Tidal and Wave Energy Supply Chain

An energy system where the resource has been predictable for millennia and the physics are well understood, yet deployment remains minimal — because the binding constraint is not capturing energy but surviving the ocean long enough to prove that a device can do so profitably.

Introduction

Tidal and wave energy extract power from ocean water movement driven by two distinct physical mechanisms. Tidal energy derives from the gravitational interaction between the earth, moon, and sun — a force so regular that tide tables can be calculated centuries in advance with high accuracy. Wave energy derives from wind transferring kinetic energy to the ocean surface — less predictable than tides but following seasonal and geographic patterns that are well characterized. Together, they represent the marine energy sector: the pursuit of converting the ocean’s mechanical energy into electricity.

The global resource is enormous. The theoretical tidal energy dissipated in the earth’s oceans is estimated at roughly 3.7 terawatts. Wave energy along the world’s coastlines has been estimated at 2 to 3 terawatts. For context, total global electricity consumption is approximately 2.8 terawatts on average. The physics works. Devices have generated electricity from both tides and waves in operational settings for decades — the La Rance tidal barrage in France has operated since 1966, producing 240 megawatts from the tidal range of the Rance estuary.

Yet as of the mid-2020s, total installed marine energy capacity globally — excluding large tidal barrages — amounts to a few tens of megawatts. This is not a rounding error in the energy system; it is barely a footnote. Solar energy, which faced its own decades of slow growth, now adds over 300 gigawatts of capacity annually. Onshore wind, once dismissed as impractical, adds over 100 gigawatts per year. Marine energy has not reached the beginning of that trajectory.

The question is not whether the ocean contains energy. It does, in quantities that dwarf human consumption. The question is why a predictable, abundant, well-understood energy source has resisted conversion into an industrial system. The answer lies not in physics but in the physical coordination problem of operating machinery in the most destructive environment available to engineers outside of space.

Tidal energy is the only renewable resource whose availability can be predicted to the minute, decades in advance. The moon’s gravitational pull on earth’s oceans follows orbital mechanics calculated since Newton. Yet tidal energy provides less than 0.01% of global electricity. The constraint is not the resource’s predictability. It is that the medium delivering that resource — seawater in motion — corrodes metal, fouls surfaces, exerts forces measured in tonnes per square meter, and permits human access only during brief weather windows. The most predictable energy source on earth operates in the least forgiving environment.

Root Constraints

Predictable Resource, Hostile Environment

Tidal energy occupies a unique structural position among renewables: it is the most predictable yet the least deployed. Solar output varies with cloud cover. Wind varies with weather systems. Hydroelectric flow varies with rainfall and snowmelt. Tides vary with the moon’s orbit, the sun’s position, and the geometry of the coastline — all of which are known with extraordinary precision. A tidal energy developer can calculate the energy available at a prospective site for any hour of any day for the next hundred years with accuracy that no other renewable resource can approach.

This predictability should, in principle, make tidal energy the easiest renewable to finance. Energy output can be forecast with near-certainty, eliminating the resource risk that complicates solar and wind project finance. Revenue projections need not account for variable generation — the tides will come, and their magnitude is known.

But the ocean that delivers this predictable resource is orders of magnitude more hostile than the environments where solar panels sit on rooftops or wind turbines stand in fields. Seawater is a corrosive electrolyte that attacks steel, aluminum, and most engineering alloys. Marine organisms — barnacles, mussels, algae, kelp — colonize any submerged surface within weeks, adding drag, blocking intakes, and interfering with moving parts. Wave forces during storms can exceed calm-condition loads by factors of ten or more. Sediment transport scours foundations and buries cables. The combination of these forces operates continuously, twenty-four hours a day, in a medium that resists inspection and maintenance.

The result is a fundamental asymmetry. The resource side of the equation is solved — energy availability is known and reliable. The survival side of the equation is not solved at the scale and cost required for commercial deployment. Every device that enters the ocean begins a race between energy generation and structural degradation, and the ocean’s track record of winning that race is the primary reason marine energy has not scaled.

A solar panel sits on a roof, exposed to rain and UV radiation, and degrades at roughly 0.5% per year over a 25-year life. A wind turbine stands in a field, exposed to varying wind loads, and requires gearbox maintenance every several years. A tidal turbine sits submerged in a tidal channel, exposed to saltwater corrosion, biofouling, sediment abrasion, storm surge forces, and tidal current loads that reverse direction every six hours — and it can only be accessed for maintenance when sea conditions permit, from a vessel that costs thousands of pounds per day to operate. The energy resource is more predictable. The operating environment is incomparably more hostile.

