Ok. I can only imagine that you're missing that when I say "good sources" I mean sources which produce sufficient quantities of the alternative energy to make it cost effective and efficient to utilize them. Any place with "sun" isn't a good place to build a solar plant. Any place with wind isn't going to make wind turbines worth building. Same with hydro, tidal, etc, etc, etc.
Take your pick champ.
Of what? My point is that very few locations have sufficient quantities of *any* of those things to make the generation of reasonable amounts of power feasible. You can't just plunk down whichever method you like the most anywhere you want and expect to get more power out than it cost to build and maintain the equipment to tap it in the first place.
And massively harmful to the underwater ecosystem.
The third main disadvantage is that of destroying the complicated ocean life. Turbine frames will disturb the movement of marine animals as well as reduce fish population. Not a movement that would be supported by environmentalists.
And that from an advocacy site. They actually downplay the negatives there. But I'm giving you a best case scenario. Um... There's also the whole fact that the entire planet can only possibly generate a pretty limited amount of power from tidal forces (pesky laws of physics). It's like a couple terawatts. That's a lot, but that's the absolute upper bound if we could somehow tap into 100% of all tidal energy (which is pretty darn absurd).
Also, the cost for tidal power is so ridiculous compared to the power generated that it's not realistic except as an experiment.
Some environmentalists seem to think so
The freaking barren wastes of the Mojave Desert.
Also massively harmful *and* generally pretty darn inefficient (even in the Mojave).
I find particular amusement in the political parties involved in various sides of this. The GOP kinda just wants to generate enough power to fuel our nation, but it's like the left versus the far left when it comes to getting anything done.
Wait! Environmentalists complain about a 40 foot wide swath of land with a raised pipe running over it and you think they're going to let you cover the entire landscape with wind farms? Lol!
Its not the pipe it is what is in it.
Nope. It's the pipe as well. Do I have to do the googling for you?
Dunno where this came from (crazy conservative logic if you ask me, if we can't prove its bad we will make sh*t up to support our position). It i very simple, find open land build Solar/Wind generating facilities. Done. Find coastal waters build Tidal Turbines. Done.
It's not that simple. and it's *not* some evil cabal of fossil fuel companies making it not simple either.
All three have a minimal effect environmentally and ecologically (unless you can provide this phantom source of information that proves otherwise.)
They really aren't. You have to compare the environmental impact to the actual amount of power generated. And you have to include the infrastructure in that impact as well. It's easy to say "look! Wind makes the turbine spin. It's free energy!!!". But when you calculate the energy cost to build, install, and maintain the turbines, and compare it to the energy produced over the lifespan of said turbines, it's not really free.
I get it you have a hard on for big oil and coal.
No, I don't. I'm looking at the facts is all. We don't use oil and coal just because they're dirty and evil companies make us use them. We use them because the ratio of energy potential gained compared to the energy expended to harness that energy is incredibly high for both of them. It's you who are forming opinions based on half understood notions about how energy is generated. Because at present it is very expensive to do so. I am sure you have not looked into it, but solar shingles are very expensive, and while eventually the cost will be balanced, at the present that is a 15-20 year investment, and not overly worth it. Once the cost of "greening" up ones home becomes more reasonable you will inevitably see more and more people making the transition. Just as many have begun to make transitions from other previously costly green technologies, most notable being the hybrid and electric car.
Do you think the economic comparison is any different on the large scale? That's why we use oil and coal for most of our energy needs. The oil an coal companies don't have to do anything other than provide their product at a natural market cost to make this so. There's no evil involved here. Just factual comparisons of different products. As you correctly point out, those alternatives are more expensive. They aren't "free" by any stretch of the imagination, and it doesn't help the development of them when people continually misrepresent the issues at hand. Edited, Oct 20th 2011 6:22pm by gbaji