Dave Borlace challenges a pervasive misconception that has stalled public confidence in the global energy transition: the idea that fossil fuels are still winning because they dominate primary energy charts. By shifting the lens from raw fuel extraction to the physics of useful work, he reveals that the transition is not stalling—it is simply being measured with a broken ruler.
The Illusion of Stagnation
Borlace begins by addressing the visual paradox that confuses many observers. "If you spent any time at all looking at global energy statistics over the past few years, you'll probably have seen a chart that looks something a bit like this. Fossil fuels still around 80% of global primary energy," he notes. This statistic creates a false narrative of inertia, suggesting that despite booming solar installations and collapsing coal markets, the energy system remains unchanged. The author argues that this perception is a statistical artifact rather than a physical reality. "Turns out the problem isn't the transition, it's the way we've been counting it," Borlace writes, setting the stage for a fundamental re-evaluation of energy accounting.
The core of his argument rests on the distinction between primary energy and the actual services energy provides. He explains that traditional metrics count the raw heat content of coal before it is burned, ignoring the massive inefficiencies of thermal conversion. "When coal is burnt in a power station, only about a third of the energy content of that coal actually becomes electricity. The rest disappears as waste heat," he points out. This is a critical oversight in public discourse. By focusing on the input rather than the output, standard charts obscure the fact that electric technologies deliver far more value per unit of energy consumed. This framing is particularly potent when contrasted with historical data on thermal efficiency; for instance, the Carnot limit has long dictated that heat engines cannot exceed certain efficiency thresholds, a constraint that direct electrification simply bypasses.
"The real insight the paper's trying to put across to us is that fossil fuel systems suffer enormous losses in the transition from primary to useful energy. Electrified systems lose far less."
Critics might argue that focusing solely on efficiency ignores the grid stability challenges and material constraints of rapid electrification. However, Borlace's analysis suggests that these physical advantages are so profound that they fundamentally alter the trajectory of the energy mix, regardless of political will.
Reframing Demand Through Physics
Borlace details a proposal from a new analysis by Michael Liebreich and the think tank Ember to flip the entire modeling approach. Instead of starting with supply, the authors suggest starting with consumer needs. "The paper's authors suggest collapsing the complexity of energy demand into two fundamental outputs, useful work and useful heat. That's it. Dead simple," Borlace summarizes. This shift from a supply-side to a demand-side perspective reveals the true scale of the transition. When measured by the energy actually delivered to homes and factories, the share of renewables appears much larger than primary energy charts suggest.
The efficiency gap widens significantly when comparing electric motors to internal combustion engines. "An electric motor converts a very high percentage of electrical energy into motion. An internal combustion engine converts a much smaller percentage of fuel energy into motion," Borlace explains. This physical reality means that as the transport sector electrifies, total energy demand can actually fall even as mobility increases. Similarly, in heating, heat pumps can deliver multiple units of heat for every unit of electricity, whereas gas boilers are limited by combustion efficiency. "A heat pump can deliver multiple units of heat for every unit of electricity consumed. A gas boiler or furnace can't do that," he writes. This structural advantage is invisible in primary energy statistics but is the driving force behind investor behavior.
"When measured in terms of useful output rather than primary input, renewables are already much more competitive than traditional statistics imply, which probably explains why renewables now dominate all new capacity additions globally."
The author also issues a sharp critique of strategies that attempt to convert electricity back into combustible fuels, such as green hydrogen for sectors that could be directly electrified. He describes this as a "retrograde decision" that reintroduces the very conversion losses the transition seeks to eliminate. "Electricity to hydrogen massively energy wasteful. Turning hydrogen into a combustible fuel hugely energy hungry process," Borlace warns. While acknowledging that molecules may still be necessary for hard-to-abate sectors like aviation, he argues that the default path must be direct electrification wherever feasible.
The Political and Economic Stakes
Why does this accounting matter? Borlace argues that what gets measured gets done, and current metrics are actively misleading policymakers. "If people believe the disinformation and are wrongly persuaded that the transition is stalling because fossil fuels still appear to be dominant in widely published primary energy statistics, then that has the tendency to weaken political momentum," he writes. This misperception creates a dangerous feedback loop where policymakers, fearing a shortage of energy, approve unnecessary fossil fuel infrastructure based on inflated demand forecasts.
The analysis suggests that electrification reduces the total energy input required for the same output, which fundamentally changes infrastructure needs and investment priorities. "Electrification reduces total energy input required for the same output that changes infrastructure needs, investment priorities, and long-term forecasting," Borlace concludes. The implication is that the energy transition is not a race to replace one fuel with another, but a systemic shift toward a more efficient physics-based model.
"What gets measured gets done. And the way we count stuff will absolutely shape the way we plan for the future."
A counterargument worth considering is that while the physics of efficiency are sound, the economic and political inertia of the fossil fuel industry is immense. Changing the accounting method does not automatically dismantle the entrenched interests that benefit from the current supply-side metrics. Nevertheless, Borlace's argument provides a robust intellectual framework for dismantling the narrative that the transition is failing.
Bottom Line
Borlace's most compelling contribution is the demonstration that the energy transition is succeeding physically even as it appears to stall statistically. The argument's greatest strength is its reliance on immutable laws of thermodynamics rather than political optimism. However, the piece assumes that policymakers will readily adopt these new metrics, a hurdle that may prove as difficult as the engineering challenges themselves. Readers should watch for how major energy agencies update their reporting standards in response to this growing consensus on useful energy accounting.