> Here in the UK, natural gas is used to provide electricity[1], so switching to a heat pump right now isn't likely to help with the environment
Efficiency of a typical combi boiler is 90%. The notional efficiency of a heat pump in UK climate will be around 300-400% (or rather 3-4 COP). Even accounting for transmission losses etc. a heat pump powered from gas turbines is better for the environment than a combi boiler.
And that's assuming the grid doesn't become more green over time. It's not exactly uncommon for cold snaps to be windy too, so it could be 80% renewables. Put it this way, a gas boiler is never going to become more green, a heat pump is going to become more green over it's lifespan (especially in the UK which has very aggressive grid decarbonisation plans).
The incentive structure is broken right now. It costs ~4x to operate a heat pump compared to a gas furnace in California right now. Even with very low use and roof top solar my electric bill is $250 a month when, before heat pump it was $80 with heavier use.
Yes... that's because we're talking about externalities that an electorate wants to go away, but doesn't want to actually pay for.
The entire problem is that we aren't paying the actual cost of what we are consuming, and the cost of a product without these externalities is slightly more, but without making people pay for the externalities, it's not marketable.
This is the tragedy of the commons, and it's only a conundrum because the electorate wants to have their cake and eat it too.
I see this argument a lot that "if only they priced in externalities the numbers would come out in favor of electricity" but I haven't seen a calculation of those externalities that isn't effectively just making up a number.
Like I just picked one from a .edu https://scarab.bates.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi and it's just comical with 980% externalities. A number that can be turned into actual policy seems impossible to reach.
It seems like the way forward is just make the thing you want people to do cheaper than the status quo, artificially or not, and let people's economic incentive kick in. But if it's artificial you can't do a California and rug pull net metering.
But the efficiency of a gas power plant is only 20-60%. I'm all for electrification but unless my sums are wonky, a percentage of gas that was used to create electricity for heat pumps would have been better off burnt in a boiler. Over half the UKs power came from gas this last week.
We need to turn back to nuclear until we've figured out grid level storage.
Our existing grid won't handle the 150A homes we'll need when everyone has heat pumps and a pair of EVs charging on the driveway.
Storage allows demand-shifting to localities, lessens the burden directly on central stations and stabilises costs. Getting people to buy their own storage also helps but it's hecking costly and much more economical at scale.
Efficiency of a typical combi boiler is 90%. The notional efficiency of a heat pump in UK climate will be around 300-400% (or rather 3-4 COP). Even accounting for transmission losses etc. a heat pump powered from gas turbines is better for the environment than a combi boiler.
And that's assuming the grid doesn't become more green over time. It's not exactly uncommon for cold snaps to be windy too, so it could be 80% renewables. Put it this way, a gas boiler is never going to become more green, a heat pump is going to become more green over it's lifespan (especially in the UK which has very aggressive grid decarbonisation plans).