In the reading passage, there is ample support for the author's claim that wave farms can serve as one of great alternatives of fossil fuel. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author's point.
First, the professor contends that the generation of power by wave-energy facilities cannot be constant. In detail, the power generation can be hampered by diverse technical problems. For instance, a variety of breakdown and malfunction of convertors can occur since they work in harsh marine surroundings. This can give rise to variation in the capacity to generate energy. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that the amount of power created by wave farms is predictable thanks to the documented annual patterns of change in waves' characteristics.
Next, the professor insists that structures used in wave farms are not environmentally friendly. In particular, wave-energy facilities contain toxic chemicals, which can negatively influence the environment. For example, a specific material in turbines and other moving parts is noxious, so it can damage living creatures which inhabit the ocean if it is leaked. This counters the reading passage's assertion that wave farms do not trigger environmental problems, because the procedure to garner power from wave farms does not make use of fossil fuels which can release diverse contaminants.
Finally, the professor argues that wave-energy facilities are capable of ruining the surrounding views. To put it concretely, convertors which continuously float on the surface of the water are highly visible. This is mainly due to their bright color which helps them to be easily detected by ships near them, so tourists can find them with ease. This refutes the reading passage's suggestion that wave farms do not harm the outward beauty of the scenery, because convertors are tiny enough.