Dave by “Earth Capital” I mean all of the joules of energy which are deposited on Earth before we put them to any use. In other words, the Joules of energy put to use by nature. We can only consider Joules of energy that we intercept directly from the sun as physical product that we can monetise, it seems to me.
Another way of looking at it is to consider where there is a theoretical cost of using wind — if we are taking the energy from the wind, then we are reducing its power, undoing something nature created, from the Joules of energy it received from the sun.
If there was a solid argument that there are forces which directly compensate for energy taken out of the wind (By proportionally boosting the solar energy put into wind), maybe that would be an argument worth pursuing?
To me it looks like if we monetised the output of wind generators, there would be no change in the effect of that, from generating money from fuel usage, it would be monetisation of capital, rather than monetisation of live energy, the only actual source of which is the sun.
If we imagine the energy flow in a tree, it has to draws energy from Earth capital during the shoot stage, before leaves are formed. In that time the energy direction of flow is from the Earth capital into the tree shoot but at some point during the formation of the leaves, the energy flow through the tree has to reverse in direction, from the leaves to the Earth capital.
Thereafter the tree contributes positively to Earth capital.
Viewed like that, our energy usage from Earth capital has always been negative, and in that mode we generate all pollution.
I don't see how it can be argued usage of wind is positive in that sense.
But I could be wrong, I would love to see a solid argument confirming it would be valid to monetise wind power.
Here is how it is works in the case of solar:
