*electricity . Gas is heavily used for heating , cooking & industrial uses (e.g. drying agriculture like hops, boilers etc).
I raise this point since policymakers get confused and try to ban gas, only to realize how critical gas is for food & industrial applications that consumers enjoy after the fact.
You're correct that this ought to say "electricity" and not "power".
But I think you're wrong to think that gas is "critical" to any of the things you've listed. "Currently used" ... yes. "Not replaceable by electricity" ... no (unlike, e.g. air travel).
explain the cost to replace a hop drying kiln with an electrical one, including the grid load.
I'm not going to do that.
Electrical heat using heat pumps is cheaper than in-situ heating with any fossil fuel because (a) the base price per unit of energy is (or certainly can be) lower (b) the coefficient of performance is higher.
There are obviously costs to changing heating systems. But that doesn't mean that a gas heating system cannot be replaced by an electrical one.
to me, it sounds unreasonable. Let’s say this project was your responsibility, would this argument be enough for your supervisor to approve it?
I'm not aware of anyone saying "we must replace all uses of non-electrical heat pump-based heating with an electrical version".
My point, in response to the GGP (?) was the while e.g. gas heating may be in use now, it is not irreplaceable. This is quite different (right now, at least) for something like air transportation, where there is no feasible electrical solution.
There is no "project" under discussion.
Most of it can be electrified. NYC has banned gas hookups in new residential buildings (I live in one and it's great). Industrial electrification will never be 100% but I've seen estimates as high as 90%. It will take time and money but it will happen.
how much time and money, and whether it’s worth the opportunity cost, is the entire question.
If you're considering the total cost then you have to factor in the entire reason to electrify which is the environmental cost of continuing to burn dead organic matter. In that case, electrification is absolute bargain.
to what end?
I just said. To reduce environmental impacts. A fully electric factory drawing power from a grid of renewables is cleaner, safer and more stable.
so it sounds like "bear infinite prosperity / comfort / security costs for dubious environmental benefits" . Have you thought about how to weight the costs vs the benefits? Are you proposing being poorer, hungrier, more miserable, less comfortable in the hot & cold season for "clean energy". so how much are you willing to sacrifice for it?