The Impact of Offshore Photovoltaic Utilization on Resources and Environment Using Spatial Information Technology
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Overview of the Study Area
3. Data Processing and Research Methods
3.1. Marine Hydrographic Data
3.1.1. Hydrographic Observation Data
3.1.2. Marine Ecological Survey Data
3.2. Hydrodynamic Research Methods
3.2.1. Mathematical Modeling
3.2.2. Model Setting
- Model calculation area:
- Calculation domain mesh segmentation:
- Model shoreline and underwater topography:
- Boundary conditions:
- Calculation time step:
- Bed roughness coefficient:
- Horizontal eddy viscosity coefficient:
- Koch’s force:
3.3. Assessment of Damage to Marine Living Resources
3.3.1. Assessment Methodology
3.3.2. Assessment of Damage to Marine Living Resources within the Dispersal Range of Pollutants
4. Results and Analysis
4.1. Marine Hydrographic Analysis
4.1.1. Tide Level and Current Verification
4.1.2. Analysis of the Tidal Field in the Marine PV Area
4.1.3. Changes in Flow Vectors after the Completion of the PV Area
4.1.4. Prediction of Flow Velocity Changes in PV Zones
4.1.5. Analysis of Environmental Impacts of Silt Flushing
4.2. Analysis of Ecological and Resource Impacts of Sea Use
4.2.1. Ecological Impacts during Construction and Operation Periods
4.2.2. Analysis of Impacts on Marine Ecosystem Service Functions
- Species habitat:
- Aquaculture production:
- Pollutant purification:
4.2.3. Loss of Marine Life
5. Discussion and Outlook
5.1. Marine PV Construction Planning
5.2. Site Selection Rationality
5.3. Measures for Marine Area Use
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wilberforce, T.; Baroutaji, A.; El Hassan, Z.; Thompson, J.; Soudan, B.; Olabi, A.G. Prospects and challenges of concentrated solar photovoltaics and enhanced geothermal energy technologies. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 659, 851–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jiang, J.X.; Gao, X.Q. Research progress on climate effect and influence mechanism of photovoltaic systems. Plateau Meteorol. 2022, 41, 953–962. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunnett, S.; Sorichetta, A.; Taylor, G. Harmonised global datasets of wind and solar farm locations and power. Sci. Data 2020, 7, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Breyer, C.; Bogdanov, D.; Gulagi, A.; Aghahosseini, A.; Barbosa, L.S.N.S.; Koskinen, O.; Barasa, M.; Caldera, U.; Afanasyeva, S.; Chile, M.; et al. On the role of solar photovoltaics in global energy transition scenarios. Prog. Photovolt. 2017, 25, 727–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schuman, S.; Lin, A. China’s Renewable Energy Law and its impact on renewable power in China: Progress, challenges and recommendations for improving implementation. Energy Policy 2013, 51, 89–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mercado, L.M.; Bellouin, N.; Sitch, S.; Boucher, O.; Huntingford, C.; Wild, M.; Cox, P.M. Impact of changes in diffuse radiation on the global land carbon sink. Nature 2009, 458, 1014–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Araki, K.; Nagai, H.; Lee, K.H.; Yamaguchi, M. Analysis of impact to optical environment of the land by flat-plate and array of tracking PV panels. Sol. Energy 2017, 144, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armstrong, A.; Ostle, N.J.; Whitaker, J. Solar park microclimate and vegetation management effects on grassland carbon cycling. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016, 11, 074016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, L.M.; Tian, Y.H.; Roy, S.B.; Thorncroft, C.; Bosart, L.F.; Hu, Y.L. Impacts of wind farms on land surface temperature. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2012, 2, 539–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, L.Q.; Wang, Z.X.; Zhang, H.Q.; Xue, Y.C. Solar energy development in China-A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 301–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, P.D.; Gao, X.Q.; Jiang, J.X.; Yang, L.W.; Li, Y.J. Characteristic Analysis of Water Quality Variation and Fish Impact Study of Fish-Lighting Complementary Photovoltaic Power Station. Energies 2020, 13, 4822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, J.W.; Guo, F.J.; Li, X.Z.; Huang, X.; Men, H.J. Risk assessment of offshore photovoltaic projects under probabilistic linguistic environment. Renew. Energy 2021, 163, 172–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trapani, K.; Millar, D.L. Proposing offshore photovoltaic (PV) technology to the energy mix of the Maltese islands. Energy Convers. Manag. 2013, 67, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, S.; Jiang, N.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, P.P.; Zhao, P.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Y.H. Discussion on the development of offshore floating photovoltaic plants, emphasizing marine environmental protection. Front. Mar. Sci. 2024, 11, 1336783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghosh, A. A comprehensive review of water based PV: Flotavoltaics, under water, offshore & canal top. Ocean Eng. 2023, 281, 115044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Y.W.; Li, Y.; Wang, R.; Ma, R.F. Assessing the national synergy potential of onshore and offshore renewable energy from the perspective of resources dynamic and complementarity. Energy 2023, 279, 128106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, X.D.; Yu, H.M.; Zhang, D.Z.; Li, G.; Wan, J.Y.; Cai, D.Q. Analysis of the development trend of the water surface PV industry. Sol. Energy 2023, 8, 5–12. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GB12763-2007; Specifications for Oceanographic Survey. Standardization Administration: Beijing, China, 2007.
