYYY and XYY) in Eq. (3). The first layer 6 over ES. Going one step ahead in the interpretation of the
block is for the restrictive indicators and the second block for the non-restrictive numerical values of V we could classify the candidate places
ones (see text). Rows XYYY and XYY in either block show the numerical value of the as unfeasible (Vo 15), acceptable (15 oV o20), advisable (20 o
parameter which depends on the actual value of the associated indicators (I, TAT,
TFP, TFU, FN and FS) discussed in the text. For instance, in a place where TAT is 65%,
Vo25), and very suitable (V 425). Fig. 9 shows the function V in
its associated parameter XTAT would be 1, if it was 80%, XTAT would be 2, and so on. layers 1, 5 and 6, where it reaches values greater than 20 some-
where. It is readily seen that the best conditions (V 4 25 or even V
(XYYY) Value 430) are met in layer 6 over ES, a conclusion that is easily inferred
from Table 2 as well. Layer 5 shows good conditions over CS and
0 1 2 3
ES, although it compares unfavorably with layer 6 in this place. CS

2
Restrictive I (W m ) o200 [200, 500] [500, 800] Z 800 is also the best place in layer 1 due to the strength of currents,
TAT (%) o50 [50, 75] [75, 90] Z 90 although it is an arguable choice for devices that require uni-
TFP (%) o75 Z75 – –
directionality. For this kind of devices, ES in layer 6 is the best site
TFU (%) o50 [50, 80] Z80 –
by far (Fig. 6b).
(XYY) 0 0.10 0.15 0.20

Nonrestrictive FN (m s
1) o0.05 [0.05, 0.15] [0.15, 0.25] Z 0.25

FS (s
1) o0.02 [0.02, 0.04] [0.04, 0.06] Z 0.06 5. Subinertial influence

shows weaknesses regarding other indicators. Currents there are As already mentioned, meteorological forcing drives relatively
mainly bidirectional and but they show high fluctuations around important flow fluctuations at subinertial time-scale, which in
the two main directions (poor rating for TFP and TFU). Moreover turn modifies the averaged energy flux. This section estimates the
the periodic reversal makes TAT diminish. Additionally, CS is the effect of these fluctuations focusing on layer 6 over ES which,
place of internal wave generation, which affects the FN indicator according to previous section, is the most suitable place from the
negatively too. Except for the shear, all the defined indicators have point of view of the quality function V to install a power plant.
low rating. On the contrary, ES have a very good rating for all them At subinertial time-scale, the total flow is well reproduced as
(except for the shear) because currents do not reverse (they the linear superposition of a mean, U 0 , and meteorologically
maintain sign and direction) the flow tends to be supercritical induced fluctuations, U m ðtÞ [36,46,47]. Under this assumption,
there [35,55], which inhibits the upstream propagation of internal U m ðtÞ averages to zero in the computation of the long-term
waves and, hence, propitiates a very low FN. averaged flow, and U total ¼ U 0 þ U m ðtÞ ¼ U 0 (h i indicating time
average). Obviously, this result is not valid for energy flux that
depends on the cube of the water velocity, which indicates that
4.1. Quality function meteorologically driven fluctuations change the average energy
flux.
In order to attempt to extract a single index of suitability from The numerical results analyzed in this work cannot address this
the series of the indicators computed, a quality function has been influence directly since the model does not include meteorological
defined according to Table 2 as follows: forcing. A first guess of its size can be done assuming that U m ðtÞ is
V ¼ ½2X 2I þ X I ðX TAT þ X TFP þ X TFU Þð1
X FN Þð1
X FS Þ ð3Þ sinusoidal of frequency s and amplitude equal to rU 0 , where r is
the size of the amplitude of the meteorological fluctuation relative
where parameters XYYY quantify the different indicators according to the mean flow, which is usually less than 1 because meteor-
to Table 3. The numerical values of the parameters in this table aim ological forcing reverses the mean flow only exceptionally [56].
at quantifying the qualitative rating in Table 2, assigning the value Thus, U m ðtÞ ¼ rU 0 sin ðstÞ and U total ¼ U 0 ð1 þ r sin ðstÞÞ. According
0 to qualifier “D”, 1 to “C” and so on. There are however exceptions to Eq. (1), the average energy flux would be proportional to
in those parameters that appear less relevant, such as the sign of 〈U 3total 〉 ¼ U 30 〈ð1 þ r sin ðstÞÞ3 〉. For a sinusoidal dependence, the
the flux, XTFP, which only can take the values 0 and 1, or the time average between brackets, computed over a period of the
directionality, XTFU. On the other hand, the first three indicators fluctuation ðT ¼ 2π =sÞ is straightforwardly computed to give
defined in the previous section (TAT, TFP, and TFU) are directly ð1 þ 1:5r 2 Þ and, therefore 〈U 3total 〉 ¼ ð1 þ 1:5r 2 ÞU 30 . The first term of
related with the capability of the device to optimize the extraction the parenthesis in the RHS is the energy flux in absence of
of energy and their assigned indices enter Eq. (3) as summands, meteorological forcing and the second one would be the averaged
while the last two ones (FN and FS) are rather related to the mean increase due to a meteorological fluctuation of relative amplitude r.
life of the device and enter the equation as factors. We will call A meteorological fluctuation of amplitude r ¼ 0.3 that changes the
 M.C. Calero Quesada et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 34 (2014) 98–109 107

