Its good that you started looking at things from an energy point of view, and thanks for the quotation from Buckminster Fuller, I didn't know he used the term "Energy slave", its a terms I also found myself using, analysing the system independently.

We might have slightly different ideas of what human energy requirements are. It looks like Bucky might have devised his own way to deduce his estimate of that, but this but its something incredibly tricky to establish with any confidence.

I use the results of this FAO study, converted to KWhrs:

https://www.fao.org/4/y5686e/y5686e07.htm#bm07

A rough rule of thumb that comes out of this, is that an adult requires about 3KWhrs per day for reasonably comfortable healthy living.

We get that currently by profit, and profit ultimately has to come from the planet.

8 billion of us takes 8 billion x 3KWhrs per day from the planet, just for the energy we metabolise.

If we didn't convert any of that to heat, and took it from the sun instead, we would be cooling the planet at the rate of 8 billon x 3KWhrs per day. As it is we are heating the planet by something less than this amount, so transferring it to the energy of the sun would involve cooling at a lower rate.

But the point is, it would be cooling, rather than heating.

The same thing goes for any and all non-human consumption of energy.

Whatever is done by the energy of the sun is creation, reduction of entropy, reduction of temperature.

The art, after we move to the energy of the sun, as we have to, is to maximise what we create by that energy, which can never become heat, until it might be destroyed again.

This is why I talk a lot about hydrogen, every kg created is 33KWhrs removed from the potential heating effect of the sun, unused.

Two households with a generous complement of solar can run a 2.4KW electrolyser 24 hrs per day, generating a kg per day.

In a year that would be 365 x 33KWhrs of heat removed from the heating effect of the sun

4 billion pairs of households doing that would be a lot of hydrogen, which could be sold to aerospace, and aerospace flying on that would be cleaning and filtrating both air and water, whilst converting at least some of the energy from hydrogen to kinetic energy, which is not heat. That work, of moving aeroplanes around, would reduce heat, the more of it is done.

See a lot of the old rules turn upside down, when we move to the energy of the sun, including what we do with money reflecting the energy coming in, we would have to give it for free, to propagate the energy to all needing it, whlst maximising the energy value of money.

To know why this is true, just consider the case of supplying solar energy at profit. If we convert the money paid for the energy to KWhrs at market rates, this has to always come to more KWhrs than was received from the sun and sold.

The difference then, the energy profit, has to come from the planet, because only the planet can supply more energy out than was put in, defeating the temperature benefits that would be had, if we were just using solar alone.

Profit ties us into energy extraction. This is why I refer to us as energy slaves - worker ants, that just hoover up the energy from the planet without ever questioning the bad effects of the hoovering.

I think I explained the adiabatic atmosphere vs greenhouse gases problem previously, its just something we do to cover up that it isn't just fossil fuels use that is the problem, its profit, which is the problem, and fixing this means the end of all business as it used to "Work".