TobepresentedatCoastalManagment2011,Belfast

IainFairley,MilesWillis,IanMasters,1

The Potential Future Wave Resource Utilisation around Wales

Iain Fairley, College of Engineering, Swansea University Miles Willis, College of Engineering, Swansea University Ian Masters, College of Engineering, Swansea University

Abstract
A GIS analysis is used to determine potential deployment areas for wave energy converters in Welsh waters. It is shown that there are substantial areas suitable for wave farm development. A numerical wave model, SWAN, is used as a tool to test the impact and viability of extracting Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) marine renewable energy targets from the GIS defined extraction areas. The effect of wave farms in English waters on Welsh resource is also tested. Wave farms in SW England could cause at most a 10% reduction in wave energy in Welsh deployment areas, but the prime deployment areas around Pembrokeshire would be largely unaffected. This paper suggests that there is a 1.6GW deployment capacity in Welsh waters. However, this magnitude of deployment is unlikely given competing demands on sea space. If it is possible to deploy wave devices of this capacity, under peak generation conditions then coastal reduction in wave height is likely to be noticeable. This may have effects on the south west Gower coast, exposed coasts between Tenby and Milford haven in Pembrokeshire and around Whitesands, based on the tested 1.6GW scenario. It is suggested that numerical modelling of wave resource is crucial to accurately predict technical and practical resources.

Introduction
Marine renewable energy generation is a growth industry due to the rising cost of fossil fuels, the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and improve security of energy supply. The United Kingdom has an excellent wave resource; concentrated offshore from South West England and Wales and the North-West of Scotland (ABPmer 2008). Proximity to large ports, industry, associated infrastructure and population centres means that deployment in Wales is attractive in terms of energy demand and supply chain issues. Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) is committed to producing a significant portion of Welsh energy from marine renewable energy projects. Aspirational targets have been set by WAG for marine renewable energy extraction from Welsh waters of 4GW by 2025 (Davidson 2009). This means that, assuming a 50-50 split between wave and tidal power generation, 2GW of wave energy converters (WECs) will be required. Based on a Wave Dragon (Wave Dragon, 2005) rated at 4MW, this means that 500 devices, with dimensions 260 x 150m, will have to be deployed in Welsh waters. Realisation of such a target will require significant effort on the part of the marine renewable industry, research institutes and WAG. An EU funded Low Carbon Research Institute (LCRI) Marine consortium has been set up to facilitate the successful development of this growth sector. The LCRI Marine consortium (www.lrcimarine.org.uk) involves several Welsh academic institutions and aims to provide

TobepresentedatCoastalManagment2011,Belfast

IainFairley,MilesWillis,IanMasters,2

independent research, resolve challenges and support the growth of the renewable energy industry in Wales. Location specific challenges to marine energy deployment include spatial planning with conflicting sea use, reduction of environmental impact and improving public support in stakeholder groups. The extraction of wave energy leads to a reduction in resource in a farms lee. Therefore far field reduction in wave energy will occur and may detrimentally impact on the downstream environment. This could lead to competition for resource both between individual farm developers and between regions (e.g. England and Wales). Planning and licensing of wave farm developments will fall to the MMO and Crown Estate, it is suggested here that a numerical modelling assessment of resource degradation will be required to adequately plan future developments. The prime wave energy resource in Welsh waters occurs off the coast of Pembrokeshire where there are marine conservation areas and the recreational value of the marine environment is high. Hence proper understanding of the potential environmental impact of energy extraction in these areas is particularly important. Previous numerical modelling work on the environmental impact of wave energy converters has largely considered the effect of individual demonstration wave energy projects on the marine environment (Palha et al. 2010; Millar et al. 2007). Clearly, as technologies develop and deployments increase, the cumulative effects of many farms will need to be considered to fully understand environmental impacts. As far as the author is aware no research has been conducted to consider cumulative effects of wave energy extraction from multiple farms, with regional scale work limited to strategic resource assessments at present (PMSS, 2006; PMSS, 2010; RPS Group, 2011). Purely map based assessments can overestimate resource since the effect of removing energy from the system on available resource is not considered. This paper aims to address this knowledge gap and looks to the future on a regional scale based on consideration of the Welsh resource. The effect of wave farms in South West English waters on the Welsh resource is considered based on locations suggested by the PMSS ORRAD (2010) report. Potential deployment locations around the Welsh coast are determined by inputting existing spatial planning constraints and technological limitations into a GIS framework. A SWAN wave model is then used to investigate a hypothetical scenario based on Wave Dragons deployed in these areas and test the viability and potential effect of extracting WAG energy targets (Davidson, 2009) from the wave resource in Welsh waters. Scenarios are run for summer and winter wave and wind conditions. Tests of the baseline conditions (no wave energy extraction) allow for calculation of the percentage reduction in wave height in the lee of the proposed farms.

