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

61–70 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#61

Post by rbanffy »

the_third_wave wrote: post #58
rbanffy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think the issue is that you tried to confront a joke with a fact. It was a joke, after all (LA will last a lot longer than Florida, for instance).

I suppose there won't be any Korean BBQ in Florida by the turn of the next century.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#63

Post by dghughes »

carabiner wrote: post #26
fomine3 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same in Japan, but so I think yakiniku with gas stove at restaurant is special.

It definitely is.

Is gas preferred over charcoal? I've no clue about what you are talking about but I figure charcoal would have been the oldest cooking method anywhere. Gas has no flavour or soul compared to charcoal cooking.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#64

Post by zionic »

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…

gas stoves vent toxic fumes into the house, run the risk of blowing your house up, and are inferior to induction stoves in almost every way.

Any time this comes up I love to singe the praises of induction!

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#65

Post by Mikeb85 »

In Europe almost everyone and many (most?) restaurants are electric-only.

It means nothing for restaurants except they'll need to get electric appliances and grills will be slightly less common (since electric grills aren't great and solid fuel grills require their own hood vent).

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#66

Post by letitbeirie »

mcv wrote: post #37
letitbeirie wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I could see gas being less efficient at heating a pan since it's using convection in an uncontained space.

What I was getting at was the fact that with electric, you're burning the gas inside a heat engine to generate power first, so right off the bat your best outcome is the Carnot limit.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#67

Post by ajsnigrutin »

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…

Yep... BP can cause a huge maritime catastrophe (deepwater horizon spill), but let's blame Johnny Average here for drinking soda by using a straw.

The whole carbon footprint thing was created to shift blame from the dirty industry to inviduals - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oi...

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#68

Post by seibelj »

D13Fd wrote: post #55
bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The amount of carbon a gas stove emits, like plastic straws, plastic bags, and all manner of bans the eco-activists are forcing on society, is so infinitesimally small compared to the airplanes the same activists and politicians use to jet around the country. It's completely laughable and totally absurd. I'm so utterly tired of virtue signaling in all aspects of society. We put insane amounts of effort into things that do nothing, then ignore all of the huge issues because those issues are hard and don't fit into a neat tweet.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#69

Post by chrisseaton »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #65

In Europe almost everyone and many (most?) restaurants are electric-only. It means nothing for restaurants except they'll need to get electric appliances and grills will be slightly less common (since electric grills aren't great and solid fuel grills require their own hood vent).

> many (most?) restaurants are electric-only.

Are you in the restaurant industry? Maybe you know more than me, but about 3/4 of restaurants I go to in Europe have open kitchens, and I mean it's completely obvious that every single one of them is using gas, as you can literally see the flames, and I guess those with closed kitchens it's similar, so I can't square what you're saying with my own eyes.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#70

Post by CWuestefeld »

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…

As my sibling comment also queries, I wonder what you mean by "Building a new nuclear power station is logistically impossible." Can you expand on this further?
Post reply on HN