“By using updated cost figures for wind, solar, and batteries, the researchers found that it will be economically feasible to power a reliable grid by 2035, while only depending on natural gas for 10% of annual electricity production,”

Great illustration about why 100% renewable energy may be great as a slogan, but we can't let that perfect stand in the way of the very good that would be a practical energy transition like this describes

Here, the only myth being busted is that this MacArthur Foundation-sponsored "analysis" is something other than a glossy, unpublished, non-peer-reviewed advertisement for MacArthur's investments in renewables and natural gas.

Not a single individual trained in engineering, climate science, or physics dared sign their name as an author of "The 2035 Report" - and to avoid sullying their reputations, members of its Technical Review Comittee even felt it necessary to decline any and all responsibility:

"The TRC provided input and guidance related to study design and evaluation, but the contents and conclusions of
the report, including any errors and omissions, are the sole responsibility of the authors. TRC member affiliations in no way imply that those organizations support or endorse this work in any way."

If anything, The 2035 Report is remarkable for the depths renewables and gas marketers have sunk as public support slips from their grasp after release of  Planet of the Humans.

Good afternoon colleagues! It is quite strange that the discussion died at this point, although in the end we got the construction of huge wheels more than 300 meters high to get the meager capacity of a single windmill of 6 MW. Of course such wheels can make the entire ocean surface, as is done in the case of solar panels, but neither land nor water is enough in the United States to meet the rapidly growing needs of the population. Some time ago, Bloomberg wrote about the bottomless financial pit where Germany is dumping money to the wind parks, that this project does not pay off at all. It's just purely expensive.

       At the same time, the analysis does not mention marine energy, which, unlike wind energy, has a huge potential. The ocean currents have a water consumption of hundreds of millions cubic meters per second, these figures are not comparable to traditional hydropower. Designs of underwater hydroelectric power plants that can convert the kinetic energy of ocean currents must have a completely different technology than just using air windmills on the bottom, and operate them as if they are installed on land. Of course, the cost of such power plants will be off the scale for 12,000 USD per kW. It is just that concerns that have mastered the production of onshore windmills will try to sell their products on the sea floor, but this is a dead end, since there is a limit on the size of these underwater windmills, and on the impact of the noise of their propellers for many kilometers around. At least the song of the cod going to mate will disappear from the fish forever, and they are already silent.           

         Meanwhile, ocean energy is such a significant factor in the development that it is already necessary to think about the predominance of this energy over all other sources of renewable energy. For example, the c/o "Power Ocean Project" development of a new technology for converting the kinetic energy of ocean currents the "Hydro Power Tower (HPT)" is just the direction of activity in the development of marine energy, which is most promising for obtaining the predominance of renewable energy sources over non-renewable ones in 2035.  

My opinion on this is that there may be a few specific locations across the US that will require new NG as we transition to a Zero Carbon grid but overall no new NG is needed.

We have a perfect example of not needing additional NG out in the Western US.

Currently the Western "grid"  - composed of AZ,CA,CO,ID,MT,NM,NV,OR,UT,WA,WY - has about 760 TWh of generation per year. Coal generaton is about 150 TWh - a 20% share of total.

The first question to ask would be - can the Western US replace this 150 TWh of coal without increasing NG?

Let's say we use 15 years for the timeline. That would mean an average of 10 TWh per year. Can the Western grid add an average of 10 TWh/year of non-NG generation each year for the next 15 years?