What you are saying here, based on what Murphy has said, has some problems.
Firstly you claim any use of energy generates heat.
Not true. Use of energy by definition reduces heat.
Does a plant absorbing the energy of the sun get hot?
No, it gets cooler.
Heat, is energy actually not put to use.
If you want the sun to heat the earth less, you can use plants, or solar panels, or anything that puts the enetgy of the sun to use.
This is first principals physics, that you got in first year, if you did any physics courses.
Secondly Murphy claims there is no such thing as free energy.
I guess you and he justify that by bundling the financial cost of equipment needed to collect solar, into the argument of whether or not solar is free.
Notice that all the equipment does, in effect, is to allow the sun to shine into the economy. It's like opening a door, to allow the sun to shine in.
The cost of pushing open the door has nothing to do with the sunlight shining in.
What matters, is that the sun is not demanding anything in return for the Joules it is pouring in.
It truly is for free.
Notice those Joules convert to things like hydrogen fuel via electrolysis, and onwards even to food like Solein (Google it!)
Those things are solid physical product created from Joules received for free.
They convert to revenue by sales, if revenue is needed, to buy solar infrastructure for more solar collection.
So there we see how the energy from solar itself, which came for free, can be used to "Grow" the solar infrastructure from "seed" installations, all of it paying for itself very quickly.
The fundamental difference between solar and extracted energy, which is incredibly important, and should have been taught in basic physics, but hasn't been so far, is that energy should be mathematically signed, to indicate whether use of it adds or subtracts from Earth.
This is the only way to sensibly and unarguably identify whether use of it is "Good", by being truly sustainable, adding to creation, or "Bad", subtracting from creation.
Of course it has to start out as good, coming from the sun, adding to Earth by creating all life on it, so we have to sign it positive from sun.
After it is on Earth, effectively put to use by nature, or by us, supplementing nature, all of this is automatically positive, since the product of a positive process, using positive energy, is positive.
But if we cut those plants down and burn, or consume them, or any of the food chain resulting from them, including eventually even fossil fuels, we are removing energy put to use on Earth. Therefore this process is automatically mathematically negative.
There you have a real physical, mathematical method of relating the damage done, to creative work done, the result of what we do on Earth is the sum of these two put together.
No surprise it is still heavily negative and has been for our entire history. But there is definite evidence, that it is starting to move in the right direction, since we are now around 20 percent solar powered, in all developed countries, via domestic and community solar.
I've shown evidence of this in my own stories in Medium, written as a long practicing Systems Engineer. I don't get really important sums wrong, can't afford to, it's my job to get them right, so I always get them right.
If you read that story, about how and why the money being demanded by governments as taxes, in the presence of significant free energy being put into economy, is in error, because they omitted to put the mathematical signing on energy, as I just explained, then you would see why we have inflation, it is because product is being created for free, whilst pushing down utilities energy business, upon which money issued only as debt, can only monetise, because that product is not for free, it is the one monetised by money not issued for free.
Get it?
The only solution, when the sums are done correctly, is to issue money for free, to monetise and ennummerate product created for for free, in the economy.
Obviously this is the writing on the wall, for all of the bullshit industry, existing on only extracted, (mathematically negative) energy.
Remove that, and our total energy demand goes down, not up. It isn't clever to try to estimate total future power demand not taking this into account.
So if you really want to do good, Indi, you should see this, and do what we all will need to do sooner or later, not least because we will sooner or later all become energy impoverished, from lack of energy content in money, due to inflation, because the money that needs to be issued to conduct the free energy coming in, is not being issued, it is becoming increasingly less representative of the actual physical product being created, still scaling up, and being put to use in the economy.
The only way out of this is to demand that the free money is issued, authentically reflecting the free product being created.
This isn't some kind of miracle, it's just physics, the physics of solar energy.
If you study the part to be played by hydrogen you'll notice it functionally replaces fossil fuels, and the vast bulk of batteries, powering even aeroplanes, but on the other hand even converting to food, and even filtrating and distributing clean drinkable water as a by-product of its widespread use.
You, and Murphy, and "B", and all the other Doomers can carry on ignoring all of this, but for what?
What will you achieve by it for your kids?
A better world, or unnecessary, actually species threatening further wars, destruction, and all the other bullshit business?