\u201cThis one space actually can contribute an outsize share of the global [climate] mitigation we need to keep our global temperature rise in check,\u201d said Eric Masanet, a\u00a0sustainability science professor at UC Santa Barbara who led the study with Stokes.<\/p>\n
In certain cases, it can cost manufacturers about the same amount of money to get heat from electric systems rather than gas-fired ones, he said. That includes processes that use less intensive heat, like ethanol and plastics production, since heat pumps work more efficiently at lower temperatures. It\u2019s also true for factories located in places where fossil gas is relatively expensive. In Delaware, New York, and Washington state, for example, companies enjoy a\u00a0more favorable \u200b\u201cspark gap\u201d \u2014 the difference between electricity and gas utility costs for the same unit of energy delivered.<\/p>\n
Just as cost varies by facility, so does the potential for emissions reductions. The largest CO2 savings are in states with low-carbon grids, like Washington, California, and Vermont. In places with dirtier grids, switching to electricity can actually increase emissions in the near term if utilities meet that demand with gas- and coal-fired power plants. But even in those areas, researchers expect that electric equipment installed today will still cut pollution over time as the grid gets cleaner.<\/p>\n
For that to happen, factories will need a\u00a0lot more wind, solar, geothermal, and other carbon-free sources to come online. Electrifying the processes included in the study could require 158 to 301\u00a0terawatt-hours of additional power, or about 16% to 30% of the electricity currently consumed by industry. That new load would add to the soaring demand that\u2019s already coming from data centers and electrified homes and vehicles.<\/p>\n