There was never a business case for ceto to be competitive and...

There was never a business case for ceto to be competitive and pipe dream was chased in recent times. It was a moving target they created for themselves by being so slow to get a effective system in the water generating power years ago rather than being a "project" . . EMC Solar debarcle was to fill a gap and just showed the real world business and management inexperience with purchase and implementation with subsequent massive loss. There will be more to come out about this in time.

This is not bad luck. So called wave breakthroughs when researched I never found a key patent that would stop other finding a way around and not using something CCE held in regards to wave. No data and refusal at many opportunities to advise of key facts at international presentations was a big red flag.The bullcrap answers and avoidance with no scientific publication got so thick it was obvious. When you can't get a straight answer to efficiency, output style questions while millions walk out the door on wages it becomes a stench also adding public grants not just shareholders cash.

From someone who knew this business from the ground up back from Alan Burns dream it has been sad to watch it take so long to deteriorate to what it is now. .

There is a business case for wave energy where solar and wind don't work due to space / weather constraints but not the glossy one always presented and it needs support from a major . Smaller units easily deployed etc seems to be the trend for a reason especially in remote areas. Large scale wave in ceto has major issues engineers still IMO haven't solved.

Time has passed for small scale wave and for areas with wind and solar with large cheap battery storage or hydrogen production etc it IMO is opportunity lost.

Being sold a vision by silver tongues has cost shareholders and people who for green and environmental reasons support things blindly are their own wallets worst enemies and a easy target. Forums have a bias ( confirmation bias) which suck in people and confirm what they want to hear supporting shallow arguments and missing the big picture.

Can't say a lot of what should be said and what should be public.

What have shareholders got
A unknown effeciency
A unknown cost
Unknown possible area of implementation
Unknown lifecycle
Unknown ongoing cost
Unknown competitiveness
Unknown reality of just what IP and rights CCE has on the research it has done and how much % or value is held by all the partners. . Weird they aren't getting income from patents and not seemingly having chased other companies?
And every year no metric has been consistently implemented to show and compare progress to competing technology nor prior incarnations even.