I like your thinking here, you seem to be pushing at the fabric of the matrix, but not quite pushing through... the full truth is much more difficult to communicate, it only applies to one form of "Renewable", though it doesn't make wind power all that bad, the actual truth is that solar is not only low cost, but negative cost, it actually contributes wealth, but we have not put in the mechanism needed to transmit it.

In essence, if you accept that Joules are directly exchangeable for money, then look at where they come from, if it is wind, then they come from a kind of store on Earth. We can't generate money for taking something from Earth, since no product is actually added, maybe some from solar, but how much is anyone's guess. So all we are doing with wind is to convert some Joules on Earth to some another form, in the same way as we might take and sell trees for firewood, or to make paper, though money is issued on those things, as we can see they don't really add much value to Earth, because what we gained on one hand, we lost on the other. Who knows what the butterfly effect is, on taking power from the wind? We usually find out many years later, when someone finally puts two and two together, after the damage is done.

But if it is direct from the sun, then we can say those Joules are truly additonal to Earth. There we have a known, direct relationship between the solar Joules received, and the electrical power coming out, and since that power converts directly to physical product like hydrogen, and even food (See "Solein"), it absolutely should have money issued on it, because for sure it is valuable, probably more valuable than anything else we can imagine. Free food and free money. With any source of truly free energy there is free money. With any source of free money then any source of free energy is scaleable, upwards at no cost, all we need to do is use some of the money generated, to buy more collection infrastructure.

Notice this is the way plants work? A tree grows from a shoot drawing all of its energy upwards from reserves on Earth until it shoots leaves. After that, it grows from the energy received on its leaves, passing on what it doesn't use to Earth, in the form of nutrients.

That last part is not confirmed by conventional science, as far as I know, but how can it work any other way, if the tree absorbs far more solar energy in its life than is captured in its own carbohydrate content, where else does the energy go, and why should we assume that the path of nutrient flow in trees is only one way, when in all other areas of studying energy flow (Engineering - I am an Engineer), the default characteristic is bidirectional, like a pipe, the water can flow in either direction, unless we put some kind of valve in there, but why would nature do that?

Anyway, sorry for rambling, I hope you get the idea.

Sorry if it gives you an even bigger challenge, to communicate this to others, it can feel like a curse, we looked into Pandora's box and saw the truth, and after that we can't unsee it.

Here are my latest thoughts on how the point will probably have to be made, much as I am not looking forward to seeing the build-up to this, the outcome will be pretty cool:

https://eric-bott.medium.com/demand-the-free-money-aab86f0e863d