- GB17378.7-2007; The Specification for Marine Monitoring. Standardization Administration: Beijing, China, 2007.
- SC/9403-2012; Technical Specification for Marine Fishery Resources Sources. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2013.
- SC/T9110-2007; Technical Regulations for Impact Assessment of Construction Projects on Marine Living Resources. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2008.
- Zhu, C.J.; Liang, Q.; Yan, F.; Hao, W.L. Reduction of Waste Water in Erhai Lake Based on MIKE21 Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model. Sci. World J. 2013, 2013, 958506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SC/T 9110-2007; Technical Procedures for Evaluating the Impact of Construction Projects on Marine Living Resources. Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences: Beijing, China, 2007.
- GB 11607; Water Quality Standard for Fisheries. Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 1989.
- GB 3097; Sea Water Quality Standard. Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2003.
- Ren, Z.J.; Wang, Z.A.; Lu, H.J. Mike21 Application of Software Pile Group Generalization Methods to High-Pile Wharves. Port Waterw. Eng. 2017, 10, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hooper, T.; Armstrong, A.; Vlaswinkel, B.; Centre, L.E.; La, L. Environmental impacts and benefits of marine floating solar. Sol. Energy 2021, 219, 11–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taormina, B.; Bald, J.; Want, A.; Thouzeau, G.; Lejart, M.; Desroy, N.; Carlier, A. A review of potential impacts of submarine power cables on the marine environment: Knowledge gaps, recommendations and future directions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 96, 380–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ziar, H.; Prudon, B.; Lin, F.V.; Roeffen, B.; Heijkoop, D.; Stark, T.; Teurlincx, S.; Domis, L.S.; Goma, E.G.; Extebarria, J.G.; et al. Innovative floating bifacial photovoltaic solutions for inland water areas. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2020, 29, 725–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, N.; Duan, H.B.; Shan, Y.L.; Reed Miller, T.; Yang, J.K.; Bai, X.M. Booming solar energy is encroaching on cropland. Nat. Geosci. 2023, 16, 932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, C.C.; Zheng, W.; Shi, H.H.; Ding, D.W.; Wang, Z.L. Assessment and regulation of ocean health based on ecosystem services: Case study in the Laizhou Bay, China. Acta Oceanol. Sin. 2015, 34, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pringle, A.M.; Handler, R.M.; Pearce, J.M. Aquavoltaics: Synergies for dual use of water area for solar photovoltaic electricity generation and aquaculture. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 80, 572–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imani, M.; Fakour, H.; Lo, S.L.; Yuan, M.H.; Chen, C.K.; Mobasser, S.; Muangthai, I. Aquavoltaics Feasibility Assessment: Synergies of Solar PV Power Generation and Aquaculture Production. Water 2023, 15, 987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, G.Y.; Gu, H.B.; Wang, W.Y.; Zhang, S.L.; Xue, L.F. Evaluation of Subdaily Hydrological Regime Alteration Characteristics for Hydro–Photovoltaic Complementary Operation in the Upper Yellow River. Water 2024, 16, 300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, F.W.; Lu, Z.Q.; Guo, Z.H.; Wang, Y.; Ma, L. The Effects of a Fishery Complementary Photovoltaic Power Plant on the Near-Surface Meteorology and Water Quality of Coastal Aquaculture Ponds. Water 2024, 16, 526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez, G.G.; Martín, M.A.P. Water Management Adaptation to Climate