{"id":511,"date":"2022-10-21T15:34:34","date_gmt":"2022-10-21T21:34:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/etechmonkey.com\/?p=511"},"modified":"2022-10-21T15:38:14","modified_gmt":"2022-10-21T21:38:14","slug":"wave-energy-pt-1-lessons-for-climatetech","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/etechmonkey.com\/index.php\/2022\/10\/21\/wave-energy-pt-1-lessons-for-climatetech\/","title":{"rendered":"Wave energy pt 1: lessons for climatetech"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
After looking at the breadth of ocean-based climate solutions last week<\/a> and having a better understanding around the potential of the ocean, I thought it might be informative to look at wave energy more specifically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Four things that are worth noting about the wave energy space:<\/p>\n\n\n\n These four characteristics of wave energy \u2013 the fact that the market is huge, the problem is hard, the technologies are diverse, and the history is long \u2013 make it an interesting case study for other hard tech climatetech spaces, especially those that are going through a similar Cambrian explosion of technology. <\/strong>There are lessons that we can take from looking at this area for not only the future of wave energy development but for the future of other climatetech sectors with a similar profile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here's what I observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/li>
In addition to the technical challenges of actually capturing the energy, there\u2019s the design challenge of building a device that is resilient against storms, biofouling, and corrosion. A device that is optimized for kinetic energy capture may not be optimized for the occasional violent wave or high wind event. A device that is optimized to do both may have an expensive and impractical maintenance schedule. (Luckily, automation and IoT have helped wave energy converter developers set up systems that respond immediately to potentially disastrous circumstances and alert those onshore of any components that need maintenance.)
All of these engineering challenges need to also be addressed with a design that is cost efficient, further increasing the difficulty.
<\/li>
<\/li>
First, the competition with wind energy placed pressure on wave to commercialize too quickly during the 1970s oil embargo. Prior to the 1970s, wave energy had actually been on a steady rise. Hundreds of patents<\/a> had been filed for new wave energy converters throughout the early 20th<\/sup> century and significant advances were made by Yoshio Masuda, the father of modern wave power, in the 1940s and 50s.
The oil embargo of the 1970s spurred a step change in interest in renewables, including wave energy. On the one hand, it incentivized many countries like the UK<\/a> and Norway<\/a> and academic institutions<\/a> like the University of Edinburgh and MIT to start seriously participating in wave energy research. On the other hand, it led to rapid investment in technologies that achieved first commercial, leaving slower-developing technologies behind. For wind, these commercialization milestones<\/a> were hit in a short period of time. Between the oil embargo in 1973 and the end of high oil prices in the early 1980s, the first US wind farm was put online (1975), the first multi-megawatt turbine was produced (1978), the first commercial wind farm was deployed in New Hampshire (1980), the levelized cost of wind reached $0.38\/kWh (1980), several commercial turbine manufacturers were founded (1980 \u2013 1986), and more than a dozen other wind farms were deployed in the US.
For wave, the story played out a big differently. Though exciting developments occurred during this time period, including the invention of famous wave energy converter Salter\u2019s Duck in 1974, the emergence of critical studies for wave energy design, and the establishment of many wave energy-dedicated international conferences in the late 1970s\/early 1980s, no technology ever made it<\/a> beyond the small-scale prototyping stage (even Salter\u2019s Duck). By the mid-1980s, lower and lower oil prices and competing nuclear energy programs<\/a> led to wave energy programs being shut down and funding being pulled from key technologies. Unfortunately, because wave never hit first commercial, technology development stopped once macro tailwinds disappeared. And because wind had already hit its stride, those that were keen on continuing renewables investment flocked to the winning horse. For wave energy, the window of opportunity vanished before momentum hit.
Wave energy got its second run in the new millennium, but again, market forces led to pre-mature conclusion. 2000<\/a> saw the world\u2019s first commercial wave power device in Scotland by a company called Wavegen. This was followed by a number of other key milestones for wave by Pelamis and Aquamarine Power. In 2004, Pelamis tested<\/a> a full-scale prototype at a wave test site in Scotland and later, in 2008, deployed a 2.25MW commercial farm in Portugal, the first of its kind. Similarly, Aquamarine Power deployed two full-scale prototypes (315kW and 800kW) in 2009 and 2012, respectively. But again, both companies eventually failed because of market timing. Pelamis\u2019 farm was shut down due to technical problems with the generators and lack of funding from the financial crisis<\/a> to redeploy them. Pelamis later went under in 2014 after failing to acquire more funding<\/a> (a product of the cleantech 1.0 bust<\/a>). Aquamarine, despite two successful prototypes and a recently won government award, failed in its 2014\/15 raise<\/a>, resulting in the shutdown of the company. Thus a combination of unfortunate timings around two major macro busts (recession and cleantech 1.0 blowup) cooled down developments in wave energy yet again.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n
\u00a0
<\/li>
The other takeaway from this point is that licensing out the technologies to developing entities can help reduce the risk that a technology will die when a company dies. Perhaps we need to be pushing for more licensing models across R&D-heavy climatetech sectors to better the chances of an industry\u2019s longevity.
<\/li>
<\/li>
<\/li>
There\u2019s a micro and macro lesson here. On an individual company level, demonstrating consistent momentum can make or break your future funding rounds. In practical terms, that means making sure to announce wins \u2013 big and small \u2014 on a regular basis.
Similarly, on an industry level, demonstrating consistent momentum can lead to more funding and longer support for everyone in the space. That\u2019s why celebrating wins from other companies in the industry, even competitors, can be net positive.
<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n