I'm not sure I understand the relevance of what Summers is saying. He's talking about a current slowdown in growth, and arguing for expansionary monetary policy. This article is claiming that there's a limited amount of growth that we can expect in the longterm, because we'll run out of sources of energy. But Summers isn't talking about energy as a limit..indeed, he's saying commodity prices are depressed.
The other article isn't entirely arguing that energy is a fundamental limit, although the example it gives is pretty hilarious. It's ultimately arguing that there are fundamentally limited things for capital to invest in and grow.
The only argument I see is that energy places a limit on growth. Now, one might think that if energy is one limit, there must be others, but I can't find that argument actually presented.
> Economist: But I have to object to the statement that growth must stop once
> energy amount/price saturates. There will always be innovations that people
> are willing to purchase that do not require additional energy.
I think you're getting this backwards--this is not an argument that there's more limits, it's an argument over whether limited energy actually implies limits to growth. What the economist says is "even if energy is limited, growth is not" and the physicist goes on to rebut that claim.
Larry Summers recently shared his opinion on the topic https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-global-economy-i....