Yes, I am aware, and that is not the problem: the problem is implementing any of them on a large enough scale. Tidal, for instance, you need to find geography that will allow for the dam, you need to build this huge great thing in there, and the ecological effect of the loss of tidal energy on that piece of coastline is huge.
Solar energy requires the hugely expensive and Carbon Dioxide-costly production of its components, seven years ago it took more energy to manufacture a solar panel than it would ever produce it its lifetime, I can only hope that those values have been improved.
Geothermal energy is only useful in those few places where there is geothermal energy, and believe me, it is being used in those places. Iceland is fortunate enough to have become totally independent of fossil fuels because of it.
Methane production from biomass is useful, but difficult to carry out, and the richest output of bio-methane, cows and garbage dumps, cannot be exploited.
Wind is great, but the peculiar NIMBY attitude that plagues many nations causes more harm than they can know.
Hydroelectric dams have major ecological impacts that must be tackled, especially in salmon and European eel rivers.
Waves carry enormous potential, but good luck accessing it.
I could go on. These are all solutions, yes, and will proper public support, education and the banishment of oil barons we could do good work with this stuff. But they all carry major problems of their own, some more debilitating than others.
__________________
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ)
|