John, it isn't true for any alternative energy, because the Joules that went into whichever process is creating the energy we extract for our use, came from Earth. Those Joules, input to the energy "Generation" process, were subtracted from the Joules put to use on Earth by nature.
Therefore, we have to mathematically sign that energy as negative, to show that something on Earth was destroyed by that process.
I know this upsets the whole applecart of "Renewables", but it is the undeniable, whole truth.
If we do not consider this whole truth of Joules going in vs Joules taken out, and where the source Joules came from, then we stay in the world of half truths, denying that we are destroying the planet.
Indeed when we eat a tomato, we are working on extracted energy, technically negative energy. However, we have to say that is just fine, as long as we are not burning the tomato, to extract "utilities" energy from it, to sell on to others (Why would we want to, if we had abundant solar power?).
Of course it is just fine for us to keep eating what we eat, but for emegencies, and to reduce the load of human food consumption from sources on Earth, there is a way of producing food from sunlight, which can be consumed as positive energy, that is "Solein", which comes from a hydrogen activated process, and we can generate hydrogen by electrolyisis from solar, so the whole chain is mathematically positive.
This would allow food production by nature to somewhat recover, if we get close to exhausting it, as we seem to be.
On why we need to issue money on every Joule collected by solar panels, this is what we need to do, to clearly delineate the energy that nature uses from the energy humanity uses.
We only need to emulate as a species what happens within a plant, to do for Earth what plants do.
The leaves of plants are their interface with the energy of the sun, which they then pass on to Earth via nutrients.
Some scientists (Profit driven?), deny plants work like this, but with no actual proof, no-one appears to have studied it in much detail, and when we look at the structure of a plant, it is clearly bidirectional, nothing is stopping nutrients soaking to Earth under the forces of gravity by the plant roots. So the systems argument wins; where else does all that solar energy landing on Earth go, if not to Earth via nutrients, then creating everything we know?
So within the plant, nutrients are issued in response to the photons (Carrying Joules!) landing on its leaves, thus the Joules carried by photons until then, are transferred to Joules carried to Earth via nutrients.
The solar panels are our human equivalents of leaves.
The reason money has to be issued on it at all, are fully explained in many other stories I've done in Medium, including the one I keep pointing you too, but you seem to be missing:
With respect dude, I can't say it any clearer, and this isn't "An idea" of mine, or as others have described it, "A dream".
It is observation of the way nature works, equipped with thirty years of formal Systems Engineering experience.
Here is the rule I see formed, from analysis of the system of nature, and how we need to work with it:
"Nature is the grand authority. Her currency is Energy. There is one issuer and enforcer of it, the sun. We either use it, or burn."
Using it means monetising it, the same way as plants use it.
The world is no longer zero-sum, since that energy started to make a difference, around 2005, which is now resulting in uncontrollable inflation.
The only answer, is to issue the damn' money representing the Joules of energy coming in...