Methodology
GIS Analysis ArcGIS is used to determine the potential sea area available for WEC deployment in Welsh waters. Existing macro scale marine spatial planning constraints including marine conservation areas and military areas are considered. Only macro scale spatial constraints are considered in this analysis. Smaller scale constraints such as marine archaeology sites and existing undersea cables can also constrain wave energy deployment but these constraints affect the specific location of devices rather than general farm areas. Shipping lanes, military areas, dredging areas and proposed wind farms are considered to exclude the possibility of wave farm deployment. The MoD will consider the deployment of some devices in some MOD areas but that decisions will be on a case by case basis (RPS

TobepresentedatCoastalManagment2011,Belfast

IainFairley,MilesWillis,IanMasters,3

Group 2010) and hence the whole areas are excluded in this work.. Shipping lane exclusions are based on the IMO routing locations and on satellite ship tracking (ESA, 2009). Conservation areas are not considered to exclude deployment but are assumed to be less preferable to non-protected areas for farm deployment given the lengthier consenting process associated with environmentally sensitive areas. Deployment areas are also constrained by technological limitations of devices. These limitations vary depending on device and are expected to be reduced with improvements to technology. Limitations considered here are maximum water depth and minimum wave energy flux (wave power). Minimum wave energy flux is based on the summer conditions. The cut-off level is taken as 15kW/m, in line with the recommended value from a resource assessment of SW England (PMSS, 2010). This study is more stringent than PMSS (2010), taking mean summer (low wave) conditions rather than an annual mean. Wave energy flux (P) is defined as: P=ECg; where: E=wave energy; Cg=wave group velocity.

The same study (PMSS, 2010) suggests that by 2050 a likely maximum distance offshore is 50km, based on technological and economic considerations, and this limit is adopted in this work. Territorial waters, where a country has rights to marine resources, extend to 12 nautical miles; however wave farm developments can potentially be deployed further offshore. Given the devolution of energy supply there may be resource competition between wave farm developers in England and Wales. Equally, competition may arise between Wales and Ireland due to their proximity. In this study it is assumed that the same line as the fishery divisions will be used to demarcate the sea areas available to each nation for energy extraction. Numerical Modelling using SWAN The third generation spectral wave model SWAN (Zijlema, 2010; Booij et al. 1999) was used in this research. An unstructured triangular grid was created using BatTri (Bilgili et al. 2006) and the Triangle mesh generator (Shewchuk, 1996), The domain covers the SW approaches and Irish sea (Figure 1). Wave conditions are implemented at the boundary marked incident in Figure 1, wind conditions are forced over the whole mesh. Given the hypothetical nature of the study, large study region, and lack of data, default settings (SWAN, 2010) are used in the model. A sensitivity test was conducted for the bed friction parameter and only a 0.05m difference noticed for extremes in suggested values. Two input conditions are tested: summer and winter. Summer conditions are calculated as mean conditions between the months April-September and winter conditions denote mean conditions from October to March. Wave conditions are based on a model output point, at N50.5, W7.5, from a 66 year wave hindcast computed by Dodet et al (2010). Summer conditions consist of the following wave parameters: significant wave height Hs= 1.74m; peak period Tp= 9s; and direction = 79. Winter conditions are: Hs=3.3m; Tp=12s and =79. The local wind field is calculated from the NCEP NCAR reanalysis dataset of monthly means from January 1948 October 2010 (Kalnay et al. 1996). Wind speeds at a height of 10m are used. The summer and winter wind fields used are shown in Figure 2. The wave farms are implemented using the SWAN command Obstacle which allows implementation of a blockage with a wave transmission co-efficient. In these scenarios, the

