Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) curves rank emission abatement options according to their marginal implementation cost and are an extremely popular tool to draft energy strategies. Although relevant and elegant, MAC curves are often insufficient to justify the implementation of abatement options, as many of the ones ranked financially convenient are not fully realized. The Y-factor method is an alternative approach to emission abatement curves, highlighting the relevance of 12 implementation barriers related to Costs, Multi-actor complexity, Physical interdependencies and Behavioral changes. This investigation applies the Y-factor method to construct a new emission abatement curve, validating its characterizing scores with experts. The obtained Y-curve exposes the relevance of many implementation barriers not capture by MAC curves, as financial barriers are found to account for only 30% of all the considered implementation barriers; the relevance of non-financial barriers helps explaining the reasons for which abatement options considered financially convenient are not implemented. The interviews with experts also verify the relevance of each of the 12 considered factors, each of which is found to be explicitly hampering the implementation of abatement options. Moreover, new insights are highlighted for each of the considered abatement options comparing their ranking in the Y-curve with their respective ranking in McKinsey's global cost curve. The constructed Y-curve and the Y-factor method are successively discussed with players responsible and/or consulted for drafting energy strategies in The Netherlands, namely the Ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat, PBL, ECOFYS. The proposed Y-curve is accepted and the Y-factor method is found able to provide supportive insights to sustainable strategy-making. Moreover, the consulted energy strategists envisioned applications of the the Y-factor method for Policy-making, Analytical researches, and for drafting Business strategies. Lastly, a new tool integrating figures from McKinsey's global cost curve and the Y-curve is presented, as an example of possible new tools developed combining the different existing approaches to emission abatement. These new insights expose hidden complexities and thus further support the elaboration of effective and cost-efficient energy strategies and sustainable societal development.