Discussion of the Costs Associated with Marine Hydrokinetics at the Ocean Energy Show

My major concern about the viability of marine hydrokinetics (MHK) is that there is very little attention paid to the levelized cost of energy that it represents.  Is there a real trajectory for getting it in line with other forms of renewable energy?  If so, let’s examine that.  If not, it’s hard to understand why this remains an attractive arena for clean energy investors to pursue.  

In my opinion, the Ocean Energy show I attended a couple of weeks ago had an insufficient volume of content on this whole issue.  Eventually, one of the speakers broached the subject, and presented a slide that predicted “MHK will be cost-competitive by 2030.”  I considered grilling the guy in the Q&A section that followed, but elected not to; in venues like these, I try not to come off as mean, or, worse, cynical about the future of clean energy generally.

But let’s be real.  How credible is it to say that you have something that’s admittedly expensive now, but that you assert will be cost-competitive 16 years hence?  For starters, it suggests that you can see cost curves that far into the future with some level of accuracy, and, especially for nascent technologies like MHK, it’s hard to believe that’s true.  But it gets worse when you consider the unknowns associated with cost reductions in competitive technologies, like wind and solar.  What about other things we can’t see really well, like emerging approaches to nuclear?

Seems like something of a crap-shoot to me.