> Our analysis finds that electric heat pumps generally use less energy in warm states and have moderately positive economics in these states if a heat pump can replace both the furnace and a central air conditioner.
> Based on our analysis, we find that electric heat pumps have higher equipment and installation costs than gas furnaces and that electricity is generally more expensive per Btu than natural gas. As a result, in all of the comparisons the gas furnace has a lower life cycle cost for homes without central air-conditioning. However, if a central air conditioner can be replaced with a heat pump, the high-efficiency heat pump has lower life cycle costs in climates from Virginia southward as well as in the Northwest. This is shown by an analysis that credits the avoided cost of a central air conditioner and also includes cooling-energy savings from replacing a central air conditioner meeting federal minimum efficiency standards—a seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) of 13 in the North and a SEER of 14 in the South—with a higher-efficiency heat pump
> As discussed above, our analysis is only for existing homes. The results may be more positive toward heat pumps for new homes, as most new homes have air-conditioning and the cost of supplying gas to the home can be avoided by installing heat pumps.
Note that this is a few years old (2016), and more efficient heat pumps improve the economics.
In that mode less of the energy in the gas becomes heat in the home (good furnaces are really good).
[1] https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Tex... ("A federal report that summer recommended steps including installing heating elements around pipes and increasing the amount of reserve power available before storms, noting many of those same warnings were issued after similar blackouts 22 years earlier and had gone unheeded.")
Weatherization makes any heating and cooling more efficient too, so everyone should assess for improvements.
* https://www.mitsubishicomfort.com/benefits/hyper-heating
These are designed in Japan, where they often have earthquakes, and so any flammable materials (natural gas) seem not to be used for heating. Things can get quite chilly up north:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rikubetsu,_Hokkaido
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokkaidō#Climate
AFAICT, the units do not have external thermometers, but rather look at the refrigerant temperature. So if the piping from the unit into your wall is short, then the refrigerant isn't exposed to the cold that much, and so may not effected as much by air temperature.
I believe why natural gas heating is not popular is because they are a bit expensive and gas pipes aren't common outside big city. I'm getting curious why gas heating isn't popular even in big city (Sapporo). Your assumption (earthquake) looks reasonable for a part of reason.
Maybe gas heater is hard to install/uninstall and never use except winter. So we don't want to put all year on small house is reasonable.
And then gas does usually need ducting or radiators.
It's not just Texas. There has been extreme cold across Europe, and unseasonable warmth across parts of the Arctic.
Of course it's far too late to fix the primary cause now. But it's still true that extreme weather events caused by climatic instability were being discussed more than twenty years ago.
Adding more of Power Source [X] is a bandaid. The real problem is structural, and it could have been solved more cheaply back then.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/a-texas-sized-g...
> According to a paper from Pecan Street, an Austin-based energy research organization, the transition would reduce climate-warming pollution, save Texas households up to $452 annually on their utility bills, and flip the state from a summer-peaking to a winter-peaking system. And that winter peak would be “nothing the grid couldn’t evolve to handle,” according to co-author Joshua Rhodes.