12’
Layer: 1 Layer: 5
6’ Flux: Positive SPAIN Flux: Mean SPAIN
Period: Total Period: Total

36oN

54’

48’
MOROCCO MOROCCO
42’
12’ 6oW 48’ 36’ 24’ 12’ 12’ 6oW 48’ 36’ 24’ 12’

12’ 30
Layer: 6 27
6’ Flux: Mean SPAIN 24
Period: Total 21
36oN 18
15

V
54’ 12
9
48’ 6
MOROCCO 3
42’
o
0
12’ 6 W 48’ 36’ 24’ 12’

Fig. 9. Quality function (V in the text). Panels (a), (b) and (c) are for layers 1, 5 and 6, respectively.

0 between 26 and 71 m indeed, for maritime safety reasons) over

the CS and most of the eastern half of the strait gathers good
−0.5
conditions from the point of view of current strength. Computed
Volume Tr. (Sv)

−1 averaged fluxes in these areas can exceed 1.8 kW m
2.

There are other properties of the flow, however, that must be
−1.5 taken into account. In most areas of the strait, the tide is strong
enough to reverse flows [27,29,33], a situation that may be
−2
unwanted specially for horizontal axis MCTs [9,22], but there are
−2.5
other areas where these reversals do not take place or, in the worst
15/01/10 01/02/10 15/02/10 01/03/10 15/03/10 01/04/10 scenario, they happen very sporadically [29,38]. Also the strait is a
Fig. 10. Mediterranean outflow estimated from observations collected by the
paradigm of sheared flow and a well-known place of generation of
monitoring station of ES (see asterisk in Fig. 1). The horizontal line is the mean high frequency internal waves [35], two flow properties that must
flow, which is around
1.3 Sv. be harmful for MCTs. For these reasons we have defined a set of
5 indicators that provide additional information about those flow
mean velocity up to 30% will carry out an increase of the energy properties that may influence the selection of a place among all
flux of 0.135, that is, 13.5%. places with good conditions from the point of view of the energy
The Mediterranean outflow has been monitored in ES since flux. When these indicators are considered, the surface layer
year 2004 [57], which allows us to make an approximate estima- shows evident weakness regarding the flow noise (an indicator
tion of r directly from the observations there. Fig. 10 shows that, on defined to account for the effect of high frequency internal waves)
average, the amplitude of the subinertial fluctuations are in the or the directionality of the flow, since CS area is subjected to
range of 0.3–0.4 Sv (Sverdrup, 1 Sv ¼106 m3 s
1) for a mean out- periodical flow reversals. Flow shear affects the deeper, near-
flow of 1.3 Sv in absolute value, which gives a value in the range bottom layers negatively due to bottom friction and tidally driven
0.25–0.31 for r. Therefore, the meteorologically forced subinertial flow reversals produce undesirable fluctuations of the flow direc-
fluctuations can increase the estimated averaged energy fluxes by tion, which are considered harmful for the working device, etc.
a 10–15% at ES. In this location very strong currents reaching For these reasons, an attempt to quantify all the influencing
1800 W m
2 have been found, hence tidal forcing contributes to factors has been made by defining a quality function that prior-
overcome the intensity by 200–300 W m
2 but V does not change itizes the energy flux over the rest of indicators and combines
because I takes the maximum value in Table 3. them linearly to return a single index of suitability. This function
has been contoured for the layers of interest (Fig. 9) and allows us
to conclude that the near-bottom layer (275–325 m depth) over ES
6. Summary and conclusions area gathers the best conditions for installing a power plant to
extract energy from marine currents. With this conclusion in
The non-hydrostatic version of MIT-gcm has been implemented mind, a short study of the meteorological influence (which was
in a high resolution grid in the Strait of Gibraltar to estimate the not accounted for in the model) on the estimated energy flux has
energy fluxes associated with marine currents in the Strait of been addressed by using observations collected in the very ES
Gibraltar and to identify areas suitable for exploiting this renew- area. The study shows that the meteorologically-driven flow
able energy resource. The study shows that near-bottom layer over fluctuations may increase the computed energy flux in around
CS and ES areas and the surface layer (a subsurface shallow layer 10–15%.
108 M.C. Calero Quesada et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 34 (2014) 98–109

