I for one also would like to see a real critique and not some vague comments again and again on "not being serious" without the slighest data. Each time I look

I for one also would like to see a real critique and not some vague comments again and again on "not being serious" without the slighest data. Each time I looked it turned out legit. Last check I did on two 100% RE studies with feedback from one author: https://twitter.com/lguerby/status/1562911969757106176 https://twitter.com/lguerby/status/1562911969757106176 comparing https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g... (2022) and http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/145Country/21-WWS-Australia.pdf http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/145Co... (table 4 for 2050) : wind 41GW vs 100, solar 58 vs 360. would be interesting to have both authors insights Indeed in your work total produced is 267 TWh/y uncurtailed, in @mzjacobson study table 9 is 3243 over 3 year so 1080 TWh/y. About a factor of four more. In nameplate factor of 6.2 for solar and 2.4 for wind so somewhat coherent Also a must read IMHO recent survey paper on the 100% RE field: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 On the History and Future of 100% Renewable Energy Systems Research