They know exactly what I mean. They are arguing semantics so they can dance around the fact that Heat Pumps aren't nearly as cost efficient as billed in most parts of the US.

You can argue that the savings are achieved by both not requiring a separate heating device and not having to construct a home to handle gas/oil.

However then you get into the heating issue. Most models just can't handle any sort of truly cold temperatures. Models that can are often more expensive than a gas furnace and AC unit combined.

There is a way around this: dual source heat pumps. Basically they are heat pumps with a gas furnace that kicks in if it's too cold outside. They work, and have been adopted in states like Maine, albeit with subsidies. However they aren't encouraged by traditional media sources because at the end of the day they still use gas.

Again, I feel like we've been through this with EVs. There was a narrative widespread adoption was around the corner. That once you hit seven percent you'd have runaway adoption. That by 2030 the vast majority of cars will be all electric. However at the end of the day demand slowed. While EVs worked in some places, there were huge issues (price, range, and charger availability) that prevented wider adoption. The experts were surprised because they were wealthy urbanites who didn't experience those flaws firsthand.

EVs are the future. Heat Pumps are the future. All I'm saying is that things that are billed as around the corner often take longer than you'd expect.

Honestly I feel like I'm just older than everyone else in this thread. I feel like anyone 30 or above has seen things like this play out multiple times.