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

161–170 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#161

Post by hansthehorse »

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…

I think people confuse the lifetime of the plant with the lifetime of the license to operate it. The NRC issues a 40 year license which can then be renewed if approved.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#162

Post by gwbas1c »

danShumway wrote: post #130

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 highes…

I live in MA, and in my old house I heated and cooked with gas.

In the summer my gas bill was $30. In the winter my gas bill would go up to about $200. One extremely cold January in 2015 nearly cost $300.

So, yeah, space heating uses much more gas than cooking.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#163

Post by GoldenRacer »

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…

I was trying to figure out how much CO2 burning natural gas creates to get a grasp of how big of an issue this is. I found a source claiming 116.65 pounds of CO2 per million BTU produced by burning natural gas. Even if we assume chefs have a really hot burner cooking at 20,000 BTU per hour, that's 2.3 pounds CO2 per hour. Add on a little more for the methane released (some sources say 1/3) if you want. Let's just round up to 3 pounds CO2 equivalent/hour cooking for what is likely an overestimation. If anyone has better estimates or sees an error in my math, I'd be happy to hear.

Meanwhile producing a pound of beef causes 22 pounds of CO2 equivalent emissions. So, if you order a 16 oz steak that was cooked for 15 minutes on a gas stove, the stove was responsible for So yeah, seems like a feel good measure that doesn't actually make much of a difference. But maybe that's the point?

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#165

Post by epistasis »

tootie wrote: post #113
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…

The solution has to be both. LA city government can't replace the grid or set national energy policy. National policy is held hostage by climate deniers who refuse to lift a finger on anything that would have any actual scale. Saying we can't act locally because there's not enough action globally is nonsequitar. We have to do both. People using gas stoves and overwatering lawns has to stop regardless of anything else…

LA actually has their own eléctrica utility, and could set their own generation choices.

Unfortunately the politics are completely attached to dirty energy transmitted from other states, due to jobs and weird Union personalities.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#166

Post by danans »

taylodl wrote: post #97
mynameisash wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> if the nuclear power station isn't guaranteed to provide base load then it's too expensive to operate.

If nuclear can't guarantee baseload, then how is it a better investment than much cheaper renewables?

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#167

Post by seibelj »

ryukafalz wrote: post #133
seibelj wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Okay, now how much carbon does the entire gas infrastructure used to pipe that gas around emit, and the gas used to heat homes? Because as long as people are going to specifically demand gas stoves, all that infrastructure still has to exist, and gas heating is going to be attractive because the gas hookup is already there. The fossil fuel industry specifically uses gas stoves as a gateway to push people towards usin…

We already have the infrastructure and it works great. How about solve the planes and container ships then we can work our way down to the things that barely matter?

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#168

Post by AlexandrB »

seoaeu wrote: post #136
spaetzleesser wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"you think that "the dirty industry" are just emitting carbon for the fun of it?" Yes, for fun and profit.

Profit from whom? All these industries ultimately sell the resulting end products to people. This idea that Exxon Mobile is solely to blame for gasoline emissions or that a factory owner is the only one responsible for the emissions from their factory, rather than the person who purchases and uses those products is quite frankly absurd.

> This idea that Exxon Mobile is solely to blame for gasoline emissions or that a factory owner is the only one responsible for the emissions from their factory, rather than the person who purchases and uses those products is quite frankly absurd.

No it's not. The cost of pumping CO2 into the air should be factored into the cost of running a polluting factory. If it's not factored in, there's basically zero chance that a "clean" alternative factory will be economically competitive today. Asking everyone in the world to voluntarily spend more on goods that they're not even sure are manufactured in a cleaner way (see "greenwashing") seems like a dead end to me.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#169

Post by shepherdjerred »

danShumway wrote: post #130

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 highes…

No post body was provided.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#170

Post by elil17 »

mike00632 wrote: post #109
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…

15% of all natural gas use is residential. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/use-of-natur... These laws are about removing the need for gas lines entirely. I think that restaurants count as commercial so the impact would be even higher. It's nonsense to claim that these changes won't have an impact.

Using natural gas in an appliance is more efficient than burning it to produce electricity (heat pumps are the exception here). Plus, there's a good chance we will want to use the natural gas grid to move renewable hydrogen, methane, or dimethyl ether because those forms of energy are easier to store and move than electricity.
Post reply on HN