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

121–130 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#121

Post by mananaysiempre »

mschuster91 wrote: post #96
tablespoon wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Fl…

I’m suspicious of the appropriateness of the even in this phrase. Massive bureaucracies with no competition produce late, cost-ineffective megaprojects, and a nuclear reactor is essentially megaproject bait even if does not actually have to built as one (unlike, say, a hydroelectric station). I’m reminded of how Higgs physics on the LHC is done on two completely independent detectors, ATLAS and CMS, because only building one would have ended up more expensive.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#122

Post by tlogan »

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…

Sad but true. This is all about politicians are trying to be “woke/progressive” without actually trying to solve the problem.

Would keeping Diablo nuclear plant and focusing on replacing other plants with clean energy help global warning? Yes! But that is hard.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#123

Post by adolph »

jcranberry wrote: post #95
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).

A quick google tells me household consumption contributes to 72% of GHG emissions: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es803496a

Maybe read before you make a statement about how "a quick google tells me?" The parent comment reference to "personal use (minuscule percentage of green house gasses) versus agricultural/commercial use" is not comparable to the linked paper's "household consumption," a "consumption category" that includes things like agriculture and manufacturing, see excerpt below.

On the global level, 72% are related to household consumption, 10% to government consumption (compared to a 16% share in global GDP), and 18% to investments (compared to a 21% share in global GDP). Nutrition is the most important consumption category, with food accounting for nearly 20% of the GHG emissions. Because we include the supply chain in our analysis, methane and nitrous oxides from agricultural production play a significant role. “Shelter”, the operation and maintenance of residences, causes 19% of the emissions, most of it related to the direct energy consumption by the buildings. Unlike the convention in household environmental impact studies (8), the sectoral detail in the GTAP data did not allow us to allocate furniture or cleaning products to the category of shelter; they are rather grouped under manufactured products. The construction of buildings is mostly allocated to investments, together with the construction of infrastructure. Construction accounts for 10% of the CF globally. Mobility for private households accounts for 17% of the emissions. Almost half of this is caused by fuel combustion by private motorists. Other important contributors are the production of motor vehicles and the purchase of air and land transport services. Freight transportation is allocated to consumed products and not private mobility. Services apart from wholesale and retail trade margins account for a total of 16%, where “public administration, defense, health, and education” is by far the most important with 11%. Trade margins account for 5.5% and represent the accumulated emissions from distribution between the producer and final consumer. Manufactured products cause a total of 13% of the CF, whereas clothing represents 2.8%, machinery and equipment account for 5%, followed by the household consumption of chemical products and the consumption of electronic equipment.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#124

Post by jacquesm »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #82
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…

right now, there are thermal properties around materials like copper which will not work with induction that mean there are things that simply can't be done with them, and resistive electric is horribly non-responsive. As it happens, the latest installment of Technology Connections [1] does direct comparisons of the time required to boil a volume of water on various cooktop technologies. The winner was a cheap electr…

Boiling water is only a very, very small subset of what a typical person will do when cooking.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#125

Post by m0llusk »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #67
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...

That is false. The carbon footprint idea was designed to analyze what is going on and conceive of next steps. The argument you are making is clearly false because basic calculations show that industry and commerce have carbon footprints far larger than individuals.

Also this criticism fails to take into account how people actually live. When I was in Menlo Park, California it was discovered that pool filter pumps draw lots of energy over time because they get left on and old designs are extremely inefficient. This news spread and all over town older boomers who of course lived a lifestyle with pools in their backyard had their pool filter pumps upgraded to modern designs and often changed to have them powered by solar and allowed to stop overnight. The savings from a neighborhood of rich folks converting pool filter pumps all in a short period of time was significant and now a huge constant draw from the local grid has been eliminated. There is no way that is a plot by dirty industry, just a big victory that gets overlooked because of carelessness and political projection.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#126

Post by incrudible »

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.

Eliminating an entire stratum of cooking culture in exchange for miniscule savings in CO2 seems like a terrible deal to make.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#127

Post by adolph »

AstralStorm wrote: post #45
kkfx wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The cooker needs to work on continuous mode for setting the power, rather than pulse mode most (all?) of them do. Perhaps there exist such pro versions.

Do modern electric cooktops not operate by PWM?

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#128

Post by jillesvangurp »

WalterGR wrote: post #3

Actual article title: "The end of Korean BBQ in L.A.? What the gas stove ban means for your fave restaurants" Subtitle, emphasis mine: "Chinese and Korean chefs in Los Angeles are worried that a ban on future gas stoves may alter their kitchens forever."

Authentic BBQ would use a char coal grill, not gas. Gas bbq's are a lot less nice in terms of flavor. I guess, they could just switch to using gas in containers instead of getting it via a pipe into the building. I assume that would still be legal.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#129

Post by vegetablepotpie »

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?

Not op, but no, they don’t do it for fun, they do it for money.

Emitting carbon has negative externalities (climate change) that are not priced into the emissions, rather they are passed onto the future you and future generations. We can change this by putting a price on carbon. This will incentivize the growth of cleaner alternatives, give Joe an opportunity to not contribute to emissions, and this will affect the profits of the “dirty industry”.

The “dirty industry” wants to keep profits as high as possible for as long as possible, it’s just business. Blaming average Joe on the problem is a distraction. Blaming individuals for systemic issues is fruitless. Industry knows this. The longer policy can be delayed, the longer profits can be made.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#130

Post by danShumway »

From what I can tell, gas stove bans would really just be a side effect of the broader measure, which is requiring homes to be "emission free". The measure seems to be more directly about heating/water/etc... Which makes me wonder if it might not just make sense to add some exclusions for some specific appliances for places like restaurants. I don't know the numbers, but I doubt that stoves in specific are the highest carbon emitters, even in restaurants. But I could very well be wrong.

Ignoring the environmental debate, purely for your own benefit I see light-to-medium-confidence evidence that gas stoves should be avoided just because they decrease the quality of air inside your home while you're cooking.

It's not something I'm willing to make a strong claim about, but if I was buying a house or redoing a kitchen I personally would not put in a gas stove, and if I was renting I would avoid an apartment that has one.

Again, I'm not going to make a strong claim increased particulate count during cooking is even something that's worth worrying about in the first place, but I do think the evidence is strong enough to at least warrant additional attention, and assuming that it turns out that gas stoves really do significantly lower air quality nearby during use, I could see a somewhat reasonable argument to be made that they shouldn't be allowed in newly constructed homes just on that basis, or at least a requirement that there be better ventilation attached to them than often currently is.

Post reply on HN