As to the content itself, there are three issues here.
(1) The appeal to 2LoT is pure quackery. Even if the rest of it were perfectly sensible, including the 2LoT argument discredits the whole thing. You evidently don't understand why it's quackery. In the first place, 2LoT is an assertion about closed systems. The earth is not a closed system.
Solar energy is a given, but in many ways it is a closed system. Arable land is does not come from an external source. Fossil fuels do not come from an external source. Biomass is not wafting down from space, nor is it perpetually expanding (finite planet, a constant solar power input) . The planet Earth is not perpetually growing, nor is it's solar power input. Well it is gradually, eventually making the Earth uninhabitable. Which could be used as a metaphor for the insustainability of perpetual economic growth.
That is the point, we do not support our lifestyle with solar power, wind power, etc, our economic system is based on the availability of cheap fossil fuels. And that is not an infinite supply. Being finite, supply cannot be perpetually increased ....
As far as 2LoT is concerned we can keep growing our economy until the sun burns out.
It's highly doubtful that solar power alone can supply the needs of an ever demanding economy. Nor does a finite space, the planet itself, allow infinite growth in production, population growth or demand.
Infinite growth is a pipe dream that's not supported by the physics of a finite system, loss of habitat, biomass, production, waste, pollution, etc.
And in the second place, when you write "The second law of thermodynamics applies to economic activity in all its forms.", exactly which part of "all its forms" don't you understand? The law contains no special exemption for a steady state economy.
It's a question of living within the limitations of an ecosystem. Animals that exceed the carrying capacity of their environment collapse to a sustainable level. There are many example that a species is able to live sustainably within its environment. That is the point of a steady state economy: to live sustainably within our environment. Perpetual growth can only takes us to the point of insustainability and beyond. Neither Solar power, nuclear (or anything else) can compensate for sheer numbers within a finite system.
If 2LoT were a problem for perpetual growth it would be a problem for a non-growing economy too. Duh!
Well, duh, sustainability depends on population numbers, technology, demand, lifestyle...a sustainable economy is not impossible. But not in a perpetually growing economy within a finite system, land mass, biomass, etc, because at some point demand exceeds supply.
These two points are obvious to anybody who learned 2LoT from a physics class. That Czech (or his reviewer) would make those mistakes -- mistakes creationists make too -- shows he's a layman who got his 2LoT "understanding" the same way creationists got it: by osmosis from pop culture. To argue on such a basis is incompatible with serious scholarship.
No, at some point an ecologically sustainable lifestyle becomes unsustainable if that lifestyle (economic system) exceeds the carrying capacity of its environment. Basic physics and proven in the field. That's what Neoclassical economist dreamers tend to ignore because it does not suit their needs.
I'll leave the rest. It's just repetition.