Renewables are renewable if you leave out the input from the sun which is fair enough.
You are correct, Diss, there are actually no "renewables" - the Second Law of Thermodynamics forbids such a thing. Physics 101.
But "renewables" is often used as shorthand for energy that is (b) fashionable to talk about, or that (c) releases little CO2 compared to a thermal plant burning coal.
Language is imprecise, especially when religion and politics motivate ever-greater imprecisions.
nostr:nprofile1qqsqeh9kc80shz577d3ty9nxs54rq0tgvc9pazvdlgmmt4j4x8jhauqpr9mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0d4hhxarj9ecxjmnt9u32xzms is using "renewable" in the sense of (c) to describe nuclear, and is quite correct to do so. His intended audience understand "renewable" in the senses of (b) and (c), and he is working to persuade them.
Somebody has to, if living standards are not to collapse back to 1700, and that surely isn't your skill set, nostr:nprofile1qqsfcts2suzpxaeuhy2mnjwd9cwt69l98t3tp2r2hf09hu8uz0zzp5spzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43z7qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09uqsuamnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dshsyg8jf4!
Discussion
Tidal power is "renewable", even though most of the energy is (irreversibly) drawn from the Moon's orbital velocity.
Geothermal is "renewable", even though about half is non-renewable primordial heat of formation, and the other half is nuclear (radioisotopic).
The distinction is arbitrary, fake and political, I am afraid.