[binoct]

Thanks, you have helped at least me think a bit differently about this. I still believe primary energy is a valid way to look at the problem, but see more clearly how easily it can lead an uninformed audience to a bad conclusion.

And on heat pumps - it’s sad to reflect that even if we replaced all heating, it’s still only a couple % of the total rejected heat. There are few easy wins in this game, just many different ways we need to chip away at it.

[_aavaa_]

I'm glad it was helpful.

> it’s sad to reflect that even if we replaced all heating, it’s still only a couple % of the total rejected heat.

It's actually not as bad as it looks.

Even if the home heating is not the biggest contributor from that chart, it is still a worthwhile target. Though EVs are likely a more impactful choice.

One thing not captured by that chart are the 2nd order effects of either heat pump or EV switching. Part of what makes switching economically unattractive (aside from allowing the fossil fuel options to pollute for free) are the economies of scale present for fossil fuels. However, those same economies of scale can easily flip to diseconmics of scale as customers switch away. Every ICE car replaced by an EV makes gasoline and diesel more expensive, the same thing for heat pumps and natural gas andheating oil.

So for natural gas, removing the stream going to residential, significantly impacts the economic calculation for commercial and industrial uses.

For gasoline and diesel, the impact as even more serious. Out of every barrel of crude oil 70% gets turned into gasoline/diesel [0]. The unit economics there are going to be even worse as gasoline demand continues to drop.

[0]: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=327&t=9