Individual Report

SITE SELECTION FRAMEWORK FOR OFFSHORE

WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

Raphael B. Dorilag
EgyE 231 – Energy Economics and Systems Evaluation
Offshore Wind Potential in the Philippines
 76,000 MW potential (NREL, 2001)

 10,000 sq-km with wind power density of

at least 300 W/m2.

 Philippines has 36,000 km of coastline

o lots of interfaces between land and sea.
Luzon

Mindoro

Panay

NREL, 2001
Negros

Mindanao
Offshore Wind Potential in the Philippines
 76,000 MW potential (NREL, 2001)

 10,000 sq-km with wind power density of

at least 300 W/m2.

 Philippines has 36,000 km of coastline

o lots of interfaces between land and sea.

NO OFFSHORE!
Offshore site selection problem
 High stakes
 involves large cost in investment and O&M
 the success of a wind energy development is strongly
dependent on the site
 Complicated structure
 Involves multiple dimensions of values such as cost, energy
production, reliability, safety, and conflict in space use must be
considered
 Different stakeholders has different interests and
objectives
Decision maker
 Engr. Ronaldo T. Angeles
 Senior Science Research Specialist
Solar and Wind Division, Renewable Energy Management
Bureau, Department of Energy

 Facilitate processing and issuance of solar and wind energy

service contracts in DOE
 Conducts wind energy resource assessment
Multi-attribute decision analysis
 Systematic and logical procedure based on a set of axioms for
rationally analyzing complex decision problems
 Treats extensively qualitative attitudinal characteristics and
perceptions

 Developed on the assumption that the attractiveness of alternatives

to the decision maker depends on the likelihood of the possible
consequences of each alternative and the decision maker’s
preference for those possible consequences
Method
1. Identifying alternatives
2. Specifying objectives and attributes
3. Describing possible impacts
4. Evaluating impacts
5. Analyzing and comparing alternatives
Identifying Alternatives
 Region of Interest: Philippines
 1 km Offshore
Identifying Alternatives
 Choosing screening criteria
 Wind power density  300 W/m2
Identifying Alternatives
 Choosing screening criteria
 Wind power density  300 W/m2
Candidate sites
1 2 Depth
# Location Wind Power Density (1 km offshore)
(W/m2) m
1 Burgos, Ilocos Norte 600 15
20
2 Sta. Ana, Cagayan 500 25
3 Bataan 350 9
19 5 4 Lubang Island 500 20
5 Polilio Island 450 5
3 6
6 Lamon Bay 420 8
4 8 7 Ragay Gulf 350 15
7 8 Abra de Ilog, Occ.Mindoro 500 100
12 17
9 9 Oriental Mindoro 600 15
10
11 10 Semirara Island 500 15
13
18 11 Malay, Aklan 400 53
14 12 Tablas Island 400 18
15 13 Pandan, Antique 400 18
14 Guimaras Strait 300 5
16 15 Anini-y, Antique 400 37
16 Dumaguete, Negros Or. 300 45
17 San Bernardino Strait 300 15
18 Guian, E. Samar 300 6
19 Zambales 300 100
20 Casiguran, Aurora 400 100
Identifying Alternatives
 Choosing screening criteria
 Distance from shore 1-30 km
 Depth  30m
Identifying Alternatives
 Choosing screening criteria
 Distance to marine protected
area  5 km

Marine protected
area
Candidate sites
1 2 Depth
# Location Wind Power Density (1 km offshore)
(W/m2) m
1 Burgos, Ilocos Norte 600 15
2 Sta. Ana, Cagayan 500 25
3 Bataan 350 9
5 4 Lubang Island 500 20
5 Polilio Island 450 5
3 6
6 Lamon Bay 420 8
4 7 Ragay Gulf 350 15
7 8 Abra de Ilog, Occ.Mindoro 500 100
12 17
9 9 Oriental Mindoro 600 15
10 10 Semirara Island 500 15
13
18 11 Malay, Aklan 400 53
14 12 Tablas Island 400 18
13 Pandan, Antique 400 18
14 Guimaras Strait 300 5
15 Anini-y, Antique 400 37
16 Dumaguete, Negros Or. 300 45
17 San Bernardino Strait 300 15
18 Guian, E. Samar 300 6
19 Zambales 300 100
20 Casiguran, Aurora 400 100
Specifying objectives and attributes