TobepresentedatCoastalManagment2011,Belfast

IainFairley,MilesWillis,IanMasters,4

4MW Wave Dragon devices are used, which have a wave transmission co-efficient (Tr) of 0.68 (Black, 2007). Work on array optimisation conducted for the Wave Dragon device in a north sea wave climate (Beels et al. 2010), suggests that optimal arrays consist of two staggered lines of WECs with separations of two device lengths spacing both lengthwise and depth wise. This array lay-out is used in this study. The gaps between devices increase wave transmission and hence for the whole farm length Tr= 0.78. To investigate the impact of English farms on Welsh resource, a worst case scenario is desired. Therefore, for this part of the study it is assumed that deployed farms could absorb all incident waves (Tr=0). Potential deployment locations around the coast of south west England were taken from a resource assessment (PMSS, 2010) which gives areas and expected deployment capacities for 2010-2030. The relevant areas, capacities and required deployment lengths are shown in Table 1. Farms were positioned both close to the English 12nm territorial limit line (based on the precedent set by the Wave Hub development) and at the 50km technical limit. Angle of line was based on the PMSS (2010) prescribed areas and on incident wave direction. Since the motivation was to look at any changes to the Welsh wave resource based on English wave farms, the farms for the North Cornwall deployment area were situated as far north in the region as possible. The same approach was not taken for the Lundy area as it is thought that deployments are more likely to be closer to the mainland to minimise access and cabling costs. The locations of the tested farms in English waters are displayed in Figure 3. The wave arrays in Welsh waters were deployed as farms with a power rating of 100MW, which is a likely array size for 2025 (PMSS, 2010). This corresponds to 25 Wave Dragons in a 9.75km line when set up in the described (Beels et al. 2010) array. Larger farm sizes are considered unrealistic based on navigation concerns. To reach the WAG 2GW target 20 such farms must be deployed. The model was run with 20 farms distributed through the potential deployment areas with the locations optimised visually to avoid wave shadowing of nearby farms. The wave energy flux was then computed for the summer case with the farms deployed. The same flux constraint of 15kW/m was applied and any farms that were located in regions where the flux was lower than 15kW/m were removed and the model re-run. Percentage reductions in wave height induced by the presence of the wave farms were then calculated for the summer and winter scenarios.

Figure 1: The mesh used in numerical Figure 2: Wind fields for A) Winter and modelling B) Summer

TobepresentedatCoastalManagment2011,Belfast

IainFairley,MilesWillis,IanMasters,5

Table 1: Deployment areas and capacities in English waters Deployment area Estimated capacity (MW) Length of deployment(km) Lundy 100 10.9 North Cornwall 540 58.6

Figure 3: Locations of the wave farms tested to investigate the possible impact of English deployments.

Results
GIS Analysis The GIS analysis identified three areas that have no constraints prohibitive to wave farm deployment (Figure 4). Figure 4 shows the potential deployment areas in grey and the limits of the conservation areas as thin black lines. Of these deployment areas, the area labelled B in Figure 4 is considered to be the most likely to be developed, despite the presence of conservation areas. Area A is further offshore and the other side of the shipping lane which means that cabling to shore and maintenance visits will become more costly, although the wave resource will be higher in parts. Area C is further into the Bristol Channel and hence has lesser wave exposure and greater tidal modulation of wave heights (reducing wave energy on the ebb tide). This is exacerbated by being behind the Atlantic array which may have a detrimental effect on the incident wave energy. Another consideration is that area C is close to the shore of the Gower Peninsula, an area of great touristic value and Waless prime surfing resource; hence development may meet strong local opposition.

Figure 4: A map showing the potential deployment locations for wave energy converters around Wales.

TobepresentedatCoastalManagment2011,Belfast

IainFairley,MilesWillis,IanMasters,6

Swan wave modelling Effect of English wave farms on Welsh resource. Despite setting a zero wave transmission co-efficient for the hypothesized farm locations to examine a worst case scenario, only a small effect on the Welsh wave resource is noticeable in the areas available for wave energy extraction. Contour plots of wave energy reduction for the 12nm case are shown in Figure 5. Based on the tested 12nm offshore scenario, the only area affected is deployment area C (figure 4), where wave energy reduction is less than 8% in both winter and summer. The greatest effect is for the near-shore areas around Port Talbot, with offshore wave resources being reduced between 2-6%. The effect of English farms would increase to over 10% reduction in wave energy in deployment area C if farms were deployed to the proposed technological and economical limit of 50km. Conversely, the effect of English farms would decrease to below 2% wave energy reduction if the Lundy deployment area was excluded.

