I agreed with everything you were saying until you got to the disnissal of solar, using incomplete data, which you yourself point out as erroneous, even devious science.
But I don't blame you for not being aware of this data, until now.
The data you are not taking into account is the difference between free money issued, and free energy received.
It manifests as inflation, there has to be a direct link there, since solar energy in quantity is being put to use in all developed countries.
At some tens of GigaJoules per second in each country, it is still only around 10% of the capacity of any country, but that is enough to break the relationship we previously perceived existed between money and capital.
Now, as the solar collection capicity continues to scale up, necessarily, money is increasingly becoming less representative of actual valuable physical product.
Mathematically more valuable than any capital, because it is a function of time, whereas capital is not, so the value of capital actually has to decay to zero, in its presence.
As long as we are trying to relate money only to capital, and not the accumulating solar product, money has to devalue.
No amount of twiddling with interest rates can change that, money has to be issued per Joule on donated energy received, or devalue.
We see no formal recognition of this, so money is devaluing.
That should change your whole analysis I think, if you take it into account, with all of the implications of it.
What was previously a closed box, the financial economy of Earth, is being prised open by the new input of solar energy. It isn't a closed box anymore, and can no longer be treated as such, it seems to me.