Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#31

Post by Gordonjcp »

ars wrote: post #28
mbrock wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t that just a series hybrid?

Yes, that's exactly what that is, and apparently there are none for sale. There must be a reason why not, but I don't know what it is.

It's not very efficient, certainly not enough to be "better" than a conventional IC-engined car.

You're carrying around a lot of batteries, motor, and generator that are basically just dead weight. A petrol engine and gearbox is light.

In trains it works quite well because you need an immense amount of torque to pull away, proportionately far far more than you need from even a large truck, and then you need a relatively small amount of power to keep it moving. Having a big generator driving bogey-mounted traction motors with simple reduction boxes means you don't need a huge gearbox and very complicated driveshaft system, and you don't care so much about weight.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#32

Post by jl6 »

rob74 wrote: post #23
al_borland wrote: post #2

I get wanting to move off these fuels for the big stuff, but surely there can still be some room for novelty. Korean BBQ is fantastic.

Yeah, I also think it's the wrong priority - I mean, what are you going to replace them with? Electric stoves? Then you'd better make sure that the electricity is 100% from renewable sources, otherwise you'll be burning fossil fuels to convert to electricity (with limited efficiency) and then using that electricity to heat stuff (again, with limited efficiency). Then it's much better to burn the fossil fuel to direct…

> Then you'd better make sure that the electricity is 100% from renewable sources

Yes, that is also the plan, and we can work on more than one thing at a time.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#33

Post by mcv »

ars wrote: post #4

This is such a foolish law, environmentally speaking. I totally understand doing this once we've phased out burning natural gas for electricity. But we are not there today, today we are burning natural gas for electricity. So using electricity instead of natural gas in your home is wasteful. And yes I'm well aware that induction stoves are a thing. But induction stoves of today cannot run all four burners and the sto…

> So using electricity instead of natural gas in your home is wasteful.

Depends entirely on what you use it for. For heating, burning gas is very efficient: everything gets turned into heat. For cooking, a lot of heat gets lost, because you heat the air, the air heats the pan, and the pan heats the food. An induction stove heats the pan directly, which means less heat is lost, which also makes cooking more comfortable.

> But induction stoves of today cannot run all four burners and the stove at the same time.

Yes they can. Mine does. Of course your electricity supply needs to be powerful enough, but that's easily upgraded. In NL, 3x25A is extremely common. Our house had 1x35A which wasn't enough, so we had it upgraded to 3x35A, and that's plenty.

Of course switching from gas to electricity will mean changes in infrastructure, but that's not a blocking obstacle. It would make sense for any new homes built today to have a better electricity connection and no gas. Heating? Heat pumps are even more efficient than gas heating.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#34

Post by mcv »

buro9 wrote: post #15
ars wrote: post #4

This is such a foolish law, environmentally speaking. I totally understand doing this once we've phased out burning natural gas for electricity. But we are not there today, today we are burning natural gas for electricity. So using electricity instead of natural gas in your home is wasteful. And yes I'm well aware that induction stoves are a thing. But induction stoves of today cannot run all four burners and the sto…

> I totally understand doing this once we've phased out burning natural gas for electricity I've been thinking about this in Europe. How to wean oneself off of gas. The big wins are electric generation, and those can be done within a reasonable timeframe by states with largely unilateral decision making. But the long tail... Domestic use of gas. That's hard. How does one ask an entire populace to rid themselves off o…

One easy thing to do is build all new homes with a good electricity connection, heat pumps and no gas lines anymore. Leaving out gas lines saves a lot of complex infrastructure costs and risks.

Upgrading old homes is less urgent. Make the first step first, the rest will come.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#35

Post by martincollignon »

buro9 wrote: post #15
ars wrote: post #4

This is such a foolish law, environmentally speaking. I totally understand doing this once we've phased out burning natural gas for electricity. But we are not there today, today we are burning natural gas for electricity. So using electricity instead of natural gas in your home is wasteful. And yes I'm well aware that induction stoves are a thing. But induction stoves of today cannot run all four burners and the sto…

> I totally understand doing this once we've phased out burning natural gas for electricity I've been thinking about this in Europe. How to wean oneself off of gas. The big wins are electric generation, and those can be done within a reasonable timeframe by states with largely unilateral decision making. But the long tail... Domestic use of gas. That's hard. How does one ask an entire populace to rid themselves off o…

This is why we created Lun. Every gas boiler's consumption emits about 2tCO2 per year - and there are about 90 million buildings in Europe that could be heated using heat pumps instead, with huge benefits for energy efficiency and carbon emissions.

