On a small scale it is splitting hairs, but these small drawbacks become huge problems when you scale them up to international level, which any power source that wants to adequately replace fossil fuels will have to do.tsb247 said:It seems to me like you're splitting hairs, and it appears that you're diverging a bit from the topic at hand.
Sure, there are drawbacks, but I would hardly go so far as to call them, "Horrific."
For instance, tidal power is more reliable than you let on. It's not about waves in the strict sense, but rather about tidal fluctuations; a rather predictable and constant phenomenon. Solar energy may requier rare earth metals, but what other piece of technology doesn't these days? Your cell phone has gold in it, so does your PC along with a host of other metals. That's just how things work.
Are some of those drawbacks you mentioned bad? Sure, they can be, but to call them horrific... That's a stretch.
Just in case I missed it, what are your feelings on nuclear power? I want to be clear here.
Rare earth minerals are an interesting issue, China currently has a monopoly on virtually all of them, and although there are still a huge amount in the earth we have already used up all the easily accessed ore and are resorting to more and more challenging and difficult remote deposits to keep up with the demand for them: http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/19/rare-earth-metals-will-we-have-enough/ This is causing more and more environmental damage (potentially in the most fragile, remote and important ecosystem on earth: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21774447)
The issue is that, while we may not run out, firstly the cost of these minerals will increase to points that using them in renewable energy turbines becomes too costly for anyone to afford, and secondly their damage of the ecosystems and environment in their retrieval completely negate any good that may come from not using fossil fuels.
Your actually right about tidal energy being reliable, I forgot about it! There is a difference between tidal and wave energy, and I just focused on wave energy (which while efficient, does require waves to work and is therefore unreliable)
Tidal is reliable, but again to harness it on a national scale would again require building huge-ass reservoirs in the sea or across rivers that would be very damaging to local sea and wildlife (It had a pretty immediate and noticeable bad effect on the fish/birds around cardiff with their barrage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Bay_Barrage) and putting one on the River Severn has been twoing and froing because of this: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Barrage)
Honestly, I'm very much undecided about nuclear. As an energy source it is one of the most reliable and efficient there is, and there is plenty of uranium to supply many plants for many years, but the potential hazards associated with it just keep it back. I think there is no right answer to this problem, except Nuclear Fusion, and that'll be 2030ish at least before it could become commercially viable and work would begin on creating nuclear fusion reactors (which would take around 10 years before they come online, so it's about 2040 at least before that'll make an impact) It's better to consider it a pipe dream at the moment and focus on what gives us the best reliable energy to base a national grid on, with a long term focus on still being viable in 20/30/40/50 years, for the least negative tradeoffs... whichever one it is I have no idea, but I'm of the opinion that every choice has huge drawbacks, it's just choosing the least objectionable.