> Comparing two extremes Jacobson and co-authors compared the annual energy costs, emissions, public health impacts, and social costs associated with implementi

> Comparing two extremes Jacobson and co-authors compared the annual energy costs, emissions, public health impacts, and social costs associated with implementing either of two extremes across all sectors in 149 countries over the next 25 years. > One extreme would see a complete switch to using heat and electricity generated by wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower for all energy needs (...) > The other extreme would see countries maintain their current reliance on fossil fuels with some renewables, nuclear, and biomass (...) The study might be well intentioned, but since none of the two scenarios has a probability that is different from 0, its use for policy makers, investors, and voters might be very little. In reality, it will always be a mix of both approaches, not because I'm "the truth lies in the middle" kind of guy, but simply because there might be local optimizations found along the way that favor one or the other approach (or both at the same time) based on local and temporal considerations with regard to the financial, technological, political, social, ecological, and cultural conditions.