Good Site

Max Wind Max distance Min Max

Min conflict
Power Min Cost to protected Geophysical Electrification
of space use
Density areas Risk level

Min Max distance Max distance

Min Distance Min Typhoon Min Tsunami
Min Depth Earthquake to navigation to tourism
to Grid risk hazard
risk zones areas
Specifying objectives and attributes
Objectives:

X1 max Wind power density

X2 min Cost
X2.1 min Depth
X2.2 min Distance to grid interconnection
X3 max Distance to marine protected areas
X4 min Geophysical risk
X4.1 min Earthquake risk
X4.2 min Typhoon risk
X4.3 min Tsunami hazard
X5 max Electrification Level
X6 min Space use conflict
X6.1 min Navigation conflicts
X6.2 min Distance to tourism areas
Describe possible impacts
 X1, Wind power density
 greater wind power density means greater energy extracted from the turbine, greater
return for investors and more reliable energy for consumers

1
x1
u1(x1) x1
1 750 0.5 500
0 300 0.8
mid 525
0.6
0.5 500 0.25 380

u1(x1)
0 300
mid 400 0.4

1 750 0.75 600 0.2

0.5 500
mid 625
0
300 400 500 600 700
Wind power density, W/m2
Describe possible impacts
 X2.1, Depth u2.1(x2.1)
1
x2.1
5 0.5 12
 Cost of installation increases as the depth 0 30
mid 17.5
increases
 More cost in operation and maintenance 0.5
0
12
30
0.25 18

mid 21

1 5 0.75 10
0.5 12
mid 8.5

x2.1
1

0.8

0.6
u2.1(x2.1)

0.4

0.2

0
30 25 20 15 10 5
Depth, m
Describe possible impacts
 X2.2, Distance to grid interconnection / substation
Offshore wind farms must be near the grid interconnection stations so as to minimize
the cost of installing additional transmission lines and underwater cables.
Describe possible impacts
 X2.2, Distance to grid u2.2(x2.2)
1
x2.2
5 0.5 20
interconnection / substation 0 100
mid 52.5
Offshore wind farms must be near the
grid interconnection stations so as to 0.5 20 0.25 40
0 100
minimize the cost of installing additional mid 60
transmission lines and underwater
cables. 1
0.5
5
20
0.75 10

mid 12.5

x2.2
1

0.8

0.6

u2.2(x2.2)
0.4

0.2

0
85 65 45 25 5
Distance to grid interconnection, km
Marine Protected Areas
 X3, Distance to marine
protected areas
Offshore wind farms must not be
located near marine protected
areas
- Construction will disrupt the
marine ecology
- Noise from the wind turbine may
affect the ecosystem
- Construction of foundations will
disrupt the hydrodynamics of the
seabed
- Also considers migration path of
birds
Describe possible impacts
 X3 , Distance to marine protected areas

u3(x3) x3
1 200 0.5 30
0 6
mid 103

0.5 30 0.25 15
0 6 x3
1
mid 18

1 200 0.75 60 0.8

0.5 30
mid 115
0.6

u3(x3)
1 200 0.875 100
0.75 60 0.4
mid 130

0.2

0
5 55 105 155
Distance to marine protected areas, km
Describe possible impacts
Geophysical risk
X4.1, Earthquake risk

x4.1
1

0.8

0.6

u4.1(x4.1)
0.4

0.2

0
5 4 3 2 1
Earthquake Risk, constructed scale (1-5)

x4.1 u4.1(x4.1)
1 1
2 0.8
3 0.6
4 0.2
5 0
Describe possible impacts
Geophysical risk
X4.2 ,Typhoon risk
x4.2
1

