Obviously nobody can answer the long term cost differences between gas and heat pumps, since the cost of natural gas and electricity can change drastically over the lifetime of the unit.

GP's comment was about the tech, though, and not the cost of said tech.

It's absolutely not a perfect solution for all heating needs across the globe, the the technology is far better than GP is suggesting.

In my view, natural gas is only competitive due to externalized costs and the slowdown/freeze of nuclear energy deployment. I recognize it's the only option for all kinds of situations (my dwelling heat included), but for anyone thinking forward it should be excluded in future development where possible.

My main concern is the overall long term efficiency & affordability of renewable-friendly solutions, because competitiveness in those areas is what will lead to mass adoption. The point I was hewing toward is that I feel the heat pump advocates and providers need to make it more clear which situations are best suited for that solution and which are not, because it would benefit everyone.

> over 95 degrees

Note that a heat pump cooling a building is essentially the same as an air conditioner. So it's more a matter of how efficient the air conditioner you're replacing is. Cooling a house is much easier than heating, because the temperature differences are lower. In your example, cooling 95 F to 70 F is a 25 F difference, while heating 20 F to 70 F is a 50 F difference. The world record for heat is about 135 F, which is the same difference from 70 F as 5 F, a completely normal winter temperature in much of the world.