The UK has a rich history of wave energy technology innovation stretching back to 1976 when it launched its first wave energy programme. Whilst funding was discontinued in the 1980s a new programme was established in the 2000s as wave energy was considered critical to meeting the government’s climate change, energy and economic objectives. Evens so the past 15 years have failed to deliver a commercially viable wave energy device. Consequently, this research examines whether the level and type of innovation support in the UK has contributed to this slow progress and whether these weaknesses could be addressed to help accelerate innovation in the future. Drawing upon 32 interviews, alongside investment, publication and patent data analysis, this research examines: 1. how much investment has been committed to wave energy RD&D; 2. the mechanisms used to deliver this support; 3. the effectiveness of this support in fostering innovation and; 4. how this support could be re-configured to accelerate innovation. The research finds that the UK has historically committed an above average level of ocean energy support versus other countries, seeing the UK lead in terms of patents, publications and deployment. However, the level of ocean energy funding still lags behind more mature renewable energy technologies (e.g. wind, solar PV) and its support has suffered from a number of weaknesses including a pressure to go ‘too big too soon’, little requirement for collaboration, intermittent support and a poorly coordinated and complex funding landscape. Despite these failures significant ‘policy learning’ has taken place, triggering a major reconfiguration of UK wave energy innovation support such as a refocusing on component versus device development, treating wave and tidal energy innovation separately and greater coordination of innovation programmes. Outstanding policy recommendations include strengthening coordination between UK and Scottish governments and collaboration between universities and device developers.

1. Lost at sea? Charting wave
energy’s difficult innovation
journey towards
commercialisation in the UK
Dr. Matthew Hannon

2. • Introducing wave energy
• International comparison of UK’s wave
energy innovation performance
• Five issues that contributed to wave
energy’s slow progress in the UK
• Policy recommendations
• Conclusions and recommendations for
future work
Structure

3. Wave energy
OnshoreNearshoreOffshore
POINT ABSORBER
ATTENUATOR
OSCILLATING WAVE
SURGE CONVERTER
OSCILLATING WATER
COLUMN
OVERTOPPING/TERMINATOR
DEVICE
SUBMERGED PRESSURE
DIFFERENTIAL
BULGE WAVE ROTATING MASS
Significant lack of technological
convergence indicates an
immature technology
Levelised cost of electricity
Wave = $500/MWh
Tidal = $440/MWh
Offshore wind = $210/MWh
Thin-film PV = $150/MWh
Onshore wind = $85/MWh
Large hydro = $70/MWh
(BNEF H1 2014)
FURTHER
INNOVATION
NEEDED

4. Public ocean energy RD&D
1974-2013 (INPUT)
(Source: IEA)
Country RD&D (2014 $)
US 722
UK 304
Canada 115
Norway 94
Japan 70
France 38
Sweden 34
Australia 34
Denmark 34
Korea 32
NOTE: Excludes private RD&D. Public budgets not actual spend. All ocean energy,
including tidal range but most components drawn from hydro RD&D

5. (Source: EPO)
Patents 1979-2011 (OUTPUT)
Rank
Total Ocean Wave
Country
Patent
filings
% Country
Patent
filings
%
1 US 242 18% US 118 17%
2 UK 228 17% UK 118 16%
3 DE 154 11% DE 71 10%
4 FR 79 6% NO 49 7%
5 NO 78 6% AU 34 5%
6 IE 52 4% SE 34 5%
7 JP 50 4% FR 33 5%
8 SE 49 4% IE 30 4%
9 AU 47 3% IT 27 4%
10 IT 45 3% ES 27 4%
Global 1368 - Global 717 52%NOTE: This study takes the following Y02E patent classifications specific to ocean energy: (10/28) Tidal
stream or damless hydropower, (10/32) Oscillating water column (OWC), (10/34) Ocean thermal energy
conversion (OTEC), (10/36) Salinity gradient and (10/38) Wave energy or tidal swell.

6. (Source: OES)
Deployment 2007-16 (OUTPUT)
NOTE: Includes both pre-commercial demonstration and commercial deployment between 2007 and 2016. Analysis of 237 projects.

7. Performance: $ RD&D per patent
NOTE: Excludes countries that have delivered less than 10 patent filings. Also missing Finland and Israel due to lack of RD&D data.
Public ocean energy RD&D is for ocean energy and thus incorporates tidal range, tidal stream, OTEC, salinity gradient etc. Wave energy RD&D not
available.

8. 2.2 5.6 5.6 6.3 8.2 9 9.1 16.1 19.1 20.5
47.9
335.7
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
IE AU NL KR DE ES NO DK SE UK CA US
PublicoceanenergyRD&D($m2014)per
MWofinstalledcapacity
Performance: $ RD&D per MW
NOTE: Excludes countries that have delivered less than 150kW of capacity. Also missing Finland and China due to lack of RD&D data
Public ocean energy RD&D is for ocean energy and thus incorporates tidal range, tidal stream, OTEC, salinity gradient etc.