Figure 5: A contour plot of percentage changes to wave energy based on the deployment of wave farms in English waters, for winter conditions (A) and summer conditions (B). Welsh farms Constraints based on wave energy flux means that a maximum of 1.6GW could be extracted from the three deployment areas. Figure 6 shows the wave energy flux for the 2GW case with the farms that do not receive sufficient wave power to be commercially viable marked with an asterisk. Deployment area A could hold 5 100MW farms and Area B could potentially hold 10 100MW farms. Area C could only cater for 1 100MW farm, given its size, shape and location in a lesser wave resource. Figure 7 shows the percentage reduction in wave height behind the deployed farms for summer and winter. In both conditions the same regions are most affected by the reduction in wave height. These regions are the south Gower coastline, the Pembrokeshire coastline between Tenby and Milford Haven and around Whitesands, to the west of St Davids. Offshore, the wave reduction is greater, exceeding 20% in the lee of some farms. Reductions in wave height propagate further into the Bristol Channel for the summer condition compared to the winter condition. Conversely, in winter, reduction in wave heights propagate further into Cardigan Bay. These differences are small being around 2%.

TobepresentedatCoastalManagment2011,Belfast

IainFairley,MilesWillis,IanMasters,7

Figure 6: A map of wave energy flux P >15kW/m with the 20 100MW farms in place. The farms which have insufficient power available to be commercially viable are marked with an asterisk.

Figure 7: Contours of percentage wave height reduction for a) winter and b) summer.

Discussion
Several assumptions have been made regarding wave array deployment; however, given the strategic level of the work, the authors feel that the assumptions are acceptable. Moreover, until wave energy converter technology is further developed and the first large scale arrays are implemented, no more concrete information is available and assumptions must be made. Only Wave Dragon devices were considered. Other WECs could also have be considered, however this would have generated much more information with little benefit to the study. Wave Dragons have greater power ratings than other devices and hence a lower number of units need to be deployed for the same peak capacity. In reality, it is likely that a range of devices will be installed. The authors believe that device type does not significantly affect the main conclusions of this work. Likewise, differing deployment locations would affect the exact locations of maximum wave height reduction but the regions of wave height reduction will be broadly similar given the constraints on deployment locations and hence testing many different scenarios is not helpful given the illustrative nature of this study. Future work could extend this by testing other device arrays; other locations and using more sophisticated implementation of wave absorption by farms. WECs are normally tuned to a specific wave

TobepresentedatCoastalManagment2011,Belfast

IainFairley,MilesWillis,IanMasters,8

height and period. This often means that the long period waves, as favoured by surfers, are not affected to the same extent as shorter period waves. Equally, large waves are not captured to avoid damage to the WEC. To extend the work in this direction, commercially sensitive device specific technical information would be required. Deployments of wave farms in English waters, based on PMSS (2010), are unlikely to produce a significant effect on the energy in prime Welsh deployment areas. Only the area least likely to be developed, area C, is affected. However, reduction in South Wales wave resource could have impacts on coastal tourism. The affected near-shore areas, Porthcawl and South Gower, are prime tourism locations for surfing, beach going and other marine based recreation. It should also be noted that the Welsh deployments furthest east in the model also have an effect on these regions. Hence there needs to be cross-border discussion over farm placement. This study shows that there is significant potential for deployment of wave farms around the Welsh coast. The area of sufficient wave energy flux in Welsh waters calculated in this study is larger than in the Renewable Energy Atlas (ABPmer 2008). Mean summer wave conditions rather than annual mean wave conditions (ABPmer 2008) are used here so the described area is not only larger but more commercially viable. The WAG target of 4GW of installed marine renewable devices by 2025, may not be achievable via a direct split of 2GW wave and 2GW tidal. Wave power is likely to be able to supply a significant part, but this work suggests that given one particular type of wave device, a maximum of 1.6GW of wave energy converters could be deployed in Welsh waters. However, tuning of devices to the wave climate in South West Wales may lead to greater potential deployment capacities. Only offshore wave farms are considered in this study. There is some potential to deploy near- and on-shore located wave energy devices, particularly around Port Talbot and Porthcawl, and this could boost wave energys contribution to WAG targets. It is probable that the tested 1.6GW deployment levels will not be implemented because an excessive amount of sea space is then utilised for wave farms which would affect other maritime interests. Sufficient sea space must be left free for shipping, recreational boat traffic, fishing and other activities. In deployment areas B and C, there is the added consenting complication of conservation areas. Both positive and negative impacts of wave farms have been described (Inger et al. 2009; Boehlert and Gill 2010; Langhamer et al. 2010). Positive impacts include the structures acting as fish aggregation devices, by default deployment areas become no-take zones and both these increase bio-diversity. On the negative, there is the potential for the structures, moorings and cabling to act as stepping stones for undesirable invasive species. Purely map based studies, while valuable to identify potential deployment regions, are not sufficient to accurately predict deployment capacities because the impact of energy extraction cannot be included. A numerical wave model of potential scenarios is required to investigate the impact of adjacent farms on mutual resource; this then allows determination of maximum deployment levels within GIS defined regions. The authors believe an iterative procedure is required to facilitate maximum deployment with minimum impact. Once areas that are likely to be impacted by wave height reductions have been identified, baseline studies can establish maximum permissible wave height reductions. Reductions in wave height at the coast have the potential to affect physical processes, tourism, and ecology. These maximum permissible reductions can then be used to guide the selection of wave farm deployment sites and sizes.

