If one form of energy becomes the cheapest, most secure, and cleanest, you’d probably adjust your economy to use more of it, right?

That’s one of the ideas underpinning a report the International Energy Agency issued last week about the global move toward electrification. Fatih Birol, head of the IEA, discussed some of the concepts from the report the following day at the United Nations.

“Many, many years in the energy world, we had three choices in front of us. Shall I choose the most secure energy option? Shall I choose the most economic energy option? Or shall I choose the cleanest energy option?” he asked. “We have to make choices, we have to make trade-offs but when we look at the world today, for the first time in years, all of these three objectives are getting aligned.”

Birol’s referring to the “energy trilemma,” a concept in energy and economics research about the need to balance cost, security and environmental impact of sources and systems. He said those priorities are increasingly aligning in part because of the Iran war, which has driven up fuel prices and exacerbated concerns about energy security.

It’s notable that the leader of the world’s leading energy research organization is so optimistic about electrification. I reached out to energy researchers this week to get their reaction.

But first, some numbers:

With $100 worth of gasoline, an internal-combustion-engine car would go 862 miles; with $100 worth of electricity, an electric vehicle would go 2,310 miles—nearly a threefold advantage for the EV.

For home heating, $100 would buy enough fuel for a gas boiler to provide 30 days of heating; it would also fund enough electricity for a heat pump to provide 42 days of heating—a 40 percent edge for the heat pump.

The figures are 2025 global averages from the IEA report, and the gaps are probably larger today with gasoline and natural gas experiencing price spikes that exceed rising electricity costs.

Global electrification trends also tell the story. The world used 16.7 percent of its final energy—meaning the energy consumed by the end user—from electricity in 2000, and that share rose to 23.4 percent in 2025, according to the IEA.

China has had the largest change, and North America was among the smallest in that period, a difference largely attributable to levels of renewable energy use and EV adoption.

But this doesn’t mean electrification is inevitable, according to energy-systems researchers.

“I see today’s energy system more as a Rorschach test,” said David Victor, a professor of innovation and public policy at the University of California, San Diego.

By that, he means different people see different things. He acknowledged it’s possible to view the trilemma as becoming aligned, but he still sees many obstacles.

For example, he doesn’t expect to see a rapid shift to electrification for heavy trucks, maritime transport and aircraft. He also thinks trade barriers may hinder electrification, with countries seeing benefits of producing goods at home rather than relying on imports such as Chinese solar panels.

“The trade-offs are inescapable,” he said.

Some of the trade-offs are political, with elected officials and entrenched industries seeking to slow electrification, said Emily Grubert, an energy systems researcher at the University of Notre Dame.

“I think [Birol is] basically correct, but the reason we’re not seeing transition happening rapidly and naturally is that the ‘we’ he’s referring to is not the ‘we’ that actually makes the decisions,” she said in an email.

Instead, some decision-makers are prioritizing the profits of certain industries, which often means favoring fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and slowing the transition to cleaner sources.

Grubert could be describing many countries in which fossil fuel industries hold political sway, including the United States.

Kenneth Medlock III, senior director for the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, said it’s vital to fully evaluate the costs and benefits of electrification.

“In truth, the lesson from the current moment is to diversify energy choice and the supply chains of specific energy types, but at the lowest possible cost,” he said.

Medlock thinks arguments in favor of electrification don’t account enough for the high upfront costs of building the systems. A good example is how wind and solar have low operating costs but are expensive to build. Fossil-fuel power plants also are expensive to build, but his larger point is that the advantages of any option come with disadvantages

Outside the wealthiest economies, the case for electrification is tougher to make, said Chuks Okereke, professor of global climate governance and public policy at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom.

“Sometimes in the bid for optimism, we oversimplify and ignore important contexts,” he said.

Okereke was lead author of a paper published in June in the journal Energy Economics that shows how fossil fuels and highly polluting development make short-term economic sense in Nigeria compared to cleaner alternatives. One reason is the high upfront cost of infrastructure.

For the energy transition to be a net-positive for the Nigerian economy, the world’s wealthy countries and international organizations would need to provide assistance.

Birol closed his UN speech by discussing the goal of getting to 35 percent electrification of final energy by 2035. The goal was part of discussions of climate policymakers in June in Bonn, Germany, and will be on the agenda at COP31 in November in Antalya, Turkey.

If the target is agreed to at the climate change conference, it will “give a very strong and unmistakable signal” to the world about the path forward, he said.

Birol isn’t saying the world has solved the problems of the energy transition. He’s saying this immense challenge becomes a bit easier when some of the competing priorities begin to align more closely than they did before.

