Indeed - it's just weird that they're focusing on capturing low grade kinetic energy right when photovoltaic solar is at the tipping point of beating grid power with under a 5 year payback period. Expect (in sunny climates) to see a switch to solar panels on the level that we saw from CRTs to flat panels a few years back.

But the really interesting thing in energy in the next 5 years is going to be price drops in storage. We could conceivably see the first lithium-air batteries for cars, which will finally get costs down to within striking distance of petrol. I also suspect we'll start seeing widespread grid storage installations - possibly using sodium-sulphur batteries to absorb and redistribute inputs from distributed renewable sources. The 2-way grid is the next big story in energy.

You definitely produce more than a tiny fraction of a horsepower :) I have a watt meter on my bicycle, and I can easily average 250 watts for an hour ride. Well, easily meaning sweating profusely and worked at the end of it, but still, that's 1/3rd of a horsepower for an hour. I can put out 1 horsepower for a few seconds, and I am not a great cyclist...

Ok, YOU produce more than a tiny fraction. I'm 52 and out of shape. I can ride 50 miles if you give me all day, but no way am I putting out more than 1/10 of a horsepower. And NO WAY am I putting a generator on my bike while I'm riding it!

Yeah, but isn't it that the premise of the article is that you would combine energy from various multiple sources like, I don't know, 10-30 per house? Water flowing in pipes, generated heat, gathered kinetic energy?

It would be interesting to see some calculations how much could be gained that way.

I think you'd surprise yourself :) you could easily peak 250 without much issue, and could sustain 125 without too much of a problem.

Plus, much of the 'waste heat' produced in my house (computer, bike, cooking) is released into my house, not lost... the only one really is the heat lost from water down the drain.