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

51–60 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#51

Post by throwaway27727 »

D13Fd wrote: post #48
breadloaf wrote: post #44

I always find laughable when governments are scolding or limiting peasants for basically nothing, while ignoring the elephant in the room. * You need to conserve the water, California peasant! Ignore the fact that 80% of water in California is consumed by agriculture and we are not going to do anything about it. * You need to stop using your gas stove, peasant! Ignore the fact that we are going to switch off Diablo N…

Quoted post unavailable.

If you really want to optimize for the long term, obtaining goodwill by not making the forced habit changes first would be better.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#52

Post by Brian_K_White »

sofixa wrote: post #30
ars wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use all 4 burners at the same time at least every week, if not more often. You must not cook very much. It's not hard: boil water for pasta, potatoes, make a soup, and then cook a protein, and bake a cake. That's not a complicated meal - you could do than on any random day. > which mostly heats the air instead That isn't actually true, which you can tell for yourself by simply putting your hand near a fire, and a f…

> bake a cake I'm willing to bet most people don't bake cakes daily. When i cook it's usually 2, max 3 at the same time, even with a multi-course meal.

So therefor, it's fine if you now have a stove that can only heat 2 burners at once.

Why have the other burners at all? We could save so much space if we just had 2 burner stoves and no ovens since I never bake either. I do use the oven occasionally but occasionally is not enough excuse to have it I guess. Obviously no one even needs a stove at all, that's what restarants and grubhub are for right?

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#53

Post by bitxbitxbitcoin »

D13Fd wrote: post #49
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

This is the age old false dichotomy between personal use (minuscule percentage of green house gasses) versus agricultural/commercial use (the actual elephant in the room).

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#54

Post by bitxbitxbitcoin »

fulafel wrote: post #8

If only there was something renewable we could make or grow and could make a flame... but even if sucha thing was invented i guess that wouldn't have the centuries old traditional essence of natural gas any more?

Traditional Korean bbq is done over hot charcoals without any natural gas. The few kbbq restaurants that have approval in the US to do this continue the tradition and the meat tastes way better without the butane taste the same way a bong rip tastes better when you don’t torch it with a lighter for a minute straight.

Of course, this comes with other issues like the potential liability of a server dropping hot coals on a customer.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#55

Post by D13Fd »

bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #53
D13Fd wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

This is the age old false dichotomy between personal use (minuscule percentage of green house gasses) versus agricultural/commercial use (the actual elephant in the room).

“Minuscule” or not, it doesn’t matter. Every molecule of CO2 & other greenhouse gases avoided now is worth dozens or hundreds or more that we’ll have to recapture via carbon capture in the future if we want to prevent a climate disaster.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#56

Post by D13Fd »

throwaway27727 wrote: post #51
D13Fd wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

If you really want to optimize for the long term, obtaining goodwill by not making the forced habit changes first would be better.

That doesn’t obtain goodwill, it just delays the inevitable while we continue putting these gases into the atmosphere.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#57

Post by al_borland »

amluto wrote: post #42
rob74 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Induction stoves are quite efficient. Gas stoves, perhaps counterintuitively, are not. This is mostly because the considerable majority of the heat from the flame goes around the pot without heating it. (A pot on a grate is a terrible heat exchanger.) So it is not obviously a loss to burn gas to make electricity and then to use that electricity to cook. It may even be a win. All of this ignores that electric cooking…

I've been looking into replacing my terrible electric range with one that has induction burners. One consideration I saw when looking at comparisons was that electric and induction really require a flat bottom pan. If your pan is curved, you need gas to evenly heat it. So when it comes to something like a wok, you need gas. To eliminate gas is to eliminate the wok as a means of cooking.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#58

Post by the_third_wave »

rbanffy wrote: post #46
the_third_wave wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does sea level have to do with Korean BBQ in LA? Here's the last ~90 years of tide gauge readings from LA, a slightly rising straight line: The relative sea level trend is 1.04 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.22 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1923 to 2021 which is equivalent to a change of 0.34 feet in 100 years. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_statio…

> What does sea level have to do with Korean BBQ in LA? You can't have Korean BBQ in LA if there's no LA ;-)

Strange to see my previous factual post with a link directly to NOAA downvoted, I'd say let the data speak for themselves?

