Wind/Hydroelectric is Superior to Solar

My rebuttal will be fairly short and concise as well. I would like to point out that Pro's sited 'facts' on the supposed superiority of wind energy to solar revolves around the notion that the necessary equipment is operating at peak efficiency - which is often not the case. Sure, they can be placed wherever there is wind, but there needs to be enough and the topography needs to correspond to meet the threshold for net gains on power production. This limits the areas large scale [The only facilities rated for national power production] can be constructed upon. Pro has done nothing to refute the statistic showing that most of the time turbines are not operating at the needed rating, nor the fact that many plants use fossil fuel generators to subsidize losses in energy production, which, again, defeats the whole purpose of a wind harnessing installation - Clean power. He goes on to address my arguments on environmental impacts, assessing these damages as minimal. Hardly. Most of the bird watching and scientific community would disagree, and one only needs to consider the three gorges dam and others like it to take into account the massive loss of life that have occurred on both a animal and human level. These impacts are certainly anything but small. However, if one takes the prospect of solar panels into consideration, most if not all of these impacts are eliminated. Pro continues on to state 'The potential energy is not the same as the actual'. Hmm. I see what he is saying, but only in terms of kinetic vs potential. My point in using the phrase 'potential' was in the possibility of humanity harnessing the astronomical levels of energy the sun puts out, not the potential of the energy itself. Its certainly there, we just need to start using it. So when such a statement as his is made, my simple response is that the energy the sun puts out is factual, not a possibility, and it dwarfs anything we have here on Earth. He also states that solar requires adjustments, daylight, and lacks accessibility. I will concede solar cells are more technical than their counterparts, but that has done nothing to limit their application. As to the point about daylight. Considering we can now wirelessly transmit electricity, I propose we put solar installations into orbit around the sun. They can be autonomously serviced, and exceed any environmental constraints [weather] as well as generate unlimited amounts of power. The cost may be great to initiate such a leap, but the risk to reward ratio is heavily in favor of the return value. 'Wind works on land and at sea, and hydroelectric takes up no land space'. I think this error pretty much speaks for itself. I encourage you to look up how much acreage a wind farm occupies. 'But 90% of solar panels are installed on roofs'. I think this is something of a contradiction to your previous statement, that being your allegation that turbines and dams take up less space than solar cells. Last I checked I couldn't just plaster a wind farm on top of an existing suburban or urban area, but you can with solar panels. This essentially proves that solar panels can be applied to already developed areas instead of consuming new spaces. Again, thank you for a timely response. Eagerly awaiting another post.