[Rantenki]

It's a neat thought experiment, but the underlying assumption:

  The world's energy consumption was about 5.67x1020 Joules in 2013.[18] This number has increased by more than 2% per year on average in the last 50 years. The average world economic growth rate in the last 50 years is about 3%, which requires a corresponding increase in the energy supply. So, the 2% growth rate for world energy consumption should be a conservative assumption.

... is a bit naive. If we're consuming (does some math) `1.02^1000 = 398264651` ...

Four billion times as much energy as we do today. I don't think there's much risk of us growing our population to that degree, nor of us being that power hungry if our population stabilizes. We'll be either extinct or back to a sustainable agrarian population far before we reach that upper limit. Honestly, if we produced that much power, I suspect we'd have long since boiled the oceans, making the whole argument moot.

TL;DR: Don't extrapolate FAR into the future based on a small (relatively) set of data points.

[qayxc]

Not only that. The paper is only even remotely plausible if the author assumes 100% efficiency. Otherwise waste heat alone would turn Earth into Venus long before any tidal locking could take effect.