You should be aware that there a lot of critism out there that is completely wrong, like ones based on misreading/misinterpreting statements from his studies. Y

You should be aware that there a lot of critism out there that is completely wrong, like ones based on misreading/misinterpreting statements from his studies. You should make sure to read response to criticism if you can find it. I haven't heard this specific criticism before though, so can't comment on that specifically. But you should also consider that his studies are ridiculously conservative, so there's a lot of room for error that technological improvements can compensate for. With the first versions of his studies I thought it odd that he didn't include much offshore wind. It was becoming clear that offshore wind was becoming very viable. But he used the current costs when writing the study, not projected future costs. Now I think his studies include off shore wind because the cost has come down far enough that it makes sense to include them in calculations. I think it's reasonable to assume that the costs of renewables will continue to come down, that solar efficiency will go up, and that we will have at least one or two breakthrough battery chemistry, and possibly a breakthrough in geothermal too, by 2040-2050.