Infrastructure Durability

The second root constraint is that equipment submerged in the ocean must withstand conditions that destroy most engineering materials and designs over timescales shorter than the financial payback periods required for commercial viability. This is not an abstract engineering challenge. It is a specific, quantifiable set of failure modes that have been observed repeatedly in marine energy prototypes and test deployments.

Saltwater corrosion is the baseline. Steel structures in seawater corrode at rates of 0.1 to 0.3 millimeters per year even with protective coatings and cathodic protection systems. Over a 20-year design life, this represents centimeters of material loss on structural members unless protection systems are maintained — which requires access to submerged equipment. Coating systems that work well in sheltered marine environments degrade faster in high-energy tidal channels where sediment-laden water acts as a continuous abrasive.

Biofouling adds a different category of degradation. Marine organisms settle on any submerged surface and grow. On static structures like foundations and cable protection, biofouling adds weight and drag but is manageable. On moving parts — turbine blades, oscillating flaps, bearing seals — biofouling interferes with function. A tidal turbine blade accumulating barnacle growth loses hydrodynamic efficiency and gains mass asymmetry that induces vibration. Antifouling coatings exist but have limited lifespans and environmental constraints — tributyltin, once the standard marine antifouling agent, was banned internationally due to ecological damage.

Storm loading presents the most acute structural challenge. Tidal devices are designed for the regular, predictable forces of tidal currents. But the ocean also delivers irregular, extreme forces from storm waves, exceptional tidal surges, and the interaction between waves and currents that produces loads exceeding either individually. A device designed to operate efficiently in a 3 meters-per-second tidal current must also survive a winter storm that superimposes 10-meter waves on that current. The structural margin between operating conditions and survival conditions is larger than in any land-based energy technology, and providing that margin adds cost and weight to every component.

Maintenance access is itself constrained by the environment. A wind turbine technician drives to the site, takes an elevator to the nacelle, and performs repairs in most weather conditions. A tidal turbine technician requires a marine vessel, a weather window with acceptable wave height and current speed, and either diving operations or remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) to reach submerged equipment. In energetic tidal sites — precisely the sites with the best energy resource — current speeds during mid-tide may exceed 3 meters per second, making diving or ROV operations impossible. Maintenance can only occur during slack tide windows that may last 30 to 60 minutes, twice per tidal cycle. In winter months at high latitudes, daylight and weather further restrict these windows.

A tidal turbine in a high-energy channel may only be accessible for maintenance during slack tide windows of 30 to 60 minutes, occurring twice per tidal cycle, further limited by daylight, wave height, and vessel availability. At sites like the Pentland Firth between Scotland and Orkney — one of the world’s most energetic tidal resources — winter weather can close maintenance access for weeks. The device must operate autonomously through conditions that would halt maintenance on any land-based energy system. Reliability is not a design preference. It is a survival requirement imposed by the impossibility of routine intervention.

Geographic Concentration

The third root constraint is that viable sites for tidal and wave energy are not distributed uniformly along coastlines but concentrated at specific locations where coastal geometry amplifies naturally occurring forces. This concentration is more extreme than for any other renewable energy source except geothermal, and it carries structural consequences for the industry’s ability to scale.

Tidal energy requires locations where the tidal range or tidal current speed is amplified by coastal topography. Tidal ranges vary enormously around the world — from near zero in the open ocean to over 16 meters in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. The amplification occurs where coastlines form funnels, narrow straits, or resonant basins that concentrate tidal flow. The English Channel, the Pentland Firth, the Bay of Fundy, Cook Strait in New Zealand, Uldolmok Strait in South Korea, and a handful of other locations offer tidal current speeds exceeding 2.5 meters per second — generally considered the minimum for commercially viable tidal stream energy. Outside these locations, tidal currents are too slow to justify the cost of submerged equipment.

Wave energy requires coastlines exposed to consistent ocean swell. The best wave resources are found on western-facing coasts exposed to the prevailing westerly winds of the mid-latitudes: the Atlantic coasts of Europe, the Pacific coasts of North and South America, and the southern coasts of Australia and New Zealand. Sheltered seas like the Mediterranean, the Baltic, and much of the South China Sea lack the fetch — the uninterrupted distance over which wind transfers energy to waves — needed for commercially significant wave energy.

