[gkop]

This is a really good point, in that the cities that are banning natural gas in new construction, have not as far as I know invested in more reliable electric infrastructure to compensate for the lost redundancy. Are they considering the consequences of eliminating a second redundant energy supply leaving a “single point of failure”? More people will inevitably freeze to death, and that human cost should be accounted for along with the climate crisis, in finding the best path forward.

BTW in my experience, natural gas infrastructure is no more reliable than electricity. In winter 2011, our gas was shut off across Northern New Mexico for a week, due to high demand with record cold temperatures, and the need to retain pressure in the pipeline so it could function at all. Wood saved the day then, and seems to me a more distributed and robust emergency solution. Wood is super dirty of course, so it seems plausible that retaining gas residential hook ups as a backup to the electric supply, could be better for the environment by reducing wood use. Have the cities that are banning natural gas done this analysis?

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/natural-ga...

[aeternum]

For safety gas needs to be shut off during many emergencies. Solar panels and battery backups are probably better as they are less dangerous and less prone to common-mode failures than gas. As you mention, a woodpile is also a nice low-tech and low-risk backup.

[shadilay]

Most solar installs are grid tied and add no emergency redundancy.

[aeternum]

Powerwall can be both grid-tied and allows emergency redundancy. It disconnects from grid during an outage.

[desine]

Unless you have a modicum of electrical knowledge, a willingness to break some small safety regulations/laws, or lacking the former, a thirst for danger

[shadilay]

I like most rational people have no desire to be fined by my cities code compliance officers.