0.8

0.6

u4.2(x4.2)
0.4

0.2

0
5 4 3 2 1
Typhoon Risk, constructed scale (1-5)

x4.2 u4.2(x4.2)
1 1
2 0.95
3 0.8
4 0.5
5 0
Describe possible impacts
Geophysical risk
X4.3

x4.3
1

0.8

0.6

u4.3(x4.3)
0.4

0.2

0
4 3 2 1
Tsunami Hazard, constructed scale (1-4)

x4.3 u4.3(x4.3)
1 1
2 0.6
3 0.3
4 0
Describe possible impacts
 X5 , Household Electrification Level
 Is it desirable that wind farms be
installed in areas that are not yet served
by the grid, or where the electrification
level is low

 The decision maker opted to eliminate this

attribute as offshore wind turbine is not a
good energy source for missionary
electrification as the cost of installation is
not economical for that purpose.
 Describe possible impacts
X6.1, Navigation route conflict 1
x6.1
 Installation of wind turbines will interfere with free
passage, and may cause hazard to navigation 0.8

 It is desirable to locate wind turbines away from these

navigation routes 0.6

u6.1(x6.1)
0.4

0.2

0
5 4 3 2 1
Navigational conflicts, constructed scale (1 -5 )

x6.1 u6.1(x6.1)
1 1
2 0.85
3 0.5
4 0.15
5 0
 Describe possible impacts
X6.2 , Distance to Tourism Areas 1
x6.2

 Installation of offshore wind turbines has undesirable 0.8

visual impact to certain sectors
 Resort owners might not want to obstruct the view of 0.6

u6.2(x6.2)
the ocean
0.4

0.2

0
7 27 47 67 87
Distance to beach/tourism areas, km

u6.2(x6.2) x6.2 x6.2 u6.2(x6.2)

1 100 0.5 15 100 1
0 7
40 0.875
mid 53.5
25 0.75
0.5 15 0.25 9 15 0.5
0 7 9 0.25
mid 11
7 0
1 100 0.75 25
0.5 15
mid 57.5

1 100 0.875 40
0.75 25
mid 62.5
 Evaluating Impacts
Test for Mutual Preferential Independence (MPI)
Main Model
WPD Geophysical Risk Cost Protected Space Use Electrification
Areas
x1 > x4 > x2 > x3 > x6 > x5
W/m2 uni t uni t km uni t percent
Most Preferred
750 1 1 200 1 47

300 0 0 6 0 99
Least Preferred

Pair
(x i_best, x ii_best) > (x i_worst, x ii_best)  xi PI xii
(x i_best, x ii_worst) > (x i_worst, x ii_worst)

x1 and x4
(750, 1, X_1,4) > (300, 1, X_1,4)  x4 PI X1 (750, 1) (750, 0)
(750, 0, X_1,4) > (300, 0, X_1,4) x1 and X4 are MPI

(750, 1, X_1,4) > (750, 0, X_1,4)  x1 PI X4

(300, 1) (300, 0)
(300, 1, X_1,4) > (300, 0, X_1,4)
 Evaluating Impacts
Test for Mutual Preferential Independence (MPI)
x1 and x2 (750, 1) (750, 0) x1 and X2 are MPI

(300, 1) (300, 0)

x1 and x3 (750, 200) (750, 6) x1 and X3 are MPI

(300, 200) (300, 6)

x1 and x6 (750, 1) (750, 0) x1 and X6 are MPI

(300, 1) (300, 0)

x1,x2 and x12_bar (750, 1, x12*) (300, 5, x12*) x1,X2 are x12_bar

(750, 1, x120) (300, 5, x120)

 Evaluating Impacts
Test for Mutual Preferential Independence (MPI)
X4 Nested Submodel
Typhoon Tsunami Earthquake
x4.2 > x4.3 > x4.1
scale scale scale
Most Preferred
1 2 1

5 4 5
Least Preferred
x4.2 and x4.3 (1, 2) (5,2) x4.2 and X4.1 are MPI

(1, 4) (5, 4)

x4.2 and x4.1 (1, 1) (5,1) x4.2 and X4.1 are MPI

(1, 5) (5, 5)

x4.4 and x4.1 (1, 1) (5,1) x4.3 and X4.1 are MPI

(1, 5) (5, 5)
Evaluating Impacts
Test for Mutual Preferential Independence (MPI)
X2 nested submodel
x2.1 and x2.2 (5, 5) (30,5) x2.1 and X2.2 are MPI

