Unbelievable. The personal opinion stated w/100% certitude below stands in contrast to dozens of peer reviewed studies in Jacobson's own field. But it's either his way or you're standing in way of True Solutions. A highly problematic way for an academic to engage in public sphere 
We should all have a lot more humility and recognize that effective solutions to the highly complex challenge posed by climate change are manifold and remain uncertain. Anyone pretending to know the One True Answer is overstating our epistemic capability.
Id also argue academics engaging in policy debate have responsibility to represent state of knowledge in their field as a whole, not solely their personal views or research. I know we all believe our work is correct. But have humility to note when field presents differing views.
I acknowledge for example that Jacobson has published numerous peer reviewed studies that demonstrate that a 100% wind, water, solar energy system is technically possible. His work is useful in illustrating key features and preconditions of that particular solution set.
But that solution set is also one of many that have been rigorously explored in the energy systems and deep decarbonization literature. It is a particularly restrictive solution set the excludes explicitly many viable decarbonization tools. That necessarily leads to >= costs.
That's why studies that include an open set of options & explore a wide range of possible future states of the world (eg costs for different technologies) routinely include some amount of nuclear, CCS, biofuels or even natural gas (with offsets) in net-zero carbon energy systems
We are all free to argue that viable decarbonization solutions conflict w/our personal values or priorities. But we should try to be clear when that is a normative statement of personal values vs an accurate reflection of state of peer reviewed research on decarbonization options
Ok, back to work exploring and identifying as many possible solutions to decarbonize our energy systems as possible... /End