Change in Mediterranean Semiarid Regions by Desalination and Photovoltaic Solar Energy, Spain. Water 2023, 15, 3239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aschale, T.M.; Sciuto, G.; Peres, D.J.; Gullotta, A.; Cancelliere, A. Evaluation of Reference Evapotranspiration Estimation Methods for the Assessment of Hydrological Impacts of Photovoltaic Power Plants in Mediterranean Climates. Water 2022, 14, 2268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tay, Z.Y. Three-Dimensional Hydroelasticity of Multi-Connected Modular Offshore Floating Solar Photovoltaic Farm. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasti, F.; Mamkhezri, J.; McFerrin, R.; Pezhooli, N. Optimal solar photovoltaic site selection using geographic information system–based modeling techniques and assessing environmental and economic impacts: The case of Kurdistan. Sol. Energy 2023, 262, 111807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colak, H.; Tugba, M.; Yasin, G. Optimal site selection for solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants using GIS and AHP: A case study of Malatya Province, Turkey. Renew. Energy 2020, 149, 565–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Tian, Z.Q.; Liu, B.L.; Chen, S.Y.; Wu, J.H. Effects of photovoltaic power station construction on terrestrial ecosystems: A meta-analysis. Conserv. Restor. Ecol. 2023, 11, 1151182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clive, S. Geographical Dimensions to Global Oceans Governance. Geogr. Rev. 2021, 113, 20–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malone, T.C.; DiGiacomo, P.M.; Gonçalves, E.; Knap, A.H.; Talaue-McManus, L.; de Mora, S.; Muelbert, J. Enhancing the Global Ocean Observing System to meet evidence based needs for the ecosystem-based management of coastal ecosystem services. Nat. Resour. Forum 2014, 38, 168–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Observation Station | Bathymetry (m) | Test Content |
---|---|---|
N01 | 7.2 | Fixed-point flow measurement, sand content, suspended sand, substrate quality |
N02 | 7.3 | Fixed-point flow measurement, sand content, suspended sand, substrate quality |
N03 | 5.8 | Fixed-point flow measurement, sand content, suspended sand, substrate quality |
N04 | 14.4 | Fixed-point flow measurement, sand content, suspended sand, substrate quality |
N05 | 8.5 | Fixed-point flow measurement, sand content, suspended sand, substrate quality |
N06 | 12.6 | Fixed-point flow measurement, sand content, suspended sand, substrate quality |
N07 | 21.5 | Fixed-point flow measurement, sand content, suspended sand, substrate quality |
W1 | Tide level | |
W2 | Tide level |
Investigative Projects | Survey Methods |
---|---|
Water samples | Surface water samples were collected from water depths less than 10 m, while surface and bottom water samples were collected from depths greater than 10 m. Petroleum samples were collected only at the surface. |
Plankton | Phytoplankton: Nets were used, and a shallow water type III vertical trawl net was used for shallow water areas. Zooplankton: Nets were used (shallow water type I net). |
Benthic organisms | a. Survey method in 2017: Bottom sediment was collected using a 0.05 m2 mud bucket, with two collections made at each station, and the average value of the two collections was taken as the biomass and population density of the station. b. Survey method in 2020: A sediment sampler (0.1 m2) was used for collection, with four collections made at each station, and the average value of the four collections was taken as the biomass and population density of the station. |