This geographic concentration means that the total addressable market for marine energy devices is small compared to solar or wind. Solar panels can be installed on any sunlit surface on earth. Wind turbines can be sited anywhere with adequate wind resource, which includes vast areas of continental interior and offshore continental shelf. Tidal energy devices can only operate in a few dozen locations worldwide where tidal currents reach commercial thresholds. Wave energy devices have somewhat broader geographic applicability but are still constrained to exposed oceanic coastlines.

The concentration also means that the best marine energy sites are often located in places already used for other purposes. Tidal channels are frequently major shipping lanes — the Pentland Firth carries commercial shipping between the North Sea and the Atlantic. They are productive fishing grounds, because the same tidal mixing that concentrates energy also concentrates nutrients. They are habitats for marine species including seabirds, marine mammals, and migratory fish. Every marine energy project must navigate competing claims on the same physical space, adding permitting complexity and timeline risk that does not apply to a solar installation on previously developed land.

The Pentland Firth, between mainland Scotland and Orkney, contains some of the fastest tidal currents in Europe — exceeding 5 meters per second during spring tides. It has been identified as one of the world’s premier tidal energy sites, with theoretical resource estimates exceeding 1 gigawatt. It is also a major shipping corridor connecting the North Sea to the Atlantic, a productive fishing area, a habitat for seals, cetaceans, and seabird colonies, and subject to some of the most challenging sea conditions in European waters. Developing tidal energy here means operating in a space that serves multiple existing functions, in conditions that limit access to weeks per year of favorable weather, using technology that has not yet been proven at commercial scale. The resource is extraordinary. So are the constraints.

How Constraints Shape the System

The interaction of these three root constraints produces a system with structural properties that distinguish marine energy from every other energy technology and explain its current state of development.

The combination of predictable resource and hostile environment creates a development paradox. Because the resource is predictable, the engineering challenge is well-defined — device designers know exactly what flow speeds and directions their equipment will face under normal conditions. This clarity should accelerate design convergence. But the hostile environment adds a second design requirement — survival under extreme conditions — that is far less predictable and far more demanding. A device optimized for energy capture in regular tidal flows may not survive a once-in-fifty-years storm. A device overbuilt for survival sacrifices energy capture efficiency and adds cost. The design space is bounded by two competing requirements, and finding the optimum requires operational data that can only be gathered by deploying devices in the ocean and waiting to see what breaks — a process measured in years, not months.

This is why no dominant design has emerged. The wind energy industry went through a similar phase in the 1980s and 1990s, with vertical-axis turbines, downwind rotors, two-bladed designs, and various control strategies competing before the three-bladed upwind horizontal-axis turbine became the standard configuration. That convergence took roughly two decades of deployment, failure, and incremental improvement across thousands of installed units. Marine energy has not yet had that volume of deployment. Multiple fundamentally different approaches remain in active development: horizontal-axis tidal turbines resembling underwater wind turbines, vertical-axis tidal turbines, oscillating hydrofoils, tidal kites, oscillating water columns, point absorbers, attenuators, overtopping devices, and various hybrid concepts. Each has theoretical advantages. None has accumulated enough operational hours in real ocean conditions to demonstrate clear superiority.

The absence of a dominant marine energy device design is not a sign of immature engineering. It is a consequence of insufficient operational data in the actual deployment environment. Design convergence in energy technology does not come from theoretical optimization — it comes from deploying many devices, observing which ones survive and perform, and iterating over cycles measured in years. Wind energy needed roughly 20 years and thousands of installed turbines to converge on its current dominant architecture. Marine energy has deployed hundreds of devices at most, over a shorter period, in a more hostile environment. The technology is at the stage wind energy occupied around 1990, not because marine engineers are slower but because the ocean is harder.

Geographic concentration interacts with the absence of a dominant design to create a market-size problem. If the total addressable market is limited to a few dozen high-energy sites worldwide, and each site requires custom engineering for local bathymetry, current patterns, and seabed conditions, then the volume over which device development costs can be amortized is small. Solar panel manufacturers spread R&D costs over millions of units deployed globally. A marine energy developer must amortize development costs over tens or hundreds of units deployed at a small number of sites. The unit economics of device development are structurally different from technologies with global addressability.