This matters because electrification and decarbonization go hand in hand. It means shifting nearly everything that runs on coal, oil, and gas to electricity, while simultaneously transforming the grid to run on carbon-free sources. None of this will be easy.

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Read full article

Comments

What happened when AI-created bots competed in the classic Blizzard videogame StarCraft? "Struggling to stay apace with its competitors, OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra apparently changed strategy mid-tournament and opted to cheat," Kotaku reports: StarSkirmish is an ongoing clash of AI developed bots in StarCraft: Brood War... Limited to playing as Protoss, each LLM is given an hour to develop a bot in C++, then have them build, harvest and fight on one of three maps... Yesterday, viewers watched as Claude and GPT went against each other and the human created bot Pluto... Struggling to get an edge through the day, [OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra] decided to do what LLMs do best: Lie, cheat and steal. The GPT-6 Astra bot downloaded and tagged in Stardust, a Protoss bot created by Bruce Mackenzie Nielsen back in 2020, considered one of the best of the bests. "I am rolling back GPT-6 Astra's code so its [sic] not contaminated and allowing it to continue," posted StarSkirmish creator Kai McPheeters. That was Friday. But by Sunday, McPheeters was posting an update on social media. "Can GPT-6 Astra avoid going 0 — 1000?" Two hours later he replied to his own post. "The answer was no." While AI companies "have repeatedly been accused of stealing the work of humans... I haven't seen an example quite so brazen," writes PC Magazine: While Astra's bot-based heist is innocuous in isolation, this is hardly the first time an OpenAI LLM has been caught attempting to cheat at a task. Indeed, the company's history of creating deceitful models stretches back almost a decade, to when an early AI model used glitches and exploits to improve its Sonic the Hedgehog completion times.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An estimated 2.3 million cancer cases worldwide in 2024, about one in eight, were attributable to infections, according to a study published in The Lancet Oncology. "This recent Lancet data is a profound reminder that a significant portion of our global cancer burden is fundamentally preventable," said David Greenberg, MD, of Hackensack Meridian Jersey Shore University Medical Center, in a news release. "We have historically siloed infectious diseases and oncology, but they are deeply intertwined. By shifting our focus toward aggressive infection control, we can literally vaccinate and treat our way out of millions of future cancer diagnoses." From a report: The study found that an estimated 2.3 million new cancer cases were attributable to infections globally in 2024, equivalent to 12% of all cancer cases. Of these, the largest number (760,000 cases, or 4%) were caused by H. pylori, followed by HPV (750,000 cases, or 4%), HBV (360,000 cases, or 2%), EBV (260,000 cases, or 1%) and HCV (160,000 cases). More than three quarters of infection-attributable cancers occurred in low- and middle-income countries. Eastern Asian had the largest burden, with 990,000 cases (42% of the global total). Rates were also higher than the global average in sub-Saharan Africa, Central and Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An attorney representing protestors said this infringes on First Amendment rights.

California has joined nine other US states in approving balcony solar installations.

In an op-ed for The Guardian, authors Timnit Gebru and Emily M. Bender argue that policymakers are focusing too heavily on hypothetical "superintelligence" while overlooking the more immediate danger of deploying unreliable AI in high-stakes settings. They point to an as-yet independently unverified CNN report claiming U.S. officials nearly intercepted a Chinese vessel after an AI-assisted intelligence report incorrectly said it was carrying nuclear-weapons components. From the article: While so many of us were focused on fictional superintelligent machines that we were told could hypothetically cause human extinction, however, there was a more serious story being reported. A series of events almost got us to armageddon, not caused by "rogue, superintelligent AI," but by government reliance on error-prone systems that are marketed by their manufacturers as being close to superintelligent. A CNN report published on September 18, which hasn't been verified by other major outlets, describes how the US "almost started a war" with China, based on an intelligence report that claimed a Chinese ship was transporting components of nuclear weapons. Military personnel made plans to intercept the Chinese vessel, complete with aircraft and soldiers ready to board the ship. A military skirmish of this kind between China and the US could quickly escalate and spiral into world war three. It was only moments before executing on the plan that American officials further investigated the intelligence report and found that it had been generated with the use of a chatbot and contained erroneous information about the vessel's contents. Unlike the terminator, "rogue AI," scenario, this incident didn't galvanize lawmakers into announcing calls for regulation so as to avoid potential human extinction. Media outlet after media outlet didn't warn the public that we almost triggered a war against a nuclear superpower because of our military's reliance on error-prone chatbots.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.