Intertidal zone organisms | a. Survey method in 2017: Sampling frames of 0.5 m × 0.5 m were used in the high, middle, and low intertidal zones. After filtration through sieves with aperture sizes of 5.0, 1.0, and 0.5 mm, the species composition, biomass, and population density were recorded. Qualitative and quantitative samples were also collected on foot and fixed with formalin for laboratory analysis and identification. b. Survey method in 2020: For each cross-section of the intertidal zone, four quantitative sampling points were set for the high, middle, and low intertidal zones, with a randomly selected sampling area of 0.0625 m2 and a depth of 30 cm. The organisms were collected through a 1 mm2 aperture sieve, and qualitative specimens were collected around each sampling point, with substrate conditions recorded. |
Biomass | Representative local organisms were selected from the biological samples collected from the 12 large-area stations during autumn fisheries resource trawling in September 2020 for biomass analysis. The sample collection, storage, pretreatment, and analysis were conducted according to the standard methods in the “Marine Survey Specifications” (GB12763-2007) [18]. Fish and crustaceans collected during the 2018 May swimming organism survey, and shellfish collected during the intertidal zone survey were also subjected to biomass analysis. |
Fishery resources survey | Fish eggs and larvae surveys were conducted simultaneously with the marine ecological survey, with survey stations matching those of the marine ecological survey. The methods for fish eggs and larvae surveys were carried out in accordance with the “Marine Monitoring Specifications” (GB17378.7-2007) [19]. Swimming organism fixed-point trawl surveys were conducted according to the “Marine Fishery Resources Survey Specifications” (SC/9403-2012) [20] and the “Technical Regulations for Environmental Impact Assessment of Construction Projects on Marine Biological Resources” (SC/T9110-2007) [21]. |
Station Number | Tide | Tide Level Errors | |
---|---|---|---|
(m) | (%) | ||
W1 | high | 0.12 | 2.4 |
low | 0.16 | 5.5 | |
W2 | high | 0.11 | 2.2 |
low | 0.18 | 6.4 |
Station Number | Average Flow Rate Error | Average Flow Direction Error | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
(m/s) | (%) | (°) | (%) | |
1 | 0.04 | 8.9 | 15 | 4.2 |
2 | 0.06 | 12.6 | 16 | 4.4 |
3 | 0.07 | 15.6 | 18 | 5.0 |
4 | 0.07 | 15.2 | 14 | 3.9 |
5 | 0.05 | 10.8 | 19 | 5.3 |
6 | 0.06 | 14.6 | 12 | 3.3 |
Project Components | Occupied Intertidal Area (ha) | Intertidal Biomass (g/m2) | One-Time Loss of Biomass (t) | Compensation Years | Loss of Biomass (t) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Permanent sea occupation | 0.75 | 24.43 | 0.18 | 20 | 3.6 |
Cofferdam occupied sea area | 2.28 | 0.56 | 3 | 1.68 | |
Disturbed area within the cofferdam | 161.3336 | 39.39 | 3 | 118.17 | |
Total | 40.13 | 123.45 |
Fisheries Resources | Concent-Ration | Diffusion Area (m2) | Average Water Depth (m) | Diffusion Volume (m3) | Resource Density | Loss Rate | Survival Rate | One-time Loss Volume | Duration of Impact | Continuing Loss Volume |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Phytoplank-ton | 10~100 mg/L | 1,870,000 | 1.3 | 2,431,000 | 1.7 × 105 ind/m3 | 20% | / | 826.54 × 108 | 1 | 13.59 × 1010 cells |
100~150 mg/L | 270,000 | 1.3 | 351,000 | 30% | 179.01 × 108 | |||||
>150 mg/L | 320,000 | 1.3 | 416,000 | 50% | 353.6 × 108 | |||||
Zooplankt-on | 10~100 mg/L | 1,870,000 | 1.3 | 2,431,000 | 66.9 mg/m3 | 20% | 10% converted to lower swimming animals | 3252.678 g | 1 | 5.35 kg |
100~150 mg/L | 270,000 | 1.3 | 351,000 | 30% | 704.457 g | |||||
>150 mg/L | 320,000 | 1.3 | 416,000 | 50% | 1391.52 g | |||||