Here's some more data: LA lies quite high, somewhere between 80 and 130m above sea level:

https://elevationmap.net/los-angeles-us-1002042754

Long Beach lies at 10 m, Monterey at 5 m over sea level. With an average sea level rise of 1.04 mm/year it will take 5000 years for Monterey to get its feet wet. By that time there is a fair chance of the interglacial taking a turn for the worse with temperatures plunging back down for the next glaciation.

LA will burn down (and not from Korean BBQs) before it is swamped by the ocean.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#59

Post by taylodl »

breadloaf wrote: post #44

I always find laughable when governments are scolding or limiting peasants for basically nothing, while ignoring the elephant in the room. * You need to conserve the water, California peasant! Ignore the fact that 80% of water in California is consumed by agriculture and we are not going to do anything about it. * You need to stop using your gas stove, peasant! Ignore the fact that we are going to switch off Diablo N…

Ignore the fact that we are going to switch off Diablo Nuclear Power plant and replace it with gas plants.

That's a bit disingenuous. Those units were brought online in 1985 and 1986 and are licensed to operate through 2025. That's forty years - which is the life span of a power plant, especially a nuclear power plant. So, they're not being "switched off", they've hit end-of-life. Building a new nuclear power station is logistically impossible. Without getting into it, in essence the U.S. has lost the ability to construct nuclear power stations. People cite the regulatory nightmare, but that's not the real issue - that's an excuse. The real issue is much more complicated.

Note: I work for a U.S. utility that tried to build a nuclear power station due to go online in 2009. We had to abandon the effort and turned the plant into a Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant. It was brought online shortly after President Obama made the statement there will be no more coal plants opened in this country. I still get a chuckle out of that (we've since shuttered several of our coal units and have reduced our CO2 output by 50%). I know of at least two other U.S. utilities that ended up building IGCC plants for the same reasons. All of us already had nuclear generators in our fleet, so we all know how to work with the NRC. Given all the problems we've experienced trying to build new nuclear generation stations I seriously doubt we'll see any new nuclear generation stations built for some time. The last nuclear generation station brought online was in 2016 and took 43 years to build! It also cost billions of dollars. Nobody has the appetite for that kind of endeavor.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#60

Post by tablespoon »

taylodl wrote: post #59
breadloaf wrote: post #44

I always find laughable when governments are scolding or limiting peasants for basically nothing, while ignoring the elephant in the room. * You need to conserve the water, California peasant! Ignore the fact that 80% of water in California is consumed by agriculture and we are not going to do anything about it. * You need to stop using your gas stove, peasant! Ignore the fact that we are going to switch off Diablo N…

Ignore the fact that we are going to switch off Diablo Nuclear Power plant and replace it with gas plants. That's a bit disingenuous. Those units were brought online in 1985 and 1986 and are licensed to operate through 2025. That's forty years - which is the life span of a power plant, especially a nuclear power plant. So, they're not being "switched off", they've hit end-of-life. Building a new nuclear power station…

> That's a bit disingenuous. Those units were brought online in 1985 and 1986 and are licensed to operate through 2025. That's forty years - which is the life span of a power plant, especially a nuclear power plant. So, they're not being "switched off", they've hit end-of-life.

I doubt that is true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant#2021... talks about a report that states "that keeping Diablo operating until 2045 would save the state a cumulative $21 billion," and I doubt they'd make a projection like that if the plant would be worn out in 2025.

It's probably not end of life, it probably just needs maintenance and recertification. This nuclear plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_Point_Nuclear_Generatin...) has some reactors that were built earlier, and are apparently now licensed to operate for a total of 80 years.

> Building a new nuclear power station is logistically impossible. Without getting into it, in essence the U.S. has lost the ability to construct nuclear power stations. People cite the regulatory nightmare, but that's not the real issue - that's an excuse. The real issue is much more complicated.

You make this claim, but you don't really support it. Why is this a "lack of ability" rather than a lack of political will?

Post reply on HN