This is a cool analysis, but with maybe the wrong conclusion, based on a few misconceptions around energy.
It is true that the most important energy source, (well, the only actual energy source; solar), is not as energy dense as that from large centalised power plants, as solar is distributed by nature, but we should notice that the way we actually use and need power is also distributed by nature.
The only reason we have historically tended towards centralised energy production with distribution by national grids, is to create maximum rewards for centralised power shareholders, arguing also some economy of scale.
But now with also reversible hydrogen fuel cell technology, all communities, workplaces, and dwellings can be solar powered with local microgrid, even producing an excess of hydrogen, which functionally replaces fossil fuels, with none of the pollution.
We might see here is the solution for transportation which is also distributed by nature; distributed production of fuel is actually production at the point of distribution in all places.
Replacing the batteries in all applications including EVs removes the toxic battery problem, whilst fixing also the centralised charging problem. So EVs fit just fine, with batteries replaced by fuel cells.
Scaling up to the levels of solar needed requires in theory a ten fold increase in solar capacity in all countries which is actually possible in one or two years, given appropriate financial incentives as Vietnam has shown.
But as explained elewhere, by the requirement for "Kardashev Money" becoming ever greater, it will at some point have to be issued in order to combat inflation by preserving the value of currencies, which will render a very large portion of "Bullshit business" redundant, in practice only maybe a five-fold increase is necessary.
On the fossil fuels still needed for manufacture, why should we think that the power for manufacturing itself, and for waste processing, should not also come from solar?
This looks like the problem fixed, to me.