Most of the elements needed for PV cells/frames/wiring can come from the four most common elements in Earth's crust, so there probably isn't a practical limit within the next few hundred years given the projected world population in that context. If we, instead of having our roofs absorb light from the sun and radiate it as heat, do the same with solar panels, with an intermediate step where we convert some of that energy into electricity and back to heat when we use it, we still have the same amount of energy being radiated back into space as heat and so on. What's causing the most trouble is the use of fossil fuels, which changes how much of the energy from the sun is trapped in the Earth's biosphere. Even if we somehow managed to increase the rate of light absorption/radiation as heat to the point where we're trapping as much additional energy as we are now due to GHG emissions, it still wouldn't impact the climate as much as those GHG emissions because the original (w/o GHGs) emissivity of the atmosphere would allow for the vast majority of that energy to escape. The problem with GHGs is that we have this tremendous source of energy bombarding the Earth 24/7/365 and we're changing how much energy we're letting out.

Neil,

A 0.1% decrease is not growth. Consuming less helps to get us on a path to sustainability but consuming more does not. I think it is certainly ridiculous, as you write, to contemplate 0.1% decline for ever, and no-one is suggesting that, although the decline will eventually become minuscule in actual quantity. It is also ridiculous to contemplate a 0.1% growth forever, since we live on a finite planet, but I bet we could go a lot longer with a 0.1% decline that a 0.1% increase.

"Sustainable for a long time" is not sustainable. The word becomes fairly meaningless, when used in that way. One might as well say that a 10% increase in oil consumption is sustainable for a year (because we're told that spare capacity could be up to 8 mbpd) but that is of little use, long term. However, suppose 1% GDP and energy growth can be maintained for a "long" time, you're right to point to the assumption that other resources can also grow as needed for such growth. So what would be the time period for such growth? Who knows? No-one, but many will make guesses, hope they're right and hope that some miracle will occur before a rethink is needed.

Entertainment and arts, though almost essential for quality of life, are not essential for living. Economic growth coming only from those areas may last a lot longer but the economy will look very different if that is what is relied on for growth. However, even low resource consumption, growing, is unsustainable.

Renewal rates are always relevant. You can't discount them simply because the mathematical proportion in the earth's crust is high. They still have to be mined and processed, with environmental damage repaired. But most people, surely, are not looking at growing energy consumption without doing anything with it? So what is the relevance of stating that some types of renewable energy can grow for a very long time, assuming that "a very long time" is a satisfactory time period for everyone?

Good point about recovery period but isn't that the point? Suppose wood was, again, an important energy source. Maybe coppicing or re-seeding at a low rate, providing the use was low, could look like an infinite supply. A 1,000 year recovery period might be difficult to view as a sustainable supply because it is well beyond the lifespan of any human.

Dams alter local habitats in periods that are significant to human timescales. Hundreds of years recovery time is too long for everyone alive at the time the dam is built.

Living sustainably, on timescales that are meaningful to individuals, make it more likely that societies can be sustainable indefinitely. Causing environmental damage deliberately, in the hope that the damage will be repaired over many generations (and assuming we don't continue to inflict that scale of damage) doesn't seem like a useful strategy for sustainability, to me.