1.If the price of electricity goes up (which certainly will) the cost side of these projects will go up too.

2.Two years ago some readers pointed that 15 years is an optimistic estimate for semi-submerged steel structures. As for other materials let's hope they kick in soon.

3. Let's hope things go better in Scotland and Cornwall, but we get pretty rough seas during winter. And take in account that above a certain wave amplitude pelamis shuts in.

If the price of electricity goes up (which certainly will) the cost side of these projects will go up too.

But of course, the energy rates are going up AFTER you've built the installation, and while it's gleaning the benefits of higher prices. You're not buying and fabricating that steel over the lifetime of the device, only at the beginning, when prices are ostensibly their best. This mirrors the argument for many of the renewables that take a big investment, but stand to have a considerable upside, particularly if the energy scene worsens, as I think we agree that it must..

Anyway, by and large I agree with your cautious view in this post, save that I don't think the figures really tell us nearly enough to know if this idea really has positive or negative buoyancy.

Best,
Bob

But if the NEROI is close to 0%, then that's just a system for hoarding energy today for use later when its more expensive.

The argument in its favor sounds like the infant industry argument, but its more along the lines of putting a wide range of bets on technological development, given that if only some of them pay off, they will pay off well enough to cover the whole range of bets.

In that strategy, there does need to be a way of sunsetting the losers ... perhaps allow a technology specific feed-in tariff for a decade, after which time it lapses to the baseline feed-in tariff that any renewable, sustainable energy source qualifies for.