TobepresentedatCoastalManagment2011,Belfast

IainFairley,MilesWillis,IanMasters,9

This study suggests that the Welsh coastal regions most likely to be affected by reductions in wave energy are the South Gower coast, the Pembrokeshire coastline between Tenby and Milford Haven and the coastline west of St Davids around Whitesands. While the exact patterns of wave height reduction will depend on the number and type of wave energy devices deployed, due to the spatial constraints on deployments, the affected areas described in this hypothetical study are likely to be correct. The South Gower coastline comprises of rocky coastlines with limestone platforms and small (<500m) sandy beaches, broken by two larger protected bays: Port Eynon and Oxwich. The protected beaches are less likely to be affected by wave height reduction; however some of the exposed, sandy beaches, such as Slade and Mewslade, which are highly geologically constrained, may display greater sensitivity. These beaches are mainly important as tourist beaches. In Pembrokeshire the coastline consists of sea cliffs and sandy beaches such as Freshwater West, Marloes, Newgale and Whitesands. These beaches are again geologically constrained, but larger than the exposed beaches on South West Gower, with lengths between 600-2700m. Again tourism is the primary function of these beaches. Partners within LCRI Marine has already investigated the baseline processes at Tenby (Thomas et al. 2010; Thomas et al. 2011) and future investigation is planned on beaches in Pembrokeshire to develop understanding of baseline coastal processes. This will enable informed decisions about potential effects of wave height reduction on beach morpho-dynamics and facilitate consenting of future farms. The predicted affected areas are co-incident with the popular tourism regions of Gower and Pembrokeshire. Reductions in wave height have the potential to negatively affect tourism by reducing the surfing quality of a location. Surf tourism has been boomed in the last decade with specialist shops and surf schools heavily depending on the tourist trade. There is likely to be strong local opposition to deployments which will affect wave resource at popular surfing locations. Conversely, research has shown families to actively seek sheltered beaches and hence this group may benefit from a reduction in wave height (Phillips and House 2010). However this group is unlikely to be pro-actively concerned about wave farm siting. There is concern about reduction of the aesthetic value of the coast caused by offshore installations. The low height of wave energy converters coupled with the distance offshore of deployment means the converters themselves are unlikely to be considered visually obtrusive. However, cable landfalls and associated substations need to be sympathetically designed so that they are not perceived to impact on coastal aesthetics. In order to quantitatively assess potential changes, work is currently being undertaken to provide a financial value for touristic, ecological and aesthetic assets in the Welsh marine environment.

Conclusions
There are three main potential areas for offshore wave energy developments in Wales. Of these, the area offshore from Pembrokeshire is the most likely to be developed. Wave developments in England are unlikely to affect the primary wave resource around Pembrokeshire but could affect wave resource in the Bristol Channel, particularly around Porthcawl. It is estimated that a maximum capacity of 1.6GW could be installed in Welsh waters. Deployment on this scale could lead to reductions in wave height in some areas, primarily South West Gower and Pembrokeshire. This level of wave height reduction has the potential to impact on physical processes, tourism, and ecology, however the level of impact is uncertain. This work suggests geographical areas where focussed research effort into these topics may be fruitful to allow informed consenting and facilitate responsible siting of marine energy devices.

