And a heat pump is superior to gas even if the grid consists 100% out of gas.
Further, you don't build a building built for gas when have to switch to electricity in the future anyway when the grid is even cleaner.
I don't know who told you this. Can you point to any large city that is running on purely wind & solar right now? As far as I'm aware, there's not even a large regional city that has demonstrated this can work with current battery technology. I would be really happy to be wrong on this, but as of right now, it's not an option and we need to be realistic about that.
"The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) says nuclear power plants had a capacity factor of 92.6% in the US during 2022. This compares to 36.1% for wind energy and just 24.8% for solar photovoltaic technology. To a rough approximation, it takes three times as much wind capacity and four times as much solar to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear power plant over a given period. This is complicated by seasonality. Solar, for example, is particularly ineffective during the winter months when energy needs in the northern portion of the country are highest."
[0] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
Regarding seasons: in our country wind is strong when solar is weak and vice versa
That wasn’t their claim at all, so it seems questionable to demand they prove this.
It’s like if someone said “cheerios are good for the heart”, and you asked someone to demonstrate that nobody ever had a heart attack while eating cheerios. You’re challenging an exaggerated version of the claim that was made, not the actual claim.
That is a fair criticism.
But major cities are getting close.
Adelaide, Australia went from 100% carbon energy in 2007 to ~30% today, and looks to hit at a net 0% by 2028.
Even in the furnace case you need fairly ideal numbers for the heat pump to overtake the loss of 50% you're taking just in the generation step.
And I don't know what's up with your claim about solar and wind energy.
This go-nowhere attitude and is why people can’t take fossil fuel apologists seriously.
If nothing would make you happier, make that point in your comment. “Maybe this will make a difference in 20 years” or “nuclear advancement is what we need” would completely change the tone.
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-leaks-era...
The heat transfer and energy loss of electrical appliances generally makes them less efficient than natural gas appliances, thus actually increasing the amount of natural gas that will need to be burned to accommodate this policy. This is literally going to increase the amount of natural gas that needs to be burned to maintain existing cooking patterns.
This policy and ones like it are why people can't take environmentalists seriously.