Acknowledgments [23] Funke SW, Farrel PE, Piggott MD. Tidal turbine array optimization using the
adjoint approach. Renew Energy 2014;63:658–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2013.09.031.
This work has been funded by the Regional Government of [24] Wang S, Yuan P, Li D, Jiao Y. An overview of ocean renewable ernergy in China.
Junta de Andalucia (Spain) through Proyecto de Excelencia RNM- Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:91–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
3738 (FLEGER). Partial support from CTM2010-21229-C02 of the 2010.09.040.
[25] Ramos V, Iglesias G. Performance assessment of tidal stream turbines: a
Spanish Ministry of Economy and CTM-2008-04150E of the parametric approach. Energy Convers Manag 2013;69:49–57. http://dx.doi.
European MarinERA activities are also acknowledged. JCSG org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.01.008.
acknowledges a Juan de la Cierva Postdoctoral Grant (JCI-2012- [26] Candela J, Winant C, Ruiz J. Tides in the Strait of Gibraltar. J Geophys Res
1990;95:7313–35.
13451) from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivness. [27] Sánchez Román A, Sannino G, García-Lafuente J, Carrillo A, Criado-Aldeanueva
We are grateful to Gianmaria Sannino from the Modelling Unit of F. Transport estimates at the western section of the Strait of Gibraltar: a
ENEA (Italy) for his assistance in the development of the numerical combined experimental and numerical modeling study. Geophys Res
2009;114:C06002, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JC005023.
model used in this study. Some of the numerical calculations [28] O'Rourke F, Boyle F, Reynolds A. Tidal current energy resource assessment in
presented in this work were carried out at the Supercomputing Ireland: current status and future update. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
and Bioinnovation Center of the University of Málaga. This is the 2010;14:3206–12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.039.
[29] García Lafuente J, Vargas JM, Plaza F, Sarhan T, Bascheck B, Candela J. Tide at
publication no. 51 from CEIMAR Publication Series.
the eastern section of the Strait of Gibraltar. J Geophys Res
2000;105:14197–213.
[30] Bruno M, Alonso JJ, Cózar A, Vidal J, Ruiz Cañavete A, Echevarría F, et al. The
References boiling water phenomena at Camarinall Sill, the Strait of Gibraltar. Deep Sea
Res II 2002;49:4097–113.
[1] Bedard R, Jacobson PT, Previsic M, Musial W, Varley R. An overview of ocean [31] Bryden Kinder. Steady two-layer exchange through the Strait of Gibraltar.
renewable energy technologies. Oceanography 2010;23(2):22–31. http://dx. Deep Sea Res 1991;38(S1):S445–63.
doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2010.40. [32] Delgado J, García Lafuente J, Vargas JM. A simple model for submaximal
[2] Thresher R, Musial W. Ocean renewable energy's potential role in supplying exchange through the Strait of Gibraltar. Sci Mar 2001;65(4):313–22.
future electrical energy needs. Oceanography 2010;23(2):16–21. http://dx.doi. [33] Sannino G, Bargagli A, Artale V. Numerical modelling of the mean exchange
org/10.5670/oceanog.2010.39. through the Strait of Gibraltar. J Geophys Res 2002;107(C8):3094, http://dx.
[3] Mueller M, Jeffrey H, Wallace R, von Jouanne A. Centers for marine renewable doi.org/10.1029/2001JC000929.
energy in Europe and North America. Oceanography 2010;23(2):42–52. http:// [34] Sannino G, Bargagli A, Artale V. Numerical modelling of the semidiurnal tidal
dx.doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2010.42. exchange through the Strait of Gibraltar. J Geophys Res 2004;109:C05011,
[4] Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). Ocean http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JC002057.
renewable energy: 2015–2050. An analysis of ocean energy in Australia. 2012. [35] Sánchez Garrido JC, Sannino G, Liberti L, García Lafuente J, Pratt L. Numerical
