[disclaimer: I am a heat pump technology developer, however the following is just low-effort notes and mental calcs of low reliability, they may be of interest to some. YMMV]
It may be better to invest in improved insulation.
As rough rule of thumb COP is = eff * Theat/(Theat-Tcold), with Temperatures measured in absolute degrees (Kelvin or Rankine), eff for most domestic heat pumps is in range 0.35 to 0.45, high quality european units are often best for COP due to long history of higher power costs - but they are very expensive, frequently $10-20k
Looking at the COP for the unit you quoted the eff is only about 0.25 at rated conditions, not good, unless you get a much larger unit and run it at a less powerful more efficient load point.
That's a pretty huge electricity price, about 4.5x gas price (which is distorted-market nuts, 3x is more usual globally). Given that differential it might be better to look at an absorption heat pump like https://www.robur.com/products/k18-simplygas-heat-pump that gives up to 1.7x gas heat - though they look to be on the order of $10k.
Here's an annoying fact; If you ran that $2/therm gas (~$0.07/kWh) through a reasonably efficient (~40%) natural gas genset it would produce electricity cheaper than what you currently pay for power, and you would have 2/3rds of the gas energy left over as heat. A genset in your neighbourhood could provide a few 10's of houses with cheaper electricity and low cost waste heat, though no doubt prevented by regulatory issues. There are a few small combined heat and power (CHP) domestic units on the market, but they tend to be very expensive, more tech-curios than economically sensible.
Niron's Fe16N2 looks to have a maximum energy product (figure of merit for magnet 'strength' up to 120 MGOe at microscopic scale, which is about double that of Neodymium magnets (~60), however only 20 MGOe has been achieved in fabrication. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0304885319325454
Processing at 1GPa and 200°C isn't that difficult if there is commercial benefit. Synthetic diamonds are made in special pressure vessels at 5GPa and 1500°C. There is some chance that someone will figure out a processing route that makes it possible to achieve bulk crystal orientations that unlocks higher energy products - potential payoff is huge. I expect AGI and ASI will figure out a lot of major improvements in materials science over next 1-2 decades.
I read of a proposal a few months back to achieve brain immortality via introduction of new brain tissue that can be done in a way as to maintain continuity of experience and personality over time. Replenisens , Discussion on a system for doing it in human brains That would perhaps provide a more reliable vector for introduction, as the brain is progressively hybridised with more optimal neural genetic design. Perhaps this could be done more subtly via introduction of 'perfected' stem cells and then some way of increasing rate of die off of old cells.
Instead of gene editing could you just construct a 'perfect' new chromosome and introduce one or more instances of it into existing neurons via viral injection techniques to increase expression of beneficial factors? No particular reason why we can only have 42 🤣46 chromosomes, and this would perhaps side-step difficulties to do with gene editing. Might be a more universal solution too if we could come up with a single or small variety of options for a 'super' brain optimising added chromosome.
Politically the way to pitch it would be for its life saving/enhancement ability - offered for example to people with low intelligence and educational outcomes to offer them a better chance at happiness in life.
"So your job depends on believing the projections about how H2 costs will come down?"
I wouldn't waste my life on something I didn't see as likely - I have no shortage of opportunities in a wide variety of greentech fields. Hydrogen is the most efficient fuel storage 'battery' with 40-50% round-trip energy storage possible. Other synthetic fuels are less efficient but may be necessary for longer term storage or smaller applications. For shipping and aviation however LH2 is the clear and obvious winner.
Desert pv will likely come down in price to consistent ~$0.01-0.02 in next decade with impact of AI on manufacturing, installation and maintenance costs (a few large pv installations are already contracted in this cost range). And electrolysis and liquefaction tech are on track to yield the stated $1.50/kg (learning curves are magic). That 'stranded' desert pv power needs to be delivered to far distant users and hydrogen pipelines or shipping provides most realistic option for doing that.
Capturing carbon for synthetic hydrocarbons is not a trivial issue/cost. And their round trip energy storage efficiencies for synthetics hydrocarbons are worse than for hydrogen. There will still be some applications where they make the most sense. Ammonia might work too, though it also needs hydrogen feedstock and is often lethal when inhaled.
But in general I see a pretty clear path to renewable hydrogen undercutting fossil fuels on cost in the next decade or two, and from there a likely rapid decline in their use - so reasons for optimism about energy part of our civilisational tech stack at least, without breakthroughs in nuclear being needed.
Battery augmented trains: Given normal EV use examples, Tesla et al, and Tesla Semi a charging time of 10% of usage time is relatively normal. Eg charging for 20 minutes and discharging for 3 hours, or in Tesla Semi's case might be more like an hour for 8-10 hours operation but trains have lower drag (and less penalty for weight) than cars or trucks so will go further for same amount of energy. The idea is therefore that you employ a pantograph multi MW charging system on the train that only needs to operate about 10% of the time,. This may reduce electrification capital and maintenance costs. Another option would be battery engines that can join up or disconnect from trains in motion between charging cycles in sidings.