(5, 100) (30, 100)

X6 nested submodel
(x6.1,x6.2) (1, 100) (5,100) x6.1 and X6.2 are MPI

(1, 7) (5, 7)
 Evaluating Impacts
Test for Mutual Utility Independence (MUI)
Main Model
WPD Geophysical Risk Cost Protected Space Use Electrification X1 and X5
Areas
0.5 (750, 47, X_13)
x1 > x4 > x2 > x3 > x6 > x5
Lottery 1
W/m2 uni t uni t km uni t percent
Most Preferred 0.5 (300, 47, X_13)
750 1 1 200 1 47
0.5 (750, 99, X_13)
Lottery 2
0.5 (300, 99, X_13)
300 0 0 6 0 99
Least Preferred

L1 ~ L2  X1 UI X5

X1 and X4 X1 and X2 X1 and X3

0.5 (750, 1, X_1,4) 0.5 (750, 1, X_1,2) 0.5 (750, 200, X_13)
Lottery 1 Lottery 1 Lottery 1
0.5 (300, 1, X_1,4) 0.5 (300, 1, X_1,2) 0.5 (300, 200, X_13)

0.5 (750, 0, X_1,4) 0.5 (750, 0, X_1,2) 0.5 (750, 6, X_13)

Lottery 2 Lottery 2 Lottery 2
0.5 (300, 0, X_1,4) 0.5 (300, 0, X_1,2) 0.5 (300, 6, X_13)

L1 ~ L2  X1 UI X4 L1 ~ L2  X1 UI X2 L1 ~ L2  X1 UI X3
 Evaluating Impacts
Trade-off values
WPD Geophysical Risk Cost Protected Space Use Tradeoff between x1 and x4
1
Areas
x1 > x4 > x2 > x3 > x6
0.8
W/m2 unit unit km unit

0.6

u1(x1)
X1 and X1_bar
0.4
p (750, X_1*)
(750, X_10) 0.2

(1-p) (300, X_10)

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u4(x4), util

k4 = k1 * u1(x1’) = 0.3 (0.95) = 0.285

u(750, xbar10) = p u(750, xbar1*) + (1-p) u(300, xbar10)

Tradeoff between x1 and x2
1

p = 0.3
0.8

k1 = 0.3 0.6

u1(x1)
0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u2(x2), util

k2= k1 * u1(x1”) = 0.3 (0.90) = 0.27

 Evaluating Impacts
Trade-off values
WPD Geophysical Risk Cost Protected Space Use
Areas
x1 > x4 > x2 > x3 > x6
W/m2 unit unit km unit

Tradeoff between x1 and x3 Tradeoff between x1 and x6

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

u1(x1)
u1(x1)

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
5 55 105 155 k4 0= k1 * u10.2
(x1’) = 0.3
0.4(0.95) =
0.60.285 0.8 1
Distance to marine protected areas, km u6(x6), util

k3= k1 * u1(x1+) = 0.3 (0.75) = 0.225 k6= k1 * u1(x1++) = 0.3 (0.65) = 0.195
 Evaluating Impacts
Trade-off values
Tradeoff between Typhoon risk and Tsunami risk
X4 Nested Submodel
1
Typhoon Tsunami Earthquake
x4.2 > x4.3 > x4.1 0.8
s cal e s cal e s cal e
0.6

u4.2(x4.2)
(X4.1, X4.2, X4.3) 0.4

p (1,1,1) 0.2
(5, 1,4)
0
(1-p) (5,5,4) 4 3 2 1
Tsunami Hazard, constructed scale (1-4)

u(5,1,4) = p u(1,1,1) + (1-p) u(5,5,4) K4.3 = k4.2 * u4.2(x4.2’) = 0.4 (0.9) = 0.36

p = 0.4 Tradeoff between Typhoon risk and Earthquake risk

1

K4.2 = 0.4 0.8

0.6

u4.2(x4.2)
0.4

0.2

0
5 4 3 2 1
Earthquake risk, constructed scale (1-5)

