Goodness, that's old hat, isn't it? There was a lot of debate reported in a local Delaware paper/newsmazine I think last summer, regarding debate over the installation of functional turbines using the tides in their local bay as a source of electric power as opposed to using wind turbines. I don't recall the publisher or issue, but the company proposing the plan was from Europe.

Here is one link to Nova Scotia tidal power, showing tidal power has been in use since 1984. I think tidal turbines have been in use in [lower, less forceful sites] in Europe since at least the early '90s.

Here is a link that might be useful: tidal power in use

Hi Melody, yes seems old hat but with a newer twist. It doesn't use the tidal/currents to generate power but rather uses the up and down motion of wave action. If someone could make a system to harness waves, tides, & currents at the same time then that would just about take care of the electric power part of the equasion. Then make all vehicles electric and it'd be bye-bye foreign oil depenancy....wishful thinking no doubt.

There was a lot of interest back 30-40 years ago in harnessing tidal power, usually associated with rias and estuaries having large tidal ranges. The concepts were criticized for large fixed costs, awkward timing of peak electric production, environmental issues, and navigation hazzards/restrictions.

Other concepts included generating complexes submerged within major oceanic currents. Oceans do cover three quarters of the earth and contain more potential energy than the atmosphere or landmasses.

Considering the potential for tsunamis, storm surges, and the Andreas fault to mix in with the neep tides, I have to wonder if verticality actually is practical. I guess I'm showing my age, [or an unwillingness to acccept the computer chip as an all-powerful medium] but I like things that appear to be easier to fix when the probabilities say something will go wrong -- and a mile or two offshore is a long way out (not to mention how far down) when a screw works loose. BTW, I think if we did some hard research, we'd find that vertical generators were seriously considered more than a couple decades ago (mid-70's?), and it was determined that the likelihood of a "major disrupting event" was so high that no more than the initial test models were built.

"wishful thinking" seems to indicate an unlikely event, yet I believe that we (as a species) already have enough knowledge and practical, real-life experience to nearly [if not totally] become independent of *all* fossil fuels. However, I also believe that we Americans will mostly ignore the obvious until it literally can't be ignored, and even then will try to encourage additional (and often needless) research with all the attendant reports, statistics, arguments and counter-arguments inherent rather than using the usable -and presently available knowledge- to alleviate the reliance on fossils. After all, right at this moment, how many people do we know who: walk or bike to store/office/church/friend when the site is within 5 miles of the starting point? or have sufficient insulation in the home/office walls so as to require minimal additional heating in cold weather; or have solar-heated hot water at home or office; or use ambient air to dry the washing (dish or clothes); or use a solar oven; or use in-ground pipes to cool air during hot weather? Okay, ignore the solar over - that is more esoteric - but all the other items listed are certainly do-able right now at a minimal start-up cost, and if we did do them, I truly believe there would be a considerable drop in the use of fossil fuels. According to various estimates (different providing electric companies), hot-water heating accounts for at least 17% of the average residential electric bill, which uses a not-insignifcant amount of fossil fuel to provide.

Meldy, yes, deepsea generators were proposed a long time ago (I recall something in Popular Mechanics at the time). I am of the belief that there are technological challenges to most alternative energy sources and that these challenges can be met with a combination of technological advance and positive economic incentives. A significant sustained increase in the costs of fossil fuels to generate heat and electricity is one of those.

The technology and engineering exist now to make most human structures pretty much energy independent. Do you imagine that this is part of the Federal Energy Policy? Also, we read, see and here how resistant the public is to attendant increased costs to retrofit existing structures. How resistant buyers of new homes will be without their oversized homes with cathedral ceilings and window views.

My house was built in 1950 without significant insulation and air-leaking windows and doors. The attic wasn't properly ventilated so that heat was trapped in the summer and kept this non-air-conditioned house pretty hot into the early morning hours. When we installed a new roof, we had the roofer put in good ventilators. Now in the summer, the temps remain moderate. In the winter, I cover the vents to conserve heat loss from the still-uninsulated attic floor.

This old house is not a candidate for energy efficiency upgrade but would have to be torn down. The house sits on an already inadequate pillar system. The kitchen casement windows (scavenged from a pre-WWII hospital) would have to go. The walls have no insulation or vapor barriers. The eastern one third of the house keeps moving eastward -- I've probably added two inches of tape and spackle to the ceiling and walls since 1987. And the crawl space under the house floods every winter.

Let the future property owner take down this old house.

Marshall, your house sounds much like mine (built 1945), the exterior walls are brick - the interior wallboard was fastened directly to the brick! Poorly designed storm windows. We purchased in 1970, upgraded the attic and floor insulation, added an attic fan (technically the original ventilation is adequate... especially if you don't mind 160+degree attics in the summer), and regraded the exterior landscape and the crawlspace (which now floods only occasionally during hurricanes and 'tropical storms'). When I went back to work fulltime, the soi-disant extra income paid for an energy-efficient new furnace which is rarely used due to having installed an in-fireplace airtight wood stove, and the water-heater and kitchen appliances were all upgraded to energy star status. BTW, although the floors were solid oak, when cabinets were removed it was discovered that no floorboard came within 3" of the wall (no wonder our feet were cold in the winter). No, I do not have solar hot water (although I have used portable forms when camping) -- I live with a member of JQP, who truly believes there always will be sufficient electricity without ever having to use any solar or wind-power. To help balance that, I have financed for friends: 3 different types of solar hot water (and yes, I envy them-their elec bills dropped more than 25%) as well as solar-tube lights (which are really neat!), and an incinolet for one family [solar-battery powered]. I use solar-powered lights for outdoor lighting, cook fairly efficiently, and air-dry laundry. Our average annual electric bill is about half that of residential peers (and about 1/3 of the so-called average electric bill). Nonetheless, I can see where it could be cut in half again, with minimal outlay. However, DH is similar to you in saying, "Let the next owner make the changes."