Solar and Wind Power plant should replace Thermal Power Plant

I will do my best to keep this interesting even though I am a newbie to this website as well as having average knowledge in this field. My contention will not deal with specifics but energy in general, in addition to refuting my opponent's arguments and proposing an alternate resolution. Take note: I am trying to post a picture,forgive me as I am new, if the picture did not show up or it turns into zombie text instead. . http://technologygreenenergy.blogspot.com...; src=". ./. ./. ./photos/albums/1/4/3520/141496-3520-nfg75-a. jpg" alt="Source:. http://technologygreenenergy.blogspot.com...; />Source:. http://technologygreenenergy.blogspot.com... Renewable energy supplies the world around 7% on average, This includes all renewable resources but with only solar and wind, the figure will be significantly less. With a ratio of 1:10, to convert to a complete consumption of renewable resources is inadvisable, especially in its current state. The reasons are outlined below. I propose the following. .. Co-Generation as an alternative(1) Instead of replacing, which is what Pro is trying to advocate, it is better to consider Co-generation rather than hunting down thermal power plants. Thermal power plants are governed by the law of thermodynamics, such plants produces enormous heat as waste products. The implementation of Co-generation in thermal plants is used to deal with the excess heat and convert it into energy. With Co-generation, the energy efficiency can be increased to a further 80% as a result instead of the flimsy 33% as what was offered by Pro With energy doubling, it is very easy to meet current energy demands. For us to meet the current energy demand is very important as our lives are highly dependant on electricity. What we use everyday, from cars to dish washers, require electricity. Since the priority of human being is to survive at the expense of other species, We have no choice but to use thermal power plants regardless of the issue of global warming The International Energy Agency, acknowledged co-generation as a viable alternative. " One technology by itself will not bring about the dramatic changes that are needed to resolutely reform the energy system. Co-generation and renewable, both low-carbon solutions, will be part of the SOLUTION. "(2) Its nice to see your originality pro, but IEA's proposed alternative is very powerful. We have to be realistic in order to change our world The Current Crisis of Renewable energy The adoption of such 'green' technology have garnered lots of negative feedback. Wind turbines are said to produce noise pollution that will likely cause health problems(3). Migraines will start kicking in at the sound of these dreadful turbines(3). Forests are destroyed for the sake of these giant unearthly machines. Over 3,500 acres to be exact(4) while it manages to power 140,000 homes(5) only, out of 5 billion inhabitants on this planet. Moreover, It produces only 7% of the world's energy. Though renewable, its harms weigh more than its benefits. The energy output is not worth it. Who is to justify the millions of species extinct in the blink of an eye? We’ve only scratched 14% of earth's species (6). There's bound to be some extinction when you cut over 3,500 acres. I have no contentions with green energy, but at its current rate, it is disastrously inefficient and too risky. For the sake of fairness as Pro could not refute my contention since he went first, I will hold my rebuttals and additional arguments until the next round. Thank You Sources (1). http://en.wikipedia.org... (2). http://www.iea.org... Pg 8 (3). http://www.naturalnews.com... (4). http://www.slate.com... (5). http://www.nytimes.com... (6). http://news.nationalgeographic.com...