k4.1= k4.2 * u4.2(x4.2”) = 0.4 (0.60) = 0.24

 Evaluating Impacts
Trade-off values
X2, Cost nested submodel Tradeoff between Depth and Grid Distance
1
Depth Grid Distance
x2.1 > x2.2 0.8

m km
0.6

u2.1 (x2.1)
0.4
(X2.1, X2.2)
p (5,5)
0.2
(5, 100)
(1-p) (30,100) 0
u(5,100) = p u(5,5) + (1-p) u(30,100) 85 65 45 25 5
Distance to grid interconnection, km

p = 0.80
k2.2= k2.1 * u2.1(x2.1’) = 0.8 (0.4) = 0.32
k2.1 = 0.8
 Evaluating Impacts
Trade-off values
X6, Space use nested submodel
Navigation Tourism areas Tradeoff between navigation and tourism areas
1
x2.1 > x2.2
s cal e km 0.8

0.6

u6.1(x6.1)
(X6.1, X6.2)
p (1,100) 0.4

(5, 7)
0.2
(1-p) (5,7)
u(5,7) = p u(1,100) + (1-p) u(5,7) 0
7 27 47 67 87
Distance to beach/tourism areas, km
p = 0.6
k6.2= k6.1 * u6.1(x6.1’) = 0.6 (0.2) = 0.12
K6.1 = 0.6
 Evaluating Impacts
Check for consistency
WPD Geophysical Risk Cost Protected Space Use
Areas Tradeoff between geophysical risk and wind
x1 > x4 > x2 > x3 > x6 power density
W/m2 unit unit km unit 1

0.8

(X4, X4_bar)
0.6
(1, x4_bar*)

u4(x4)
p
(1, x4_bar0) 0.4

(1-p) (5, x4_bar0) 0.2

0
300 400 500 600 700
u(1, xbar4 = p u(1, xbar4*) + (1-p) u(5, xbar4
0) 0) Wind power density, W/m2

p = 0.25 k1 = k4 * u4(x4’) = 0.25 (1.1) = 0.275

k1 = 0.25 k1_new = 0.275 > k4_new = 0.25

k1_previ = 0.3 > k4_prev = 0.285

consistent
 Evaluating Impacts
Check for consistency
WPD Geophysical Risk Cost Protected Space Use
Areas
x1 > x4 > x2 > x3 > x6
W/m2 unit unit km unit

Tradeoff between geophysical risk and cost

1 k2_new = 0.225 > k4_new = 0.25
0.8 k2_prev = 0.27 > k4_prev = 0.285

0.6
consistent
u4(x4)

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Cost, Util

k2 = k4 * u4(x4’) = 0.25 (0.9) = 0.2

Evaluating Impacts
Determine Utility Function
WPD Geophysical Risk Cost Protected Space Use
Areas
x1 > x4 > x2 > x3 > x6
W/m2 unit unit km unit

Main Model X2, Cost nested submodel

k1 = 0.3 k2.1 = 0.8
k4 = 0.285 k2.2 = 0.32
k2 = 0.27 k2.1 + k2.2 = 1.12
k3 = 0.225 multiplicative
k6 = 0.195
k1 + k2 + k3 + k4 + k6 = 1.275
X6, Space use nested submodel
multiplicative
k6.1 = 0.6
k6.2 = 0.12
X4, Geophysical risk nested submodel k6.1 + k6.2 = 0.72
k4.2 = 0.4
multilinear
k4.3 = 0.36
k4.1 = 0.24
k4.1 + k4.2 + k4.3 = 1.0
additive
Evaluating Impacts
Cost nested sub-model utility function

k2.1 0.8
Depth Distance to
k2.2 0.32
Grid
k -0.469 Location
Interconnectio
For consistency, impose n
(k+1) = (kk1+1) (kk2+1) u2.1(x2.1) u2.2(x2.2) u2(x2)
find k through numerical method

