1) Quite good in its central purpose, to dismiss the idea that Earth is being limited by the usual culprits of energy use, such a fossil fuels, etc. From the physics and thus indeed from the excellent position of first principles, we can see that this is not the case.
2) Would like to see qualification in regards to resources which can be lost forever, at least given our current level of technology. For example, gasses lost into space.
3) Furthermore, would like to see discussion on resources converted into less useful forms and cost of reversal(the usual argument against recycling is that the cost is high).
4) Considerations of ever-increasing demands by population as the minimal acceptable level of living standard. For example, your average farmer in the 1700s consumed less energy than your average toddler per year if we consider the cost of plastic toys and light bulbs. Couldn't we continue to see this increase in energy consumption per individual, or have we maxxed out? Furthermore, some people are only satisfied via inequality, so for individuals who desire to be masters, they require others to have less and this is not possible due to universal wealth, this unfufilled desired for inequality will add to stress.
5) Addendum to 4, borrowing in part from Karlin's book review of the Coming Collapse of Complex Societies. There appears to be a mutation in societies(and I would argue, in nature) for every increasing complexity, including much useless complexity. Where this complexity introduces additional costs, it may lead to increased inefficiencies in energy to purpose.
6) And of course, this level of increased inefficiency is found not, per se in the physical limits of say, solar energy but in the transformational technology needed. The Sun produces so much energy, but there are only so many solar panels for it. As with clean water and hypersonic missiles, we see the limiting factor is can be increasingly high cost of conversion due to societal dysfunction plus "complexity cost" including bureaucratic laws such as "work expands to fill all available time/budget."
7)Seven is a holy number. Increasing use of transformational technology to human use may create vast negative externalities beyond our envisioned coping mechanisms and limited by our cognitive hardware. Pollution is the obvious culprit here, but we can also consider various other runaway mechanisms including those in Hungry Brain(optimization for selling food), disruption of sleep patterns, etc. An increasingly depressed society, for example, requires an increasing amount of painkillers, liquor and drugs(including virtual ones like vidya games) to sustain.
You run out of carbon first. 10 quadrillion people consist of 5e17 kg C at 50 kg apiece (including, say, clothing.) But there's only about 5e16 kg reasonably accessible.
Given the costs of panel manufacturing after oil/coal/nuclear is depleted, the energy requirements of human maintenance and the inefficiencies of battery storage and recycling, can a solar economy become self-sustaining and generate a surplus?
The Centre for Industrial Progress (https://industrialprogress.com/blog/) is another good resource on the energy industry in particular, though they're a bit fossil-fuel-centric.
I think about "resources" by splitting them into three basic categories:
1. Atoms. It's extremely hard to create or destroy atomic nuclei, so we effectively have a fixed "budget" of, e.g., copper atoms or gold atoms within Earth's crust. However, this budget is much broader than often assumed, because the Earth is very big -- most of Earth's land is uninhabited, so there are likely still huge mineral deposits waiting to be mined. If we ever mine all the copper we will need to either recycle the copper in use, or start mining asteroids and other planets. (One corollary of the fact that atoms cannot be destroyed is that they are not "used up", though they may end up in a position where they cannot be extracted.)
2. Molecules. It's easier to create or destroy particular types of molecule, but the energy required to do so may be very large. For example, to survive, we need to consume proteins (which are long organic molecules), and these are most easily created by rearing animals or growing certain plants. E.g., soil + water + sunlight -> grass, grass + water + baby cows -> adult cows, and therefore beef. As you point out, organic resources are theoretically endlessly renewable -- the biosphere essentially recycles the same atoms over and over, as organisms consume matter from their environment, and reconstitute it internally into carbohydrates, proteins, fats and so on.
Hydrocarbons are obviously one of the most valuable categories of molecule, as they represent an incredibly powerful store of energy that built up incredibly slowly. There is a limited amount of hydrocarbons (though they are less limited than many believe), and so we will need to find a replacement eventually.
3. Energy. With sufficient energy it's possible to overcome pretty much any other resource limit, e.g., transforming one material into another, growing tomatoes in Iceland (the Icelanders have geothermal-powered greenhouses), etc. As you point out the Sun is (on a human scale) an effectively boundless supply of energy. Hydrocarbons are an incredibly versatile source of energy, but as I mentioned in #2, we will at some point need to switch to hydro or nuclear for our energy needs.
