Innovation and cost reduction for marine renewable energy: A learning investment sensitivity analysis

Using learning curves as an analytical tool for technology forecasting involves making assumptions over a range of key uncertainties, often implicitly. In this paper, we present an explicit treatment of the key uncertainties involved in learning rates' analyses of marine energy innovation (wave and tidal stream) — technology fields attracting considerable interest, but whose commercial prospects depends on substantial learning and cost reduction. Taking a simple single factor learning rate model, we describe a range of plausible learning investments required so that marine energy technologies become cost-competitive with their ‘benchmark’ technology: offshore wind. Our analysis highlights the sensitivity of marine energy to three key parameters: the capital cost of first devices, the level of deployment before sustained cost reduction emerges, and the average rate of cost reduction with deployment (learning rate). Figures often quoted within the marine energy sector for the parameters of starting cost, learning rate, and capacity at which sustained cost reduction occurs (metrics conventionally used for learning rate analysis) can be seen to represent very attractive scenarios. The intention of this paper is to display that even small changes to input assumptions can have a dramatic effect on the overall investment required for a sector to reach parity with benchmark technologies. In the short term, reaching cost competitiveness with offshore wind is a necessity if marine energy is to reach commercialisation. Additionally, an assessment of the plausible total investment (and inherent uncertainties) in a global wave and tidal deployment scenario will be presented. The paper also considers the implications of these uncertainties for marine energy innovation management. While the benchmark against offshore wind will generally be used as a performance indicator, in order to achieve similar and sustained cost reductions to other, more mature, renewable energy technologies (and thus achieve a competitive price for marine technologies, securing their place within the energy mix), the marine energy sector needs a targeted innovation focus to fulfil the desired objectives, and a development pathway very different to offshore wind must be used.

[1]  Brian Polagye,et al.  In-stream tidal energy potential of Puget Sound, Washington , 2009 .

[2]  Annette von Jouanne,et al.  NORTH AMERICAN OCEAN ENERGY STATUS - MARCH 2007 , 2007 .

[3]  Markus Mueller,et al.  Learning curves for emerging energy technologies , 2009 .

[4]  C. Wene Experience Curves for Energy Technology Policy , 2000 .

[5]  Joana Chiavari,et al.  GOOD PRACTICE POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR ENERGY TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION (RD&D) , 2011 .

[6]  Judith Lipp,et al.  Lessons for effective renewable electricity policy from Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom , 2007 .

[7]  Anca Daniela Hansen,et al.  Wind turbine concept market penetration over 10 years (1995–2004) , 2007 .

[8]  Victor I. Chang,et al.  How Blockchain can impact financial services – The overview, challenges and recommendations from expert interviewees , 2020, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

[9]  A. Bahaj,et al.  Initial evaluation of tidal stream energy resources at Portland Bill, UK , 2006 .

[10]  Tim Stallard,et al.  Concurrent and legacy economic and environmental impacts from establishing a marine energy sector in Scotland , 2008 .

[11]  R. Yemm,et al.  Pelamis: experience from concept to connection , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[12]  T. P. Wright,et al.  Factors affecting the cost of airplanes , 1936 .

[13]  Poul Erik Morthorst,et al.  Experience curves: A tool for energy policy assessment , 2003 .

[14]  A. Garrad The lessons learned from the development of the wind energy industry that might be applied to marine industry renewables , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[15]  Socrates Kypreos,et al.  Endogenizing R&D and Market Experience in the "Bottom-Up" Energy-Systems ERIS Model , 2004 .

[16]  G. Scott,et al.  Mapping and Assessment of the United States Ocean Wave Energy Resource , 2011 .

[17]  Peter M. Connor,et al.  UK renewable energy policy: a review , 2003 .

[18]  Tooraj Jamasb,et al.  Learning Curves For Energy Technology and Policy Analysis: A Critical Assessment , 2007 .

[19]  P. L. Fraenkel,et al.  Power from marine currents , 2002 .

[20]  Aie,et al.  Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 , 2006 .

[21]  Erich Hau,et al.  Wind Turbines: Fundamentals, Technologies, Application, Economics , 1999 .

[22]  Peter J. G. Pearson,et al.  Carbon Capture and Storage Realising the potential , 2012 .

[23]  Helen C.M. Smith,et al.  Protocols for the Equitable Assessment of Marine Energy Converters , 2011 .

[24]  Martin Junginger,et al.  Technological learning in the energy sector : lessons for policy, industry and science , 2010 .

[25]  Brian F. Snyder,et al.  Ecological and economic cost-benefit analysis of offshore wind energy , 2009 .

[26]  F. Ferioli,et al.  Use and limitations of learning curves for energy technology policy: A component-learning hypothesis , 2009 .

[27]  Poul Erik Morthorst,et al.  Contribution to the Chapter on Wind Power, in: Energy Technology Perspectives 2008, IEA , 2009 .

[28]  Kester Gunn,et al.  Quantifying the global wave power resource , 2012 .

[29]  Peter McGregor,et al.  Levelised costs of Wave and Tidal energy in the UK: Cost competitiveness and the importance of "banded" Renewables Obligation Certificates , 2011 .

[30]  Tooraj Jamasb,et al.  Delivering a low-carbon electricity system : technologies, economics, and policy , 2008 .