[5] O'Rourke F, Boyle F, Reynolds A. Renewable energy resource and technologies modeling of three dimensional stratified tidal flow over Camarinal Sill, Strait
applicable to Ireland. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:1975–84, http://dx. of Gibraltar. J Geophys Res 2011:116, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007093.
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.01.014. [36] Farmer DM, Armi L. Maximal two-layer exchange over a sill and through the
[6] De Falcao A. Wave energy utilization: a review of technologies. Renew Sustain combination of a sill and contraction with barotropic flow. J Fluid Mech
Energy Rev 2010;14:899–918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.11.003. 1986;164:53–76.
[7] Drew B, Plummer AR, Sahinkaya MN. A review of wave energy converter [37] García Lafuente J, Criado Aldeanueva F. Física de la Tierra. Oceanografía física:
technology. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part A: J Power Energy 2009;223:887, http: su investigación en España. Número 13. 2001.
//dx.doi.org/10.1243/09576509JPE782. [38] Armi L, Farmer DM. The flux of the Mediterranean water through the Strait of
[8] Burman K, Walker A. Ocean energy technology overview: federal energy Gibraltar. Prog Oceanogr 1988;21:1–105.
management program (FEMP). http://dx.doi.org/10.2172/962501. [39] Armi L, Farmer DM. The internal hydraulics of the Strait of Gibraltar and
[9] O'Rourke F, Boyle F, Reynolds A. Marine current energy devices: current status associated sills and narrows. Oceanol. Acta 1985;8:37–46.
and possible future applications in Ireland. Renew Sustain Energy Rev [40] Sánchez Garrido JC. Generación y propagación de ondas internas en el
2010;14:1026–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.11.012. Estrecho de Gibraltar: Efectos 3-D y de rotación [PhD thesis]. University of
[10] O'Rourke F, Boyle F, Reynolds A. Tidal energy update 2009. Appl Energy Granada; 2009.
2010;87:398–409, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.08.014. [41] Sánchez Garrido JC, García Lafuente J, Criado-Aldeanueva F, Baquerizo A,
[11] Goundar JN, Rafiuddein AM. Marine current energy resource assessment and Sannino G. Time-spatial variability observed in velocity of propagation of the
design of a marine current turbine for Fiji. Renew Energy 2013:1–9. http://dx. internal bore in the Strait of Gibraltar. J Geophys Res 2008:113, http://dx.doi.
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.06.036. org/10.1029/2007JC004624.
[12] Amelio M, Barbarelli S, Florio G, Scornaienchi NM, Minniti G, Cutrupi A, et al. [42] García Lafuente J, Bruque Pozas E, Sánchez Garrido JC, Sannino G, Sammartino
Innovative tidal turbine with central deflector for the exploitation of river and S. The interface mixing layer and the tidal dynamics at the eastern part of the
sea currents in on-shore installations. Appl Energy 2012;97:944–55, http://dx. Strait of Gibraltar. J Mar Syst0924-7963 2013;117–118:31–42. http://dx.doi.
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.044. org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.02.014.
[13] Rashid A. Status and potentials of tidal in stream energy resources in the [43] Hanson HP, Bozek A, Duerr AE. The Florida current: a clean but challenging
southern coast of Iran: a case study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev energy resource. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 2011;92:29–36, http://dx.doi.
2012;16:6668–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.08.010. org/10.1029/2011EO040001.
[14] Jo Chul hee, Yim Jin young, Lee Kang hee, Rho Yu ho. Performance of [44] Hanson HP, Skemp SH, Alsenas GM, Coley CE. Power from the Florida current.
horizontal axis tidal current turbine by blade configuration. Renew Energy A new perspective on an old vision. Am Meteorol Soc 2010. http://dx.doi.org/
2012;42:195–206, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.08.017. 10.1175/2010BAMS3021.1.
