I don't personally mind wind and hydro much, but they are things used mostly by utilities energy supply companies to supply energy at profit, and profit depends on energy being extracted in some other way from the planet.

So if we did make the switch away from being dependent on extracted energy sources, we would probably drop wind and hydro naturally, they would not be attractive, if we were monetising solar. Technically we couldn't monetise wind or hydro, or any other "indirect solar", because it would be impossible to determine how much of what we use comes from the planet, and how much from the sun, we would not know if we were taking too much power out of the wind, for example, until it did something not good in the environment. Same goes for hydro.

To me a fundamental feature of the energy problem, a feature we have put in it ourselves, is ambiguity, and confusion. Its easy to eliminate the confusion by just drawing a hard line and saying that wind and hydro are not mathematically positive. In both cases, there is some energy taken from Earth, that nature already put to use, stolen by the energy con of profit, and converted to heat, and if we get too obsessed or dependent on the profit from it, rather than any benefit it might be doing, we will end up making it harmful. Notice it is only utilities energy companies using it, its not something attractive to say a farm or whatever, if the farm compares it to solar with appropriate storage (hydrogen), there is no need for wind, the only reason its used is to make profit, it seems to me. Same goes for hydro, why bother if its easier to just do solar with appropriate storage (hydrogen)