I find that a surprisingly interesting question, not because of the answer, but because of what it makes one think about in generating the answer. A lot of the best questions are like that.

The short answer is: "no, not nearly, not as far as I know."

But there are problems. Serenity, wind, and wave, do actually contribute large amounts of energy for needs such as transport of larvae and gametes and for the supply of food, wastes and oxygen for creatures such as barnacles. Given how little of that energy is theoretically required for the functions, especially compared to the sheer scale of the energy in such sources of power, one is left with the question of how much of that power should be calculated in with the organisms account. After all, if one were to calculate that a given barnacle used a microjoule of wave energy to capture a food particle worth a millijoule, one has to be very careful of one's accounting. During the time that the barnacle had awaited that event, whole joules, or even thousands of joules worth of water and useless particles may have passed over. Does one say that the barnacle had used joules or microjoules?

Another problem is that nearly every obvious physiological means of capture and storage of energy involves chemical reactions, commonly with the creation of particular molecules for further utilisation within the organism. As a rule these reactions are driven by light energy or the energy from particular compounds in particular circumstances. For example sulphate might act as an oxidising agent, yielding sulphide, or sulphide might act as an electron donor, yielding sulphate. If you were to require that the organism word to gain "all its energy" from say, current, then the mechanism of use of most of that energy would have to be production of particular molecules by some hydrodynamic mechanisms. This is not theoretically impossible, but firstly, I do not know offhand of any such mechanism in physiology (which does not prove anything of course) and secondly it would take a relatively huge amount of mechanical activity to produce a modest yield of physiological input, especially in comparison with the energy available from a small amount of chemical feedstock or suitable light.

As you can see, it is hard to tell just where and how to draw the boundaries of your definition of where the energy comes from or goes to, but one thing I am reasonably confident of is that even where organisms do rely on such energy, it is neither their only nor a sufficient source of their total energy.

I apologise for being so vague about this. Were you thinking of elaborating on that question?

Go well,

Jon