"One-third done" sounds an awful lot like we're going to start seeing optimistic "we'll be halfway there at the end of the decade" headlines soon...
[0]: Things like the grid and car batteries don't operate at 100% but closer to 95%, but things like heat pumps operate at 300% efficiency, so I reckon that'll more-or-less cancel out for back-of-the-napkin math.
40% of all global shipping is used for fossil fuels. [1]
10% of the energy in a barrel of crude oil is used to refine it. [2]
I'm not even counting the energy cost of crude oil extraction, pipeline leaks, hauling gasoline, diesel and LPG to its final destination, or the million other places where energy is lost.
1. https://cleantechnica.com/2026/06/16/shipping-freight-energy...
2. https://autoexpert.com.au/posts/the-energy-cost-of-petrol-pr...
The fallacy here is counting barrels of oil, shipments of coal, or whatever and assuming it needs to be replaced 1:1 by what used to be called alternative energy to get the same useful energy. But of course with electrified systems, the losses from generation to use are a lot less. Things like wires and transformers have their own inefficiencies of course. But the numbers are pretty good. You end up with 80-90% useful energy. As opposed to 30-40% for typical fossil fuel plants. And far less for any combustion engine vehicles.
It's called the primary energy fallacy. As Michael Liebreich suggests, there are people using this term that genuinely don't get it. And there are those using it intentionally that do. But the bottom line is that their math tends to be off by about 3-5x.
So of course this didn't change in the 30 years following 1980, right?