That lays it out in a nutshell, and is the key information of why "sustainability" is interesting. Unfortunately, the "sustainability" movement is all but dead, fully co-opted by those trying to sell snake oil and techno-fixes that allow us to maintain our current levels of consumption--which don't. And of course, the public is much more interested in hearing the pitch "of the easy technofix way" rather than the real deal. They'll wise up eventually, as the screw-ups are pretty conspicuous. The collapse of "Big Island Carbon" recently is a good example-- the execs make humongous salaries selling the baloney vision of biochar and synth oil and finally once it can't be concealed any further that the whole idea is bogus and can't work within a functional economy it's all whoopsy and bankruptcy-- meanwhile pocketing those salaries. We haven't seen the last of that and I expect geothermal will go the same way.
The key lesson of studying sustainability is that "lifestyles must and will change"-- there is no option. As our costs of living increase due to commodity costs-- likely to double over the next decade one's options are:
1) Figure out how to earn twice as much money
2) Work twice as hard
3) Learn to live well on half as much(my choice)
Fortunately our culture is so affluent that one can pare back a great deal and still achieve relative comfort. The benefit of the collapse coming is that currently certain sectors of the economy retain immunity to these pressures and the cost of their services are grossly out of reference to what is sustainable(health care, education, real estate come to mind)-- but these will in fact be forced to yield and I expect will become more rather than less accessible-- which they largely aren't right now.