This is a very good explainer though I don't think it's nearly as clean or universal, nor does it take a critical lens to the challenges of electrification which are equivalent in scale https://twitter.com/MLiebreich/status/1317019176389758981

First industrial heat, the technical, operational and psychological challenges of giving up fuels will be significant. Unless adequate governance of electricity reliability is addressed

It is an operational nightmare to be interrupted in the middle of firing the lime kiln

Not least of which is that many kilns and other kit is designed to be used with fuel and flame so when you compare what the carbon price would need to be it must include the all in amortized cost of the energy and the equipment

Moving onto building heat, this is where regional variations matter alot and there is still just very undeveloped understanding of what it truly means to electrify it

During a cold winter spell the gaseous molecules currently provide anywhere from 50-400% more energy than electricity we do not have a full appreciation for what electrifying this load will mean

And can we please stop using the nameplate efficiency of heat pumps? Actual duty cycle efficiency is significantly worse and under load like -20C there is no efficiency gain at all

Couple that with the massive distribution system upgrades, peak capacity infrastructure and behavioral challenges of mass system replacement low carbon gases 'dropped in' may not look so infeasible

On heavy duty transport likely to be lots of different tech working at once.

Catenary wires are cool for a straightforward right of way like the M6 but through a rocky mountain duty cycle? Again fuel looks attractive

All the while there is considerable value in the resiliency of two energy delivery systems working together. This is IMO another overlooked issue

So fully acknowledge that there are huge challenges and questions and legit skepticism of low carbon gases and hydrogen, I just wish it was applied equally to the other 'solutions' as well