k = -0.469 1 Burgos, Ilocos Norte 0.35 0.27 0.35

2 Sta. Ana, Cagayan 0.07 0.63 0.25
3 Bataan 0.82 0.83 0.84
4 Lubang Island 0.19 0.00 0.15
5 Polilio Island 1.00 0.00 0.80
6 Lamon Bay 0.89 0.75 0.87
7 Ragay Gulf 0.35 0.18 0.33
9 Oriental Mindoro 0.35 0.35 0.37
10 Semirara Island 0.35 0.00 0.28
12 Tablas Island 0.25 0.00 0.20
13 Pandan, Antique 0.25 0.66 0.39
14 Guimaras Strait 1.00 0.75 0.95
17 San Bernardino Strait 0.35 0.75 0.49
18 Guian, E. Samar 0.99 0.32 0.85
Evaluating Impacts
Geophysical risk nested sub-model utility function
X4, Geophysical risk nested submodel
k4.2 = 0.4
k4.3 = 0.36
k4.1 = 0.24
k4.1 + k4.2 + k4.3 = 1.0
𝑢4 𝑥4 = 𝑘4.1 𝑢4.1 𝑥4.1 + 𝑘4.2 𝑢4.2 𝑥4.2 + 𝑘4.3 𝑢4.3 𝑥4.3
Earthquake Typhoon Tsunami
Location Risk Risk Hazard
u4.1(x4.1) u4.2(x4.2) u4.3(x4.3) u4(x4)

1 Burgos, Ilocos Norte 1 0.5 0.6 0.656

2 Sta. Ana, Cagayan 0.8 0 0.6 0.408
3 Bataan 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.476
4 Lubang Island 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.572
5 Polilio Island 0.8 0 0.3 0.300
6 Lamon Bay 1 0.5 0.3 0.548
7 Ragay Gulf 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.500
9 Oriental Mindoro 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.620
10 Semirara Island 0.8 0.95 0.3 0.680
12 Tablas Island 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.452
13 Pandan, Antique 0.8 0.95 0.3 0.680
14 Guimaras Strait 0.8 0.95 0.3 0.680
17 San Bernardino Strait 0.6 0 0.6 0.360
18 Guian, E. Samar 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.560
Evaluating Impacts
Space use nested sub-model utility function
X6, Space use nested submodel
k6.1 = 0.6
k6.2 = 0.12
k6.1 + k6.2 = 0.72
𝑢6 𝑥6 = 𝑘6.1 𝑢6.1 𝑥6.1 + 𝑘6.2 𝑢6.2 𝑥6.2 − 𝑘12 𝑢6.1 𝑥6.1 𝑢6.2 𝑥6.2

Location Navigation Recreational

u6.1(x6.1) u6.2(x6.2) u6(x6)

1 Burgos, Ilocos Norte 0.85 0.735 0.4232

2 Sta. Ana, Cagayan 0.85 1.000 0.3920
3 Bataan 0.5 0.649 0.2870
4 Lubang Island 0.5 0.893 0.2821
5 Polilio Island 0.5 0.500 0.2900
6 Lamon Bay 0.5 0.861 0.2828
7 Ragay Gulf 0.5 0.941 0.2812
9 Oriental Mindoro 0.5 0.563 0.2887
10 Semirara Island 0.5 0.649 0.2870
12 Tablas Island 0.5 0.649 0.2870
13 Pandan, Antique 0.5 0.144 0.2971
14 Guimaras Strait 0.5 0.886 0.2823
17 San Bernardino Strait 0.85 0.593 0.4401
18 Guian, E. Samar 0.85 0.000 0.5100
Evaluating Impacts
Main model utility function
Main Model
k1 = 0.3 k -0.48
k4 = 0.285
k2 = 0.27
k3 = 0.225
k6 = 0.195
k1 + k2 + k3 + k4 + k6 = 1.275

Location WPD Geophysical Cost Protected Space Use

Risk Areas
u1(x1) u4(x4) u2(x2) u3(x3) u5(x5) u(x)