Fish eggs | 10~100 mg/L | 1,870,000 | 1.3 | 2,431,000 | 0.16 grains/m3 | 20% | 1% | 777.92 grains | 1 | 1.28 × 103 grains |
100~150 mg/L | 270,000 | 1.3 | 351,000 | 30% | 168.48 grains | |||||
>150 mg/L | 320,000 | 1.3 | 416,000 | 50% | 332.8 grains | |||||
Juvenile fish | 10~100 mg/L | 1,870,000 | 1.3 | 2,431,000 | 0.248 tails/m3 | 20% | 5% | 6028.88 tails | 1 | 9.91 × 103 tails |
100~150 mg/L | 270,000 | 1.3 | 351,000 | 30% | 1305.72 tails | |||||
>150 mg/L | 320,000 | 1.3 | 416,000 | 50% | 2579.2 tails | |||||
Adult fish | 10~100 mg/L | 1,870,000 | / | / | 0.249 g/m2 | 10% | / | 46,563 g | 1 | 75.94 kg |
100~150 mg/L | 270,000 | / | / | 20% | 13,446 g | |||||
>150 mg/L | 320,000 | / | / | 20% | 15,936 g |
Fisheries Resources | Concent-Ration | Diffusion Area (m2) | Average Water Depth (m) | Diffusion Volume (m3) | Resource Density | Loss Rate | Survival Rate | One-Time Loss Volume | Duration of Impact | Continuing Loss Volume |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Phytopla-nkton | 10~100 mg/L | 1,150,000 | 1.3 | 1,495,000 | 1.7 × 105 ind/m3 | 20% | / | 508.3 × 108 | 1 | 6.30 × 1010 cells |
100~150 mg/L | 50,000 | 1.3 | 65,000 | 30% | 33.15 × 108 | |||||
>150 mg/L | 80,000 | 1.3 | 104,000 | 50% | 88.4 × 108 | |||||
Zooplank-ton | 10~100 mg/L | 1,150,000 | 1.3 | 1,495,000 | 66.9 mg/m3 | 20% | 10% converted to lower swimming animals | 2000.31 g | 1 | 2.48 kg |
100~150 mg/L | 50,000 | 1.3 | 65,000 | 30% | 130.455 g | |||||
>150 mg/L | 80,000 | 1.3 | 104,000 | 50% | 347.88 g | |||||
Fish eggs | 10~100 mg/L | 1,150,000 | 1.3 | 1,495,000 | 0.16 grains/m3 | 20% | 1% | 478.4 grains | 1 | 0.59 × 103 grains |
100~150 mg/L | 50,000 | 1.3 | 65,000 | 30% | 31.2 grains | |||||
>150 mg/L | 80,000 | 1.3 | 104,000 | 50% | 83.2 grains | |||||
Juvenile fish | 10~100 mg/L | 1,150,000 | 1.3 | 1,495,000 | 0.248 tails/m3 | 20% | 5% | 3707.6 tails | 1 | 4.59 × 103 tails |
100~150 mg/L | 50,000 | 1.3 | 65,000 | 30% | 241.8 tails | |||||
>150 mg/L | 80,000 | 1.3 | 104,000 | 50% | 644.8 tails | |||||
Adult fish | 10~100 mg/L | 1,150,000 | / | / | 0.249 g/m2 | 10% | / | 28,635 g | 1 | 35.11 kg |
100~150 mg/L | 50,000 | / | / | 20% | 2490 g | |||||
>150 mg/L | 80,000 | / | / | 20% | 3984 g |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, P.; Zhou, J.; Jin, X.; Shi, J.; Chan, N.W.; Tan, M.L.; Lin, X.; Ma, X.; Lin, X.; Zheng, K.; et al. The Impact of Offshore Photovoltaic Utilization on Resources and Environment Using Spatial Information Technology. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 837. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12050837
Wang P, Zhou J, Jin X, Shi J, Chan NW, Tan ML, Lin X, Ma X, Lin X, Zheng K, et al. The Impact of Offshore Photovoltaic Utilization on Resources and Environment Using Spatial Information Technology. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2024; 12(5):837. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12050837
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Peng, Jingru Zhou, Xinfei Jin, Jingchao Shi, Ngai Weng Chan, Mou Leong Tan, Xingwen Lin, Xu Ma, Xia Lin, Kaixuan Zheng, and et al. 2024. "The Impact of Offshore Photovoltaic Utilization on Resources and Environment Using Spatial Information Technology" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 12, no. 5: 837. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12050837
APA StyleWang, P., Zhou, J., Jin, X., Shi, J., Chan, N. W., Tan, M. L., Lin, X., Ma, X., Lin, X., Zheng, K., Wu, J., & Zhang, F. (2024). The Impact of Offshore Photovoltaic Utilization on Resources and Environment Using Spatial Information Technology. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 12(5), 837. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12050837