As you said, it's a hard problem.

Luckily, politicians and bureaucrats are passing more and more legislation that will force the fossil fuels out of heating over the next decade. We see it as our job to make sure it's going to happen in real life by being the glue between all parties in the value chain (consumers, OEMs, installers, utilities, governments, financial institutions).

And we're looking for great people ;) careers.lun.energy

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#36

Post by kkfx »

cthalupa wrote: post #6

I've got a Control Freak, probably the highest end induction cooktop available for a home chef, and is even used in 3 michelin star restaurants like Alinea. It's amazing for consistency, holding temperature, and a dozen other things. It's quite responsive in general! But I still reach for my Iwatani butane stove and copper saucepot sometimes. These are still significantly more responsive even than a top of the line i…

Well... I'm full-electric since years and I still have to find a device that really match gas... Induction for me is NEVER able to hold a certain temperature, essentially all plate I've used at low temp just run-and-stop continuously witch combined to very thick pot allow a nearly-constant temp but definitively not much constant.

Classic resistance on aluminum alloy and non-stick PTFE coating on contrary can regulate temp far better BUT can't really heat much more than a bit.

Combining them I can cook at home like with gas, but definitively not the same experience, it's surely comfortable the ability to move gears anywhere, to have simple systems to clean etc but that's is. Cooking quality is far from being the same. For me, at home, suffice. For a pro, for someone who really want good cooking I doubt.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#37

Post by mcv »

letitbeirie wrote: post #17
GaelFG wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So using electricity instead of natural gas in your home is wasteful." I (genuinely) wonder if what's true. I remember thinking the same things about electric car "how can burning fuel in a factory, storing it, send it thought line for kilometers and then store them in a car batteries and then feed the motor be more efficient than burning fuel directly in the motor" and was proven false. Assuming we aldready have th…

If you're burning fuel for power that's one thing, but you don't get any conversion losses at all if you're burning it for heat underneath/inside the thing you want to be hot.

You're not losing any if you're burning it inside the thing you want to heat (your home). You definitely lose a lot if you're burning it underneath the thing you want to heat (a pan on the stove); a lot of the heat goes around the pan. Just feel the air above the pan. All of that is wasted heat.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#38

Post by 7952 »

GaelFG wrote: post #11
ars wrote: post #4

This is such a foolish law, environmentally speaking. I totally understand doing this once we've phased out burning natural gas for electricity. But we are not there today, today we are burning natural gas for electricity. So using electricity instead of natural gas in your home is wasteful. And yes I'm well aware that induction stoves are a thing. But induction stoves of today cannot run all four burners and the sto…

"So using electricity instead of natural gas in your home is wasteful." I (genuinely) wonder if what's true. I remember thinking the same things about electric car "how can burning fuel in a factory, storing it, send it thought line for kilometers and then store them in a car batteries and then feed the motor be more efficient than burning fuel directly in the motor" and was proven false. Assuming we aldready have th…

It isn't efficient exactly but it can make financial sense depending on the cost of electricity. Efficiency is not the only metric and needs to be balanced with other issues. An ice engine may be less efficient than a turbine but that does not mean you put a turbine in a pickup truck.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#39

Post by majewsky »

Gordonjcp wrote: post #31
ars wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's exactly what that is, and apparently there are none for sale. There must be a reason why not, but I don't know what it is.

It's not very efficient, certainly not enough to be "better" than a conventional IC-engined car. You're carrying around a lot of batteries, motor, and generator that are basically just dead weight. A petrol engine and gearbox is light. In trains it works quite well because you need an immense amount of torque to pull away, proportionately far far more than you need from even a large truck, and then you need a relativ…

I've seen this series-hybrid system also used in buses in my town. I'm not a mechanical or electrical engineer, but as far as I understand, the advantage in this scenario is that the motor can run nearly continuously at lower RPM where it is apparently more efficient. The spike in power usage that's needed during acceleration is then handled by the battery acting as a buffer.
Post reply on HN