That's a bit pedantic, though. The unavoidable tradeoffs are a pretty small part of the total that we're dealing with now.
Energy consumption, heat dissipation, all of this becomes a larger problem for smaller structures. It's just easier and less error prone to build larger structures, yields are higher, so costs are lower for larger structures.
I'm certain the tradeoffs will change, but it's all limited by some physical law and while we can sometimes trade one law against the other, we can't currently break them, so tradeoffs will always exist.
The laws of physics dictate what the ultimate limits of a techology are; they do not dictate which technologies you actually choose to use.
I never said so, I agree. I'm just stating that I'm confident that in the future, we'll still have tradeoffs. And I'm certain those will include "fast and small, but expensive" vs. "slow and cumbersome, but cheap".
We already reached the point where it's a problem that the clock signal on a die spreads so slow that it's a significant problem to increase the clock rate. So we're pushing parallel computing and other solutions, but those come with their own set of trades to make.
(That “currently” is just a weasel word, but this being the Internet I understand why you put it there)
It is highly improbable that this new technology cannot be optimized in any relevant metric by trading off optimality in a different metric (this is what you are actually claiming).
http://umumble.com/blogs/hardware/machine-perception-of-time...