1 Burgos, Ilocos Norte 0.783 0.656 0.353 1.000 0.423 0.708

2 Sta. Ana, Cagayan 0.606 0.408 0.253 0.935 0.392 0.579
3 Bataan 0.215 0.476 0.844 1.000 0.287 0.624
4 Lubang Island 0.606 0.572 0.155 0.750 0.282 0.547
5 Polilio Island 0.500 0.300 0.800 1.000 0.290 0.641
6 Lamon Bay 0.427 0.548 0.874 1.000 0.283 0.691
7 Ragay Gulf 0.215 0.500 0.328 1.000 0.281 0.519
9 Oriental Mindoro 0.783 0.620 0.374 0.800 0.289 0.652
10 Semirara Island 0.606 0.680 0.276 0.723 0.287 0.592
12 Tablas Island 0.373 0.452 0.200 0.803 0.287 0.482
13 Pandan, Antique 0.373 0.680 0.390 0.448 0.297 0.513
14 Guimaras Strait 0.000 0.680 0.950 0.750 0.282 0.601
17 San Bernardino Strait 0.000 0.360 0.485 0.123 0.440 0.327
18 Guian, E. Samar 0.000 0.560 0.854 0.250 0.510 0.498
 Analyzing and Comparing Alternatives
Location u(x) MDA Rank No Model Rank Comparison to without model
Burgos, Ilocos
0.708 1 1 No Model MDA
Norte 16
Guimaras Strait 0.601 6 2
14
Lamon Bay 0.691 2 3
Semirara Island 0.592 7 4 12
Ragay Gulf 0.519 10 5
10
San Bernardino
0.327 14 6
Strait
8
Bataan 0.624 5 7
Polilio Island 0.641 4 8 6

Oriental Mindoro 0.652 3 9

4
Tablas Island 0.482 13 10
Lubang Island 0.547 9 11 2

Pandan, Antique 0.513 11 12

0
Sta. Ana, Cagayan 0.579 8 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Guian, E. Samar 0.498 12 14

Analyzing and Comparing Alternatives
Scenario Analysis
 In the future, technologies will be
developed such that installation at
greater depth will be more economical 1
x2.1

x2.1 0.8
1

0.8
0.6

u2.1(x2.1)
0.6
u2.1(x2.1)

0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2
0
30 25 20 15 10 5
Depth, m 0
35 25 15 5
Depth, m

 Also, since there will be more wind farms

already installed around the country, new
transmission lines will be constructed
near the sites, so the distance to the
locations will be reduced
 Isolated islands will also be connected to
the grid
 Analyzing and Comparing Alternatives
Scenario Analysis

Location U(x)_scenr u(x)_orig U(x)_scenrario

u(x) ario 0.9
Burgos, Ilocos Norte 0.708 0.814
0.8
Lamon Bay 0.691 0.715
0.7
Oriental Mindoro 0.652 0.762
Polilio Island 0.641 0.659 0.6

Bataan 0.624 0.655 0.5

Guimaras Strait 0.601 0.612 u2(x2) 0.4

Semirara Island 0.592 0.706
0.3
Sta. Ana, Cagayan 0.579 0.709
0.2
Lubang Island 0.547 0.681
Ragay Gulf 0.519 0.640 0.1

Pandan, Antique 0.513 0.633 0.0

Guian, E. Samar 0.498 0.524
Tablas Island 0.482 0.617
San Bernardino Strait 0.327 0.445
 Analyzing and Comparing Alternatives
Scenario Analysis

Location
u(x) U(x)_scenrario Rank New_rank Rank Comparison to without model
Burgos, Ilocos No Model MDA Scenario
Norte 0.708 0.814 1 1 16

Guimaras Strait 0.601 0.612 6 12

14
Lamon Bay 0.691 0.715 2 3

Semirara Island 0.592 0.706 7 5 12

Ragay Gulf 0.519 0.640 10 9

10
San Bernardino
Strait 0.327 0.445 14 14
8
Bataan 0.624 0.655 5 8

Polilio Island 0.641 0.659 4 7 6

Oriental Mindoro 0.652 0.762 3 2 4

Tablas Island 0.482 0.617 13 11

2
Lubang Island 0.547 0.681 9 6

Pandan, Antique 0.513 0.633 11 10 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Sta. Ana, Cagayan 0.579 0.709 8 4

Guian, E. Samar 0.498 0.524 12 13

END