Yes, I know of this one and it's precisely the sort of wishful thinking I was mentioning, particularly the sheer disregard of energy related problems (obviously, everything will be easy for ever if finding energy and getting rid of waste heat has some magical solution). You should study some posts from this for a contradictory POV:
"Waste heat" is not a problem for the foreseeable future, by the way.
The mean insolation arriving at the surface of the earth is ~1000 w/m2. The Earth has a surface area of about 5.1×10^8 km^2 or 5.1x10^14 m^2, so the incoming energy from the sun amounts to about 5x10^17 watts.
World electrical power output is only about 2 terawatts = 2x10^12 watts, or 1/250,000 of the heat received from the sun.
Clearly it's going to be a long time before we have to worry about "waste heat" on a global level.
Yes, I've read this several years ago, but you didn't read my links. Because my link use actual arithmetic, while McCarthy only says that those who don't use arithmetic are condemned to fail, then happily proceed with vague numbers and absolutely ZERO actual data.
They use the assumption that population and energy use per capita will continue to grow exponentially, when it's clear that it doesn't. That may be "arithmetic" of a sort, but GIGO, you know.
Essentially every developed country is below replacement level (the United States is an exception, but only due to high immigration).
Find out why that is and then you can discuss the issue without, as McCarthy said, talking nonsense.
I did use actual arithmetic in the waste heat calculation, which I notice that you did not dispute.
Plenty of material here: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html