The durability constraint interacts with the financing system in a way that creates a specific barrier to scale. Project finance for energy infrastructure requires demonstrated reliability — lenders need evidence that the technology will perform as projected over the financing term, typically 15 to 20 years. This evidence comes from operational track records. But building operational track records requires deploying devices, which requires capital, which requires evidence of reliability. The circularity is not unique to marine energy — all new energy technologies face it — but the cost of each demonstration cycle is higher in the ocean than on land, the time required for meaningful reliability data is longer because failure modes may take years to manifest, and the consequences of device failure are more severe because recovery from the seabed is expensive and sometimes impossible.

If tidal energy’s resource predictability is superior to wind and solar, and the basic physics of energy extraction from flowing water is well-understood, why has the technology not followed the same scaling trajectory as wind energy over the past three decades? The answer is not that tidal engineers are less capable than wind engineers or that the physics is more difficult. The answer is that the ocean imposes development cycle times and failure costs that are structurally different from land-based deployment. Each prototype test takes longer, costs more, teaches less per unit of investment, and carries higher risk of total device loss. The learning curve exists. Its slope is shallower because the environment exacts a higher price for each lesson.

System Context

Marine energy exists within a broader electricity system that has, over the past two decades, developed effective mechanisms for integrating variable renewable generation from wind and solar. Grid operators now manage portfolios of intermittent generators using forecasting, flexible dispatchable generation, demand response, and increasingly, battery storage. Tidal energy’s predictability — the ability to forecast output years in advance — is a genuine grid integration advantage that wind and solar cannot match. A tidal power plant’s output can be scheduled into dispatch plans with the same confidence as a thermal plant, minus the fuel supply risk.

Wave energy’s variability is greater than tidal but follows patterns correlated with weather systems that are predictable days in advance. Wave energy also tends to be strongest in winter months when energy demand in high-latitude countries is highest — a seasonal correlation that solar energy inverts and wind energy matches only partially. From a grid system perspective, both tidal and wave energy offer characteristics that complement existing renewable generation. But grid integration advantages only matter if the generation exists at meaningful scale, which marine energy has not yet achieved.

The supply chain for marine energy devices draws on several established industrial sectors without belonging entirely to any of them. Structural steel fabrication, marine coating systems, subsea cable manufacture, power electronics, and foundation engineering all have mature supply chains serving offshore oil and gas, offshore wind, and marine construction. Marine energy devices use components and materials from these sectors but in configurations and operating conditions that fall outside standard specifications. A tidal turbine blade operates in conditions unlike either a wind turbine blade — different fluid density, different Reynolds numbers, different fouling environment — or a ship propeller — different duty cycle, different structural loading pattern. The device sits between established categories, and the supply chain must adapt rather than simply deliver standard products.

The offshore oil and gas industry is the closest industrial analog in terms of operating environment. Oil and gas platforms, subsea production systems, and underwater pipelines have been engineered to survive ocean conditions for decades. But offshore oil and gas operates under a fundamentally different economic calculus — a single deepwater well can produce billions of dollars of hydrocarbons, justifying the enormous cost of marine-grade engineering and maintenance. Marine energy devices must survive the same environment while generating electricity at prices competitive with onshore wind and solar. The engineering requirements are comparable. The revenue per unit of deployed infrastructure is orders of magnitude lower.

Flows and Visibility

Material flows in the marine energy supply chain are dominated by the construction phase and become minimal during operation — a pattern shared with other capital-intensive energy systems but intensified by the marine environment. During construction, the primary material flows include structural steel for foundations and device frames, composite materials or marine-grade metals for turbine blades or wave energy capture surfaces, power cables rated for subsea deployment, mooring systems including chains, anchors, and synthetic lines, and electrical equipment including generators, power converters, and transformers. These materials draw from supply chains shared with offshore wind, offshore oil and gas, and marine construction, but often require specifications beyond standard offerings — higher corrosion resistance, marine growth protection, and structural margins for extreme loading.

The installation phase requires specialized marine vessels — construction vessels with dynamic positioning for foundation installation, cable-laying vessels for subsea power cables, and heavy-lift capability for placing devices on submerged foundations or mooring systems. These vessels are shared resources across the offshore industry, and their availability and cost are determined by demand from the much larger offshore wind and oil and gas sectors. A marine energy project requiring a cable-laying vessel competes for scheduling with offshore wind farms ordering dozens of cable installations. The marine energy project’s small scale offers little negotiating leverage.

