First I want to say I am a big proponent of 100%. I am also however pragmatic. That paper is a good start but it does not appear to be the panacea you present it as. It’s firmest conclusions are that the research field is young and much more research is needed.

It’s good that they have made an effort to address their biggest skeptics. Ultimately I don’t know how successful they have been though.

For example on variability they present a complex web of solutions to cater for the huge variability problems presented by wind or solar (think about a majority solar solution at night). That might work in theory but it’s massively complex and expensive and prone to error. Compare that to a government minister taking the quicker solution of building a non variable relatively cheap gas fired plant without turning the grid inside out.

The aim should be to encourage gradual adoption with existing solutions acting as a temporary bridge to minimise variability only (that is likely the biggest obstacle). Fossil fuel use will never go away. The world will always need plastics, fossil derived chemicals and eg hundreds of thousands of gallons of wind turbine oil lubricant. This dovetails with the valid assumption that storage technology is getting a lot better very quickly as it’s being in effect funded by the EV industry.