CATL (largest battery producer in the world) are innovating heavily on Sodium ion batteries and have stated that they believe cost per kWh can come down to $40/kWh as they scale up manufacture on their second generation. "CATL first-generation sodium-ion cells cost about 77 USD per kWh, and the second generation with volume production can drop to 40 USD per kWh."
I work professionally developing Liquid hydrogen fueled transport power technology. It's very practical for some applications, particularly aircraft and ships that I expect will transition to hydrogen in next 2-3 decades, and possibly trains and agriculture. Using low cost power sources such as grid scale pv in low cost desert regions the price is expected to come down over next 1-2 decades to being competitive or even undercutting fossil fuels (commonly expected/roadmapped to be ~$1.5/kg H2, which translates to about $0.10/kWh useful output power, similar to fossil fuels before taxes). This is likely the only realistic route to fully renewable power for human civilisation - producing in cheapest sunny or windy areas and using at high latitudes/through winters. But LH2 is difficult to transport, transfer and employ at small scales due to lack of economic cryocooling and complexity, insulation and cost scale (r² vs r³) issues with tanks (LH2 and GH2 are very low density) and GH2 is even worse for non-pipeline distribution, so a more convenient dense and long-term easily and cheaply stored energy carrier such as Ammonia or synthetic hydrocarbons made using future cheap hydrogen feedstocks may be a better option. That is especially true for off-road uses.
Agriculture is particularly intractable, cropping farmers in my region frequently run 100+ hours a week using many MW of power during harvest which is a terrible issue for power economics without exceptionally cheap energy storage - liquid fuel is probably the only economic option.
And yes I am well aware of mining electrification, but I am very suspicious of it's utility given many cases will see it powered by fossil fuel generation. Likely that a lot of it is PR greenwashing rather than effective CO2 reduction.
Battery electric trains with a small proportion of electrified (for charging) sections seems like a decent and perhaps more economic middle ground. Could get away with <10% of rail length electrified, and sodium batteries are expected to come down to ~$40/kWh in next few years. High utilisation batteries that are cycled daily or multiple times a day have lower capital costs. May also work for interstate trucking.
Earth moving electrification is probably the last application that makes sense or needs focusing upon, due to high capital costs of electrification and low equipment utilisation (a lot of it spends only a few percent of year being used), as well as difficulty in getting electric power to them in difficult to access off-grid locations.
Farm equipment is more important, but incredibly bad economics due to high peaks (using up to several MW to run a few large machines for a few days several times a year for cropping) but very low average utilisation.
Both of these are probably best served long term by some renewable liquid fuel and IC engines, for high power, low mass-fuelling and low capital costs. Synthetic hydrocarbon, Ammonia or Liquid Hydrogen.
Global compliance is the sine qua non of regulatory approaches, and there is no evidence of the political will to make that happen being within our possible futures unless some catastrophic but survivable casus belli happens to wake the population up - as with Frank Herbert's Butlerian Jihad (irrelevant aside; Samuel Butler who wrote of the dangers of machine evolution and supremacy lived at film location for Eddoras in Lord of the Rings films in the 19th century).
Is it insane to think that a limited nuclear conflict (as seems to be an increasingly likely possibility at the moment) might actual raise humanities chances of long term survival - if it disrupted global economies severely for few decades and in particular messed up chip production.
Any attempts at regulation are clearly pointless without global policing. And China, (as well as lesser threats of Russia, Iran and perhaps North Korea) are not going to comply no matter what they might say to your face if you try to impose it. These same issues were evident during attempts to police nuclear proliferation and arms reduction treaties during the cold war, even when both sides saw benefit in it. For AI they'll continue development in hidden or even mobile facilities.
It would require a convincing threat of nuclear escalation or possibly a rock-solid economic blockade/embargo of non-transparent regimes to make the necessary all-the-time-and-everywhere access compliance policing happen. The political will for these options is nil. No Politician wants to escalate tensions, they are highly risk averse, and they are not going to be able to sell that to the public in a democracy. Our democracies do not select for leaders that would be capable of holding such a line.
So without instituting liberal democracies everywhere with leadership that genuinely puts humanities future ahead of their national interests this line of seeking to slow development to research alignment via regulation seems rather pointless.
Humanity needs a colossal but survivable AI scare ASAP if it is to develop the collective will to effectively regulate AI development, and not sleep walk its way off the cliff edge of extinction as seems to be our current lazy and disinterested path.
I'm going through this too with my kids. I don't think there is anything I can do educationally to better ensure they thrive as adults other than making sure I teach them practical/physical build and repair skills (likely to be the area where humans with a combination of brains and dexterity retain useful value longer than any other).
Outside of that the other thing I can do is try to ensure that they have social status and financial/asset nest egg from me, because there is a good chance that the egalitarian ability to lift oneself through effort is going to largely evaporate as human labour becomes less and less valuable, and I can't help but wonder how we are going to decide who gets the nice beach-house. If humans are still in control of an increasingly non-egalitarian world then society will almost certainly slide towards it's corrupt old aristocratic/rentier ways and it becomes all about being part of the Nomenklature (communist elites).