Thanks for stating your view, I appreciate it. But I think we might have our wires crossed, as you are directing me towards a book about "non-renewable" sources, when I am talking about, and pointing out we need to use solar. For sure neither term "Renewable" or "Non-renewable" actually applies to physical energy, it actually is neither, the terminology looks devised to confuse, as I've written about previously. Perhaps some of the authors you mention are responsible for devising these terms, who knows, who even cares. But it is crucially important to sort out the confusion. this is not about winning an argument on intellectual kudos which makes no difference to our current predicament either way, like economics usually is always arguable, this is about a physical system which we have to physically integrate with. It is easy to print money for nothing, and make all kinds of claims of what might or might not be backing it, but that is not possible with energy, and the challenge we have, as far as I can see, is to put these two things together. Money is the human construction, energy is nature. We can't change the way energy works, but we can change the way money works, to align with it, and that is what I've been spending my time explaining how to do. The consequence of aligning money with energy, will be that a lot of the uncertainty about money will be removed, by it being underpinned by the hard laws of physics (nature), so there will not be much left for economists to argue about, as far as I can see.

I hope that might help clarify where I am coming from.