[phpisthebest]

I was not aware that Texas is in the midwest... I am not sure what Texas has to do with anything here.

That said, no one isreplacing NatGas with Electric Resistive Heating, that would be crazy, NatGas is still cheaper in most cases for people north of say KY but there are alot of HeatPumps going in

I am unclear why you think replacing a NatGas heater with a HeatPump "would not increase the total electricity usage at all" that is just false, and I am not even sure why you would claim other wise, NatGas is not an Electric Fuel Source so when you change from a non-electric fuel source to an electric fuel source you will use more electricity. Now changing from Resistive Electric to heatPump would actually drop your electrical usage in some cases (above 0degrees anyway)

Around here it is not uncommon to have a HeatPump with a Gas "emergency" heater for when it gets too cold for the heatpump, as Electric Resistive is TERRIBLE and expensive. The problem is when that combo is sold normally it is wiht 80% furnances or they just leave the old furnace in place and just upgrade the AC/Heatpumpt

[Kirby64]

Not OP, but changing from natural gas heat sources to heat pump does increase your house electricity demand, but then that natural gas is no longer consumed. Natural gas is commonly used as the 'peaker' energy source today... so it's likely that you're just going to be burning natural gas at a plant somewhere else to power your heat pump in the peaky cold snap situation. Natural gas power plants are going to be more efficient than your furnace, unless you have one of the very modern furnaces, and the amount of gas needed to be burned and turned into electricity is going to be a ratio (3:1, 4:1...) lower than the natural gas needed to be burned to heat your house.

Overall that seems like a reduction in total emissions, since you're using less natural gas overall to heat the same amount. Yes, it increases power demand, but is also lessens demand on natural gas by a greater amount.

This could be a overall net negative if the power mix is heavily polluting (coal... etc), but largely we're moving away from that over time and it will only get better.

[QuarterReptile]

>Overall that seems like a reduction in total emissions, since you're using less natural gas overall to heat the same amount.

This just isn't the problem at all; it's obviously a problem, but not the constraint here. Fossil fuels let you store energy in a distributed fashion (e.g. cutting and stacking firewood for the winter), which is way better for handling peaks.

If too many people get burnt by oversubscribed grids in the winter, I would expect that the middle- and upper-class response will be propane auxiliary heating systems.

[Kirby64]

Natural gas doesn't really allow a consumer to store energy. Nobody has a tank to store natural gas next to their house. Yes, you can do that with propane... but it also now requires you to have a heating system compatible with propane (it's just a nozzle change for most NG units... but still, that's way beyond the capability of most homeowners to do).

The only thing that using natural gas to burn for a furnace (vs. using it for a heat pump) gets you, is that you need more natural gas generation plants and the infrastructure to handle the additional power on the system. On the other side of the coin, you have all the natural gas infrastructure to each house premise to maintain... which can leak, have issues, etc etc etc.