I am extremely skeptical of that 1000 year estimate. It is almost entirely depending on the assumption of the continuous energy increase of 2% per year every year, for the next 1000 years, and that tidal energy remains 1% of that total the entire time.

I think that those assumptions are wrong in multiple ways and that reasonable estimates of the amount of tidal energy that could be extracted would lead to time scales where the risk no longer becomes relevant.

It isn't a mistake to classify it as "renewable" because "renewable" doesn't literally mean until the end of time. Is solar not renewable because the sun will eventually explode? Ridiculous.

And as others have said, 1000 years is a hilariously wrong estimate.

I think if we're positing a world where our energy use increases 2% annually for a thousand years and that tidal power will remain a fixed fraction of that we're not dealing with a reasonable projection. In any event, at the end of those thousand years humanity won't be very far from Dyson Sphere territory and the tidal locking of Earth wouldn't be much of a problem for the civilization implied, but I don't think it's possible to extract tidal energy that fast.

On the timescales involved here, there is no such thing as renewable energy.