We won't need exotic options. The paper that Noah's piece is based on focuses on technologies with a long track record, except for electrolyzers. But the unkno

We won't need exotic options. The paper that Noah's piece is based on focuses on technologies with a long track record, except for electrolyzers. But the unknowns with electrolyzers merely mean the possible outcomes from using them range from "save trillions" (worst case, using century-old alkaline electrolysis), to "save trillions and trillions" (with likely-cheaper-after-more-engineering polymer-electrolyte membrane electrolyzers). The paper rigorously chooses conservative costs (i.e, costs that favor fossil fuels and nuclear over renewables) in every case, so its predictions are worst-case. And all the numbers in the paper are "cost of energy" only. It ignores side benefits like better health and reduced climate change damage.