3 ms·

Heat pumps are so efficient that you can take the gas you were going to burn in homes to heat them, burn it in generators (losing about 50%), send it across lon

Heat pumps are so efficient that you can take the gas you were going to burn in homes to heat them, burn it in generators (losing about 50%), send it across long wires (losing a few percent more) and still come out ahead. If you only need to do that at night, you're another 2x ahead. If you then remember that wind, hydro, nuclear and (the main subject of this discussion) batteries exist, further reducing the times you need to use this displaced gas, it's an overwhelming win. Examples like this is why electrification becomes more important than decarbonizing the last few percent of grid electricity, if the goal is to reduce carbon emisions and/or money.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Heat pumps are so efficient that you can take the gas you were going to burn in homes to heat them, burn it in generators (losing about 50%), send it across long wires (losing a few percent more) and still come out ahead. Coming out ahead by a few percent still means you need to displace the large majority of the current heating load with some form of electrical generation that can reliably supply a large amount of power at night. > If you only need to do that at night, you're another 2x ahead. You're not, because the significant majority of heating load is at night, because it's colder at night. Also, the night is longer than the day in the coldest parts of winter, and that's the time you need to spec the grid to be able to handle. That doesn't mean we shouldn't electrify heating, but it means we're probably better off generating that electricity with nuclear, which is reliable and generates power at all times, than trying to somehow use solar to supply nighttime power in winter.