[15] Muller M, Wallace R. Enabling science and technology for marine renewable [45] Zhou Z, Benbouzid M, Charpentier JF, Scuiller F, Tang T. A review of energy
energy. Energy Policy 2008;36:4376–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol. storage technologies for marine current energy systems. Renew Sustain
2008.09.035. Energy Rev 2013;18:390–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.006.
[16] Khan MJ, Bhuyan G, Iqbal MT, Quaicoe JE. Hydrokinetic energy conversion [46] Candela J, Winant C, Bryden HL. Meteorologically forced subinertial flows
system and assessment of horizontal and vertical axis turbines for river and through the Strait of Gibraltar. J Geophys Res 1989;94:12667–74.
tidal applications: a technology status review. Appl Energy 2009;86:1823–35, [47] García Lafuente J, Alvarez Fanjul E, Vargas JM, Ratsimandresy AW. Subinertial
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.02.017. variability in the flow through the Strait of Gibraltar. J Geophys Res 2002;107
[17] Goude A, Agren O. Simulations of a vertical axis turbine in a channel. Renew (C10):3168, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001JC001104.
Energy 2014;63:477–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.09.038. [48] 〈http://mitgcm.org/sealion/online_documents/node2.html〉.
[18] Grogan DM, Leen SB, Kennedy CR, Ó'Brádaigh CM. Design of composite tidal [49] Marshall J, Hill C, Perelman L, Adcroft A. Hydrostatic, quasi-hydrostatic and
turbine blades. Renew Energy 2013;57:151–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. non-hydrostatic ocean modelling. J Geophys Res 1997;102:5733–52.
renene.2013.01.021. [50] Marshall J, Adcroft A, Hill C, Perelman L, Heisey C. A finite-volume, incom-
[19] Liu P, Veitch B. Design and optimization for strength and integrity of tidal pressible Navier Stokes model for studies of the ocean on parallel computers.
turbine rotor blades. Energy 2012;46:393–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. J Geophys Res 1997:5753–66.
energy.2012.08.011. [51] MEDAR Group. Medatlas 2002: Mediterranean and Black Sea database of
[20] Goundar JN, Rafiuddein AM. Design of a horizontal axis tidal current turbine. temperature, salinity and bio-chemical parameters climatological atlas. In:
Appl Energy 2013;111:161–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.04. European Commission Marine Science and Technology Programme. Paris;
064. 2002.
[21] Bahaj AS. Generating electricity from the oceans. Renew Sustain Energy Rev [52] Carter GS, Marriefield MA. Open boundary conditions for regional tidal
2011;15:3399–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.04.032. simulations. Ocean Model 2007;18:194–209.
[22] Li Y, Lence BJ, Calisal SM. An integrated model for estimating energy cost of a [53] Kevin AH, Fritz MH, French SP, Smith BT, Neary V. Assessment of energy
tidal current turbine farm. Energy Convers Manag 2011;52:1677–87, http://dx. production potential from tidal stream in the United States [Final project
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.10.031. report]. Georgia Research Corporation; 2011 (DE-FG36-08G018174).
 M.C. Calero Quesada et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 34 (2014) 98–109 109

[54] 〈http://www.tidalstreampower.gatech.edu/〉. [57] Naranjo C, García Lafuente J, Sánchez Garrido JC, Sánchez Román A, Delgado
[55] Sannino G, Pratt L, Carillo A. Hydraulic criticality of the exchange flow through Cabello J. The Western Alboran Gyre helps ventilate the Western Mediterra-
the Strait of Gibraltar. J Phys Oceanogr 2009;39:2779–99, http://dx.doi.org/ nean Deep Water through Gibraltar. Deep Sea Res Part I: Ocean Res Pap
10.1175/2009JPO4075.1. 2012;63:157–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2011.10.003.
[56] Garcia Lafuente J, Delgado J, Criado F. Inflow interruption by meteorological
forcing in the Strait of Gibraltar. Geophys Res Lett 2002;29:19.