That's not quite what this is about. It is the Primary Energy Fallacy, that if you are to replace eg coal, you need to replicate its original energy content.

If 1kg of coal represents 1000 Wh, your generator loses 1/2 to waste heat, you only generate 500 Wh of usable electricity. Some analyses will state that renewable power has to replace the 1000 Wh of embedded energy within the coal, when it only needs to output 500 Wh.

If you use solar panels and generate 500 Wh directly, you have cut your energy use in half, even though the output has remained the same. An EV has a battery of ~80 kWh, equal to 2-3 gallons of gas, yet it can go a few hundred miles, a 3-4x ratio of efficiency, compared to an ICE.

It doesn't say it would cut energy costs in half.

Meanwhile, fossil fuels are only 'cheap' because the users are pushing the negative externalities off on everyone else in the world. Priced properly they'd be even more costly than they already are.

World energy production is increasing with solar coming to the forefront.

It is something overlooked by various reports of "In X amount of time, Y is projected to consume Z% of electricity" that the average increase in world electricity production is about 3% per year.

Why? I didn't start using more energy elsewhere when I switched to an EV or electric lawn maintenance tools. You think companies and people are using exactly as much power as available (or they can afford)?

> Unlikely. We'd just use the leftover energy for new things.

You mean data centers. Can't ever have enough of those!