I really appreciate your choice of story, the sun is a very important topic, even existential right now, and you are right to emphasise the incredibly important point that it is the sun that supports all life that we know.
But the part which doesn't follow logic or make sense to me is "Midplane" . What midplane? How exactly is that midplane determined, is it a feature of space? What evidence do we have for the associated process of accretion? Was it something that happened instantaneously, on the big bang, or something that happpened over a period of time? If the latter, then why do we not see it still in process of forming, anywhere?
If it was true, then why would there not be life existing also sustained by the energies in or around those smaller fragments of high energy materials? Why don't we see that?
What would be the forces at work, making all things spinning in the same rotational direction and plane, begin to spin, all in the same plane?
To me it is far more logical and a much simpler explanation that everything spinning in the same direction and in same plane in the solar system, is because it all came from one object, which itself was spinning, therefore everything being ejected from it was cast out in the plane of maximum centrfugal force, like we see in some fireworks, designed to do the same.
In our case the sun would logically have been the initial spinning exploding mass, and everything ejected at anything other than orbital velocity would have either fallen back into the sun, or been ejected into space.
The reason I am arguing this is that when we analyse the energy system using the formal tools of systems Engineering, as seems necessary to do now, to sort out what is now obviously becoming an existential energy problem, there appears one very clear solution, that is to use the energy of the sun most effectively, the system analysis closes petfectly with that solution and conclusion.
But it doesn't close at all, if nuclear for example was somehow sustainable, it absolutely is not sustainable, because it is not fusion, it does not have the remarkable cabability to produce energy apparently from nothing, there is aways a cost which outweighs the benefits. Fission is a process of destruction whereas fusion is a process of creation, and destruction is unsustainable without eventually destroying all of life, whereas as creation has no limits.
This imposes practical limitations on what we can and can't do, as a sustainable species, and we've never really been aware of being close to those limits until now.
Now it is really existentially important to know those limits intimately, and the reasons for them, and the consequences of not honoring them, to be able to honor them, from now and for the future.
As said, the system solution is very clear and simple to understand, if it closes, and it does close, if we are able to say that the only safe and sustainable energy comes from the sun, because that is the only source of creation, in fact it has to be the only source of creation in the solar system, there there can be no other. All other things we might mistake as sources of sustainable energy are actually sources occuring from destruction, after they were created logically by the sun which are therefore unsustainable, and everything derived from those, rather than independently from the sun, has to ultimately end in destruction of all life depending on them. They are fuel, whilst the sun is energy, at source, from the only source of it we know.
I don't mean to upset the etablished big-bang dependent theory of accretion for the sake of it for any kind of intellectual kudos, frankly I couldn't care if we still thought the moon was made of cream cheese, if it didn't affect our ability to create all the beautiful things we love creating, but the energy problem actually stops us doing that more than we can imagine, and has done now, at least for most of us, progressively, for a very long time.
Abundance of energy from the root source of all energy needs to be supplied to all of us now, before too much longer.
We appear to be deliberately killing ourselves as a species, even unnrcessarily, without even understanding why, as long as things like accretion can be used to argue against solar being the only answer.
Is maintaining the big bang theory even worth extinction?

Btw, if you wonder why so many of us with anything to say spend so much time in virtual worlds, I believe it is because for most of us, that is the only environment remaining in which we can carry on creating. We live to create, if for nothing else, surely. You might not see that, as someone lucky enough to be empowered enough, to be creating what you wish to create. You are in a position which is becoming very rare.