So, this made me read the article https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452292924000493#b0265 which builds on the methodology of https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-32729-8.pdf which further uses the energy and materials estimates established in https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307512.
While it makes some gestures toward "renewable energy instead of fossil fuels", it remains pretty handwavy on the topic of critical non-renewable resources that are going to be the limiting factors. Arable land in cultivable climate, not depleted by overuse of fertilizers (which themselves are non-renewables), non-saline water (desalination is pretty energy intensive), helium, and cheap oil for making plastic, among other things. Reducing consumption was the answer 30 years ago, and even then it just would have slowed the inevitable return to no-fertilizer agriculture (immediate drop in yields), eventually no cheap plastics, no hi-tech chips (helium is essential for today's photolithography process), etc. We could hope to science our way out, and find some other ways to replace these critical resources, but short of that, the blanket approach of calculating energy and undifferentiated material mass requirements under the current technologies doesn't say anything about sustainable QOL.