During operation, material flows reduce to consumables for maintenance — replacement seals, bearing components, antifouling treatments, and occasional major component replacements. But the cost of delivering these materials to submerged equipment is disproportionate to their physical value. Mobilizing a maintenance vessel, waiting for a weather window, and performing subsea intervention can cost tens of thousands of pounds per operation, even when the component being replaced costs a fraction of that amount. The logistics cost of maintenance dominates the material cost in a way that has no parallel in land-based energy systems.

Capital flows in marine energy are currently dominated by public funding — government grants, research and development programs, and demonstration project subsidies. Private investment at project-finance scale requires the technology readiness and operational track record that the industry is still building. This creates a dependency on political commitment to marine energy research, which varies with government priorities and competes for funding with more established renewable technologies. The United Kingdom, through bodies like the Crown Estate and the Scottish Government, and the European Union, through successive framework programs, have been the primary funders. Without sustained public capital, the development cycle that must precede private financing cannot continue.

Information flows are constrained by the competitive sensitivity of operational data. Device developers who deploy prototypes in test sites accumulate performance and reliability data that represents years of investment and their primary competitive advantage. Sharing this data openly would reduce the information asymmetry that sustains their position but might accelerate the industry overall. Test centers like the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney provide standardized testing infrastructure and some performance validation, but detailed failure mode and reliability data typically remains proprietary. The industry’s small scale means that each developer’s dataset is limited, and the aggregation that would allow statistically robust reliability estimates across the sector does not yet exist.

Marine energy’s information gap is structural. Reliability data for devices operating in real ocean conditions can only be accumulated over years of continuous deployment — there is no accelerated testing protocol that replicates the combination of corrosion, biofouling, fatigue loading, and storm events that the ocean delivers. Each device developer’s dataset represents a few units over a few years, far below the statistical threshold needed to project 20-year reliability with the confidence that project financiers require. The data that would unlock financing can only be generated by deployments that require financing. This is not a market failure in the conventional sense. It is a temporal mismatch between the pace of learning in a hostile environment and the pace of capital allocation in a system that demands proven returns.

What This Reveals About Industrial Structure

Predictability of the resource does not determine deployability of the technology — Tidal energy’s superior resource predictability compared to wind and solar has not translated into deployment advantage. The binding constraint is not resource characterization but device survival and maintenance in the operating environment. Resource quality and deployment difficulty are independent variables, and the financial system responds to the latter more than the former.
The absence of a dominant design reflects insufficient operational volume, not indeterminate physics — Multiple competing marine energy architectures persist not because the engineering community cannot determine which approach is best but because the environment demands proof through years of ocean deployment that the industry has not yet achieved at sufficient scale. Design convergence is an empirical process, not a theoretical one.
The ocean imposes development cycle times that the financial system is not structured to accommodate — Learning in marine energy is slow because deployment is expensive, access is constrained, and failure modes manifest over timescales of years. The financial coordination system, which allocates capital based on demonstrated returns over quarterly and annual horizons, is structurally mismatched with a technology that requires decade-scale development cycles before returns can be demonstrated.
Geographic concentration limits the constituency for investment — Because viable marine energy sites are concentrated in a small number of coastal locations, the economic benefits of development are similarly concentrated. Unlike solar or wind, which create distributed economic activity across manufacturing, installation, and operation in many regions, marine energy’s benefits accrue to specific coastal communities and a small number of specialized firms. This concentration limits the political and economic constituency advocating for sustained investment.
Shared infrastructure means marine energy competes as a minor customer — Marine vessels, subsea cables, and offshore engineering services are shared with the much larger offshore wind and oil and gas sectors. Marine energy projects cannot drive supply chain investment and must accept the pricing, scheduling, and specification standards set by industries with ten to a hundred times the purchasing volume.
The comparison to early wind energy is structurally instructive but not predictive — Wind energy’s path from marginality to industrial scale over three decades provides a template for how marine energy might develop, but the analogy has limits. The ocean is a harder operating environment than land, development cycles are longer, addressable sites are fewer, and the competing alternatives — solar and wind with storage — are far more advanced than the alternatives wind energy faced in the 1980s. Marine energy’s structural trajectory is its own.

Inside CompanyGraph

View this perspective inside CompanyGraph.