TobepresentedatCoastalManagment2011,Belfast

IainFairley,MilesWillis,IanMasters,10

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the use of BatTri, Triangle, and SWAN. Thanks to RPS, Pembrokeshire coastal forum, South Wales Sea Fisheries and Pembrokeshire ranges for data and assistance. The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of the Welsh Assembly Government, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, the Welsh European Funding Office, and the European Regional Development Fund Convergence Programme.

References
ABPmer (2008). Atlas of UK Marine Renewable Energy Resources: Technical Report. , Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform. Beels, C., P. Troch, et al. (2010). "Application of the time-dependent mild-slope equations for the simulation of wake effects in the lee of a farm of Wave Dragon wave energy converters." Renewable Energy 35(8): 1644-1661. Bilgili, A., K. W. Smith, et al. (2006). "BatTri: A two-dimensional bathymetry-based unstructured triangular grid generator for finite element circulation modeling." Computers & Geosciences 32(5): 632-642. Black, K. P. (2007). Review of Wave Hub Technical Studies: Impacts on inshore surfing beaches. ASRltd, prepared for SWRDA. Boehlert, G. W. and A. B. Gill (2010). "Environmental and Ecological Effects of Ocean Renewable Energy Development: A Current Synthesis." Oceanography 23(2): 68-81. Booij, N., R. C. Ris, et al. (1999). "A third-generation wave model for coastal regions - 1. Model description and validation." Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans 104(C4): 7649-7666. Davidson, J. (2009). "Ministerial Policy Statement on Marine Energy in Wales,." from http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/energy/renewable/marine/marineenergy/;jsessionid= Jm1TL8hdsSwGnfywgTq2N1nS9n0615rk0TnvLDqH19rhhTBGZGTt!2003708271?lang=en. Dodet, G., X. Bertin, et al. (2010). "Wave climate variability in the North-East Atlantic Ocean over the last six decades." Ocean Modelling 31(3-4): 120-131. ESA. (2009). Retrieved 10/02/2011, from http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMBDI0OWUF_index_0.html. Inger, R., M. J. Attrill, et al. (2009). "Marine renewable energy: potential benefits to biodiversity? An urgent call for research." Journal of Applied Ecology 46(6): 1145-1153. Kalnay, E., M. Kanamitsu, et al. (1996). "The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 77(3): 437-471. Langhamer, O., K. Haikonen, et al. (2010). "Wave power: Sustainable energy or environmentally costly? A review with special emphasis on linear wave energy converters." Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 14(4): 1329-1335. Millar, D. L., H. C. M. Smith, et al. (2007). "Modelling analysis of the sensitivity of shoreline change to a wave farm." Ocean Engineering 34(5-6): 884-901. Palha, A., L. Mendes, et al. "The impact of wave energy farms in the shoreline wave climate: Portuguese pilot zone case study using Pelamis energy wave devices." Renewable Energy 35(1): 62-77. Phillips, M.R., House, C.(2009).An evaluation of Priorities for Beach Tourism: Case Studies from South Wales, UK. Tourism Management. 30(2):176-183 PMSS (2006). Wales Marine Energy Site Selection. PMSS, Bath,, Report prepared for Welsh Development Agency. PMSS (2010). Offshore Renewables Resource Assesment and Development (ORRAD) Project - Technical Report. , Report prepared for South West Regional Development Agency. RPSgroup (2010). The Potential for Interaction between Wave and Tidal Stream Devices with Military Interests in Welsh Waters, on behalf of Welsh Assembly Government. RPSgroup (2011). Marine renewable energy strategic framwork for Wales, RPS group. Shewchuk, J. S. (1996). Triangle: Engineering a 2D Quality Mesh Generator and Delauney Triangulator. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin, Springer-Verlag. 1148: 203-222. SWAN (2010), SWAN User Manual, Delft University of Technology, DELFT, The Netherlands Thomas, T., M. R. Phillips, et al. (2010). "Mesoscale evolution of a headland bay: Beach rotation processes." Geomorphology 123(1-2): 129-141. Thomas, T., M. R. Phillips, et al. (2011). "Short-term beach rotation, wave climate and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)." Progress in Physical Geography: 1-19. Wave Dragon. (2005). Retrieved 10/02/2011, from http://www.wavedragon.net/. Zijlema, M. "Computation of wind-wave spectra in coastal waters with SWAN on unstructured grids." Coastal Engineering 57(3): 267-277.