I lived in Gibraltar for 2 1/2 years, and there was never significant wave action while I was there. This installation is located where it is relatively well protected from strong wind action. The strongest winds were from the west, and so the east is sheltered by The Rock, up to 1300 feet of it! Winds from the east were usually light, and as they were deflected upwards by The Rock, there was a calm area close to the shore.
I suspect this is a 'white elephant' and knowing the culture in Gibraltar, a lot of palms were suitably oiled, and pockets lined.

Um... waves are generated/created way out at sea, so whilst I see your point it is, to an arguable extent, rather moot. One aspect of siting this (and I hope other) such systems in and around the Med is the relative lack of tidal reach making the design much more straight forward and I would also imagine much more efficient than one on, say, the Atlantic coast.
That said, I can't wait to see what a 5MW system (ie 50,000 times the size of this 100kW one) will look like! Perhaps the articles numbers have got confused in translation...

@martin ..You've probably realized by now the 5mW station would be 50X as large. 50,000X would be a 5gW station

@Martin Winlow: 100KW = 0.1 MW therefore, a 5MW installation would be 50 times larger, not 50,000

Good luck to them. More renewable energy is good. It is the future, whether you believe in climate change or not. There are plenty of reason to do this and do away with fossil fuels. IF and WHEN it becomes economically viable (like Solar has been doing the past 5+ years).

It would be interesting to see the EROEI calculation for a system like this. Seems like a lot of steel, for little captured energy.

The free subsidy is the pier upon which the wave device is attached. Building that pier would make it un-economic in the extreme.
Ideally, ocean wave energy conversion devices are the "World War III" economic engine that could create millions of jobs. Instead of the death and destruction of warfare, instead of billions of dollars wasted on bullets, bombs, and rockets, people would be employed to create the thousands of components going into robotic vessels that would be used to lay out vast fields of owec devices that would be most effectively deployed in the Roaring Forties and Furious Fifties surrounding the South Pole. Why BILLIONS for the F-35, which won't generate a single watt for a single home???

Missing from the article is the capital cost, even assuming the pier and real estate to locate the equipment is free. Earlier articles about the work of the inventors claim cost competive power for the design. They have had enough time to prove it. Author of this article please follow up with the cost.

Where is the United states in all this ? We have waves a plenty,perhaps there are too many well fed comfortable people,who worry about the"Viewshed" (is that a term the conservancy invented ?) whilst we rely on the " clean coal ,wrested from the mountaintops of some isolated ridge in appalachia and the western coal fields ,for our energy needs ?

Hey Edison started by lighting up a few streets with very inefficient light bulbs . Innovation ,and improvment followed . So too with tidal power .