Are we in the beginnings of a infrastructure change?

Probably. Eventually. The problem is really pretty simple, though. The end change is being forced on the country — electric this, electric that, whatever — whether it is wanted or even feasible at the present time with the present technology, which is isn't. The result will be several decades, if not longer, of uncertain electrical supplies and, eventually, much higher prices for power to offset the costs involved.

The average consumer does not see nor, I fear, clearly understand the problems involved.

Tight windows & doors can reduce heating necessary. Also sweaters & indoor hats can help.

Reducing cooling seems to be more difficult. Geothermal? I heard that there's an underground town in Australian desert.

Electricity is more complex than North American consumer perceives. Some places have different receptacles for different appliances like we do for dryer & stove.

I think that the rush to eliminate domestic NG is dumb. First replace NG fired utility electricity. Bring back PURPA. An engine powered A/C with co-generation can be more economic than distributing electricity.

In early days assumption was that wires & transformers last indefinitely. Now replacing, let alone upsizing, distribution seems shockingly expensive. Distributing NG and letting each building or neighborhood to roll its own may be more affordable. I think there was a company called Tekogen that rented generators to places too far from electric grid.

Keep in mind that some states and countries are mandating "net-zero" which is usually interpreted to mean no fossil fuel usem on very short time frames. Admirable, perhaps — but the problem is, of course, that for grid connected use it means really huge battery banks, and for transportation use not only huge battery banks (particularly for rail freight — about 23 to 40 megawatt hours per engine) but reasonably fast recharging. Neither of which are yet available, even in prototype form, and won't be for some time after the mandates kick in. Going to be interesting…

Seems like a lost opportunity to burn NG in our homes when we can use it to power heat pumps more efficiently most of the time and export the surplus. What backwards business sees growth as a problem?

@Steamhead you were right once, but no more. Combined cycles are much more efficient now and coal (less efficient) is losing market share. Paired with a heat pump, average gas usage will decrease, leaving more for export and lower costs for us.

@Hot_water_fan , that makes no sense. With all the losses involved in producing electricity that way, there's no way even the best heat pump could overbalance them. And the further north you go, the less efficient heat pumps become, to the point where they need some sort of backup. If the backup is electric resistance, the customer will hear banjos when the utility bill comes in. Not everyone lives in the Deep South.

The one thing that will change this is adding more wind, solar and battery storage. These can be more locally placed to sidestep the heavy transmission losses from large, centrally-located plants, and they don't have the generating losses either.

A minor correction to my immediately above comment — some, but by no means all, of the old coal fired steam plants in the northeast have been converted to natural gas, and are operated as base load plants. The limitation is gas supply, which is quite constrained (the gas supply in the US is ample — the pipelines are not).

With regard to heat pumps. I am not opposed — to the extent that Cedric's home has one, and is likely to get another, as supplements to Cedric (they cost about the same to run down to about freezing). However. Even though there are very good cold temperature heat pumps available, they simply have not gotten to the point where they are a total replacement for fuel fired heating in colder climates. You either have to go with resistance backup (and at current electric rates, that's not cheap) or put up with being cold.

It would be most helpful to regard the experience of other regions than the mid-Atlantic US or California in this regard. In the UK, for example, despite generous subsidy for both the manufacture and installation of heat pumps, the experience overall has been less than satisfactory (to put it politely), and despite what one says about the climate, it's actually not too different from southern New England, never mind further north.

When and if heat pumps become a satisfactory equivalent in purchase and running cost, I'm quite sure people will accept them. Otherwise, forcing them on people has been found to not turn out so well…

@Chrisj , Imo a fusion plant, use only once technology.

The saying is fusion is 20 years away- and always will be.

It's not that things are changing (they are, and must), but the changes are being forced with an ideological drive that gives no room for dissent, no matter how well reasoned. Now, I'm sure that some are wealthy enough to weather the changes unscathed, but how many won't?

Some changes, if they are truly beneficial to people, can and do happen very fast indeed. Tractors on farms — automobiles — and airplanes — and computers might be examples. Some do not. However, if the changes are forced based on an ideology or political bent, they may not be truly beneficial to people — try the urban renewal policies of the Fifties and Sixties, for some truly ghastly examples.

People, taken as a whole, are not stupid. If something works and is an improvement it will be adopted.

Unhappily, some people — and forms of government — have the notion that they, and they alone, are endowed with the knowledge of what's right for everyone else, and that they must force the masses to conform. If they do have enough power — usually ultimately, physical — they succeed, for a time at least (try Soviet Russia).

How fast is too fast? At the moment, we have a sort of popular feeling that the world is going to end if we don't get to net-zero by some very close date (next few decades). True, things may be very different in a century or so. People may have to learn to do things differently. They may even find their favourite beach or city under water, for instance.

From the standpoint of a geologist or even an historian, the notion that the world is going to end as a result of our current situation and actions or inactions, or that we can somehow prevent change by hysterical action, is alternatively very funny — or very tragic.

Take a longer view. Use all the technology and ability we have been granted. Stop sounding and acting like a five year old in a toy store who can't have the latest craze.

If you are among the elite endowed with superior knowledge, lead. But don't push. Don't force. That will not end well — for you, for the people, or for the planet.

And go read Psalm 90. Wisdom from 2,500 plus years ago.