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

91–100 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#91

Post by hellotomyrars »

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…

Consumers tend to be price-sensitive and the gas stove is usually cheaper than the low-end electric stove tops, to say nothing of the higher end ones.

Also gas is familiar and popular perception for electric tends to be poorer than gas. Admittedly anecdotal but when I hear someone who I know choosing gas over electric, that is often their primary justification.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#92

Post by cecilpl2 »

throwaway4aday wrote: post #76
zionic wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

> are inferior to induction stoves in almost every way the one way in which they surpass induction stoves is the only thing that counts, instant control of the heat applied to the pan.

Induction does have instant control since it induces heating directly in the pan.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#93

Post by UnpossibleJim »

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…

I hate to be that guy (I honestly do) but should we even mention the carbon footprint of America being in a near constant state of war/"police action" somewhere in the world since ~1967 (the argument could be made for earlier, but there was a break there, I guess).

Carbon study from 2017: https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tran.123...

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#94

Post by epistasis »

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…

> switch off Diablo Nuclear Power plant and replace it with gas plants.

This is not true, it will be replaced with zero carbon generation, including geothermal. For intermittent zero carbon generation, there needs to be matched storage, which will consist both of "regular" lithium storage, and some newer less tested tech for longer duration storage.

This is mandated specifically by law, so if it doesn't happen then somebody is violating the law. It was senate bill 1090, passed in 2018:

https://www.powermag.com/press-releases/california-gov-brown...

And two years before the law mandating it, the zero carbon replacement was part of the original closure announcement:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pge-to-replace-...

However, I see this false claim repeated again and again, and some weird nuclear lobbying group has performed SEO to have their misinformation be high up on the search results:

https://www.ans.org/news/article-3835/four-clues-that-diablo...

I spend most of my hobby time researching energy, and find that nuclear proponents are often the lowest information contributors on forums, repeating dates talking points, and in the rare cases that they have data, it's far out of date. I really wonder where these whisper campaigns come from, because its really clear when a new bit of talking points has been released through the propaganda networks.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#95

Post by jcranberry »

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).

A quick google tells me household consumption contributes to 72% of GHG emissions:

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es803496a

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#96

Post by mschuster91 »

tablespoon wrote: post #60
taylodl wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 op…

> Why is this a "lack of ability" rather than a lack of political will?

Even in countries that are massively pushing for nuclear energy and where the utilities are sometimes outright government-owned, like in France, Finland or the UK, nuclear reactor projects have continuously hit massive cost and deadline overruns: Finland's Olkiluoto 3 had 12 years delay and ended up costing over three times as expected, French Flamanville will end up at over six times the estimated budget and at least eight years delay, and UK's Hinkley Point can't even be reliably estimated.

The only ones being able to build out plants is China, and for what it's worth I think they will manage to blow up at least one of them due to shoddy construction.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#97

Post by taylodl »

mynameisash wrote: post #77
taylodl wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Those units ... are licensed to operate through 2025. ... So, they're not being "switched off", they've hit end-of-life But that's not necessarily accurate, either. My dad worked in the nuclear industry all his career and specifically within the licensing group for maybe five or ten years. His job was, for a time, to relicense the plant that he worked at so they could continue after their 40 year initial licensure…

That's true. There are many nuclear stations that are more than 40 years old. PG&E announced in 2016 they weren't renewing the operating license because California has put emphasis on renewables and if the nuclear power station isn't guaranteed to provide base load then it's too expensive to operate. Otherwise there shouldn't be an issue of running the station until 2035 or 2045. I'm not a resident of California so I don't know the state politics and what all is driving this decision.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#98

Post by kelnos »

gruez wrote: post #84
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

>The whole carbon footprint thing was created to shift blame from the dirty industry to inviduals you think that "the dirty industry" are just emitting carbon for the fun of it?

They do it because it's more economical in the short term to do it, and our economic system values short term metrics more than long term.

On top of that, our governments are full of cowards who won't create policies that make it more expensive to destroy the planet than to save it.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#99

Post by hgomersall »

wentwiththeflow wrote: post #24
buro9 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

lun.energy

What is lun? I looked at the website and learnt nothing.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#100

Post by atestu »

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).

Huh? Almost everyone I know in France ("Europe" is too big and varied to generalize imo) has a gas stove.
Post reply on HN