1. WTF do you think is going to happen if we start extracting all that energy from the natural weather cycle with large amounts of wind, solar, and tidal, generation and redistribute it over the surface of the Earth? How much geothermal heat is safe to let out? Will it effect the Earth's magnetic field or plate tectonics? I don't know either but if we go hog wild into a new source of energy without fully understanding it will have consequences just like fossil fuels do
2. Until we invent high temperature super conductors how do you propose we transfer this energy from where it can be generated to major population centers? You can build a normal nuke/coal/gas turbine/whatever power plant pretty much wherever it's convenient. Places good for "renewable" energy generation tend to be to far away from population centers to put all the potential extractable energy to use.
3. I wasn't aware that ZPMs existed in reality...
4. Those light bulbs that last forever have miserably low brightness and efficiency. No one would buy them so no one makes them. You're right that a lot of things are made cheaply these days but its not some grand conspiracy. The whole planned obsolescence thing didn't seem to work out too well for Detroit, did it? Many things are often made wastefully and cheaply just because its cheaper to make things that way given how fast standards change and upgrades come out. That's not all of it though and I agree that it's not ideal but you're forgetting Hanlon's Razor.
5. In the sense you're using the word, luxuries are mostly defined by scarcity. Short of synthesizing matter (Which requires an immense amount of energy. At Hiroshima only one gram of U-235 was converted into energy.) with infinite and free energy some elements will always be rarer than other and there will be material scarcity of something. That something will become a luxury because not everyone can have it. It will have to be distributed somehow. Who will decide who gets one if there is no money and therefore no market?
6. I have great hope for the future of technology and humanity. Assuming the civilization isn't destroyed by a holy war or something society and technology will continue to progress and improve the lives of more and more people. I think your pie-in-the-sky utopia ignores the reality of economics and psychology to such an extent that trying to implement it is at best a waste of time and resources and a worst a disastrous setback to real progress.
7. Human nature is difficult to define. It's may be best described by statistical tendencies towards certain actions in certain situations. The soul is an unnecessary hypothesis. There is no evidence for it, plenty against it, and it is not required to explain any observations. Human nature is in our DNA but its not as simple as there being a "charity gene" or a "greed gene". Some people are very selfless. Some people are very selfish. Most are a little of both at different times.
To make progress we must decide what actions are best given how people usually behave. Enforced classlessness is impossible by definition because whoever does the enforcing is a different class. Even if we could eliminate the need to compete for material resources it will not fix all of our problems though it would certainly be a much nicer world to live in. Even then I'm not sure you could get rid of the idea of money. I agree with much of your basic concept and the general direction you're aiming in but you're aiming entirely too high. The technology required not only doesn't exist but is actually impossible according to current knowledge. That doesn't mean its actually impossible but you've got a long way to go before you should advocate a policy that requires it.
There are a lot more concrete things we can and should be doing right now. Increased funding for basic science research will create the theories that tomorrow's technology will be based on. A Manhattan Project for fusion generators will give of large amounts of energy with a low environmental impact in the future and we should tide ourselves over with "renewable" energy where practical and next generation nuclear plants in less favorable locations. We're probably going to need cheap desalinization to irrigate all the farmland necessary to grow food for the rapidly increasing 3rd world population or poorer nations could experience massive famines when underground aquifers that water many of the worlds breadbaskets begin to run dry. After that we need to reign in birth rates worldwide so that advances in technology can keep the Earth's carrying capacity ahead of its population growth.
The sad thing is that none of this would actually be too hard to do if someone actually had the authority to order it but will instead require fighting tooth and nail through the politics of multiple nations in order to achieve. While real issues threaten the human race the some of the candidates for leadership of the most powerful nation the world has ever seen decry birth control, a tool essential to the continuation of civilization, as immoral and our greatest foreign policy crises are with people who think the creator of the universe has explicitly sanctioned our deaths. The battle is in convincing people what we should do, not in actually doing it.
There is a lot more to worry about than the existence of money and a lot better ways to go about fixing the world's problems and making it a better place. Maybe we'll get there eventually but given our current state of of technology what you're advocating is more outlandish than the idea of reorganizing our economy around the idea of faster than light space travel or teleportation.