CETO vs Oyster, page-2

There are similarities between the Oyster and CETO 5 devices in that they pump pressurised water ashore to drive a hydro turbine.

The operating depths are different, the Oyster more suited to shallow nearshore (half a kilometre from shore) and CETO 5 in deeper water a little further out. PWEP is approximately 3 kilometres from shore.

The CETO 6 will will have an onboard generator allowing it to operate in deeper offshore sites (I think in depths up to 150 metres. Distance from shore will only be restricted by the ability to link the array to the grid.

It should be noted that Carnegie Wave and Aquamarine have entered into a collaboration with Bosch Rexworth to develop a linear actuator that can be adapted to a range of wave energy devices.

"The Oyster wave power device is a buoyant, hinged flap which is attached to the seabed at depths of between 10 and 15 metres, around half a kilometre from the shore. This location is often referred to as the nearshore."

http://www.aquamarinepower.com/technology/how-oyster-wave-power-works/

"One of the advantages of the CETO technology is its flexibility. The CETO technology can operate in water depths ranging from 20m-50m. By varying the length of the flexible tether these varying depths can be accomodated. The commercial scale CETO 3 unit deployed and independently verified in 2011 was submerged in water approximately 24 metres deep. The actual depth of deployment for a CETO project will depend on specific site conditions and forms part of Carnegie's site assessment process"


http://www.carnegiewave.com/index.php?url=/about/FAQ

http://www.carnegiewave.com/files/asx-announcements/2014/140822_WavePOD.pdf

In short, the technologies do not appear to be in direct competition with each other because of the differing operating environments. It is possible that we might see projects that involve more than one type of wave device and possibly tidal and wind devices as well.