> doesn't rule out adding renewables I never was against adding renewables. I'm simply pointing out rough estimates on our electricity usage throughout the yea

> doesn't rule out adding renewables I never was against adding renewables. I'm simply pointing out rough estimates on our electricity usage throughout the year, and throughout the day. Peaker plants, unfortunately, seem like the best solution. Natural gas is the best peaker plant for a variety of reasons. But then natural gas piped to a house for near 100% conversion efficiency is even better (rather than taking rather dramatic hits on conversion inefficiencies). Therefore, Natural Gas in homes is surprisingly useful, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. We absolutely should be building renewables for the near and moderate terms. We don't have enough renewables for baseload yet. > You've switched from talking about heating (presumably in climate that needs a significant amount), to talking about cooling California. California has public electricity usage patterns. For better or worse, its the best data that we've got. I assume its somewhat representative of the energy requirements across the country. Other parts of the country its way more complex because there's natural gas flowing everywhere. So its harder to convert Natural Gas heating vs electricity prices. Nonetheless, the concept of "This differs based on the weather" and "The weather changes dramatically every week" is universally true.