9. • UK leads wave energy innovation inputs (RD&D $) and outputs
(patents, deployment) but less ‘bang for its buck’ versus other
countries.
• UK not delivered a commercial wave array, with main developers
(Pelamis, Aquamarine) in administration.
• We examine whether the design of the UK’s innovation support
policy (2000-2015) could have constrained the pace of wave energy
technology innovation?
• Methods
– 32 interviews (March – Oct 2015)
– Analysis of UK/EU grant data awarded between 2000-2015 (n=852)
Diagnosing the UK’s wave energy
innovation performance

10. Problem #1 – Overpromising and
under-delivering
• Unrealistic
expectations wave
energy could be ‘fast-
tracked’
• Money made available
for demonstration and
developers
overpromised but then
under-delivered
• Trust eroded and
leading to scaling back
of VCs and government
“It’s been people like me…guilty of thinking that we could get this
to kick-start, like wind energy, off the back of a couple of
prototypes on a small farm being demonstrated” – Consultant

11. Problem #2 – Poorly coordinated
& complex innovation system
“There were a number of different streams that were all coming out with different
sources of funding to try and tackle the same problem” – Developer CEO
Our role is to act as
a conduit between
academia, industry
and the
government to
accelerate the
development of
affordable, secure
and sustainable
technologies
Our vision is to make the
Highlands and Islands a
highly successful and
competitive region where
increasing numbers of
people choose to live,
work, study and invest.

12. Problem #3 – Picked ‘winners’ that
ultimately lost
Entered
administration but
absorbed 45% of
grant funding
2000-2015
Top wave energy demonstration grant awardees in the UK 2000-2015

13. Problem #4 – Bundling wave into
same schemes with tidal stream
TIDAL
WAVE
“There’s a sense of convergence
around the axial flow turbine
which looks a little bit like a
Danish wind turbine…They’re
standing on the shoulders of
giants” - Funder
Tidal stream received x2 funding

14. Problem #5 – Stop-start funding
and knowledge depreciation
20 year fallow period
Tacit knowledge likely
lost via deterioration
(e.g. retirement) or lost
to other sectors
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
PublicoceanenergyRD&D($m2014)
Ireland
Australia
United Kingdom

15. Some lessons learnt leading to major changes in
wave energy innovation support system, not
least Wave Energy Scotland:
• P#1 - 100% funding avoids need for private
sector match funding
• P#2 – WES board comprised of reps from
other funders
• P#2, P#3 - Stage-gating criteria to ensure
promising tech receives more funding
• P#4 - Decoupling tidal stream and wave
energy funding
• P#4 - Refocusing at sub-component level to
promote convergence
• P#5 – Capturing knowledge e.g. Pelamis
UK wave energy innovation
support has been re-calibrated

16. • Consistent funding – Intermittent funds don’t help
• Cross-fertilisation – Accelerate innovation by learning from other
sectors (e.g. ship building, sub-sea mining, aviation)
• Greater international collaboration – New entrants challenging
UK e.g. Sweden, Australia, China.
• Cultivate niche markets e.g. aquaculture, islands
• Strengthen links between developers and researchers, e.g.
joint-body and medium-term funding
• UK-wide programme that broadens out Wave Energy Scotland
model to UK
• Public investment banks - Scotland’s REIF helped tidal reach
commercialisation. GIB could follow suit
• Innovation vouchers scheme to improve access to test facilities
Policy recommendations

17. • UK is a leader of ocean energy innovation outputs but lags behind
other countries in terms of effectiveness i.e. ‘bang for its buck’
• Why? Weaknesses identified in the UK’s wave energy innovation
support system: (1) going too fast too soon; (2) poorly coordinated
and complex landscape; (3) backing the wrong ‘winners’; (4)
bundling technologies together at different TRLs; and (5)
intermittent support
• BUT effective learning and system re-configuration has taken place
• Policy recommendations include more consistent support, cross-
fertilization; international and private-public collaboration, UK-wide
coordination and affordable access to test infrastructure
• Next steps? (1) Compare wave vs. tidal stream in UK. (2) Explore
best and worst international performers. (3) Additional innovation
indicators. (4) Understand nature of innovation support learning
Conclusions

18. Outputs
• World Energy Council chapter on marine energy for their World
Energy Resources 2016 publication
• Paper on ‘An international assessment of ocean energy innovation
performance’ for the 2016 World Energy Congress in Istanbul, prior
to journal submission (Energy Policy, Nature Energy, Energies)
In process
• Two papers: 1) Interviews and grant data on effectiveness of UK
wave energy policy (TFSC); 2) Comparison of funding for wave and
tidal stream (Energy Policy). Submission early Autumn 2016.
Next steps
• Proposals focusing on: 1) innovation over-achievers; 2) additional
innovation indicators (e.g. publications, generation (MWh), cost of
energy); 3) cross-fertilisation; 4) role of entrepreneurs
• Discussion pieces for The Conversation, Guardian etc.
Recent outputs and next steps

19. Email: matthew.hannon@strath.ac.uk
Twitter: @hannon_matthew
Research Gate: http://tinyurl.com/zseak45
The Fighting Temeraire. 1839, by J. M. W Turner