1) Quite good in its central purpose, to dismiss the idea that Earth is being limited by the usual culprits of energy use, such a fossil fuels, etc. From the physics and thus indeed from the excellent position of first principles, we can see that this is not the case.
2) Would like to see qualification in regards to resources which can be lost forever, at least given our current level of technology. For example, gasses lost into space.
3) Furthermore, would like to see discussion on resources converted into less useful forms and cost of reversal(the usual argument against recycling is that the cost is high).
4) Considerations of ever-increasing demands by population as the minimal acceptable level of living standard. For example, your average farmer in the 1700s consumed less energy than your average toddler per year if we consider the cost of plastic toys and light bulbs. Couldn't we continue to see this increase in energy consumption per individual, or have we maxxed out? Furthermore, some people are only satisfied via inequality, so for individuals who desire to be masters, they require others to have less and this is not possible due to universal wealth, this unfufilled desired for inequality will add to stress.
5) Addendum to 4, borrowing in part from Karlin's book review of the Coming Collapse of Complex Societies. There appears to be a mutation in societies(and I would argue, in nature) for every increasing complexity, including much useless complexity. Where this complexity introduces additional costs, it may lead to increased inefficiencies in energy to purpose.
6) And of course, this level of increased inefficiency is found not, per se in the physical limits of say, solar energy but in the transformational technology needed. The Sun produces so much energy, but there are only so many solar panels for it. As with clean water and hypersonic missiles, we see the limiting factor is can be increasingly high cost of conversion due to societal dysfunction plus "complexity cost" including bureaucratic laws such as "work expands to fill all available time/budget."
7)Seven is a holy number. Increasing use of transformational technology to human use may create vast negative externalities beyond our envisioned coping mechanisms and limited by our cognitive hardware. Pollution is the obvious culprit here, but we can also consider various other runaway mechanisms including those in Hungry Brain(optimization for selling food), disruption of sleep patterns, etc. An increasingly depressed society, for example, requires an increasing amount of painkillers, liquor and drugs(including virtual ones like vidya games) to sustain.
We can run out of uranium.
You run out of carbon first. 10 quadrillion people consist of 5e17 kg C at 50 kg apiece (including, say, clothing.) But there's only about 5e16 kg reasonably accessible.
Given the costs of panel manufacturing after oil/coal/nuclear is depleted, the energy requirements of human maintenance and the inefficiencies of battery storage and recycling, can a solar economy become self-sustaining and generate a surplus?
Also in this vein (and one you might have seen already) is "The Ultimate Resource", by Julian Simon -- online here: http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/.
The Centre for Industrial Progress (https://industrialprogress.com/blog/) is another good resource on the energy industry in particular, though they're a bit fossil-fuel-centric.
I think about "resources" by splitting them into three basic categories:
1. Atoms. It's extremely hard to create or destroy atomic nuclei, so we effectively have a fixed "budget" of, e.g., copper atoms or gold atoms within Earth's crust. However, this budget is much broader than often assumed, because the Earth is very big -- most of Earth's land is uninhabited, so there are likely still huge mineral deposits waiting to be mined. If we ever mine all the copper we will need to either recycle the copper in use, or start mining asteroids and other planets. (One corollary of the fact that atoms cannot be destroyed is that they are not "used up", though they may end up in a position where they cannot be extracted.)
2. Molecules. It's easier to create or destroy particular types of molecule, but the energy required to do so may be very large. For example, to survive, we need to consume proteins (which are long organic molecules), and these are most easily created by rearing animals or growing certain plants. E.g., soil + water + sunlight -> grass, grass + water + baby cows -> adult cows, and therefore beef. As you point out, organic resources are theoretically endlessly renewable -- the biosphere essentially recycles the same atoms over and over, as organisms consume matter from their environment, and reconstitute it internally into carbohydrates, proteins, fats and so on.
Hydrocarbons are obviously one of the most valuable categories of molecule, as they represent an incredibly powerful store of energy that built up incredibly slowly. There is a limited amount of hydrocarbons (though they are less limited than many believe), and so we will need to find a replacement eventually.
3. Energy. With sufficient energy it's possible to overcome pretty much any other resource limit, e.g., transforming one material into another, growing tomatoes in Iceland (the Icelanders have geothermal-powered greenhouses), etc. As you point out the Sun is (on a human scale) an effectively boundless supply of energy. Hydrocarbons are an incredibly versatile source of energy, but as I mentioned in #2, we will at some point need to switch to hydro or nuclear for our energy needs.