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

171–180 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#171

Post by Mikeb85 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #158
Mikeb85 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://iea-etsap.org/E-TechDS/PDF/R06_Cooking_FINAL_GSOK.pd... Here's some stats. And yes I'm in the restaurant industry. Also keep in mind in Europe you can buy large cooking suites that look like traditional ranges that are all electric. You can get electric "French top" ranges. Most combi ovens sold are electric. In homes most built-in ranges are electric/induction. Freestanding ranges are slightly in favour of g…

Doesn't seem to support your view? 'Within the EU, little data is available ... 41,000 electric devices and 9,200 gas appliances were sold'. And I mean like I say - I have eyes and I can see that it definitely is not the case that the majority of restaurants in Europe do not use gas. If you say you work in restaurants then I'm sure you know what you're talking about - only explanation can be we're connected to this w…

So how many kitchens did you visit, what country, and what appliances were obviously gas?

> 41,000 electric devices and 9,200 gas appliances were sold'.

??? That's a 4.5/1 ratio in favour of electric. Anyhow tons of new restaurants in EU countries use electric appliances. Yes gas exists, probably large majority in some countries, definitely minority in new builds, and varies by country.

I also did say it's many, the "most" part was followed by a "?". Because as you pointed out, hard stats are hard to find.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#172

Post by sevenf0ur »

kmtrowbr wrote: post #155

I don't see how it makes sense: the electricity has to be generated, which is almost always via burning something to heat a boiler. Then the electricity is sent to houses via the grid, which involves further losses. So you burn something, make heat, make electricity, send the electricity though wires, to make heat. Vs, just making heat directly in the house to accomplish the job. If all our electricity came from rene…

We figured out that burning fossil fuels indoors is a bad idea.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#173

Post by couchand »

uoaei wrote: post #154
m0llusk wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dra…

The recurrent phenomenon of "pick a corner-case counterexample and act like that disproves the trend" on HN is really getting grating.

I once saw a productive argument on the internet.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#174

Post by epistasis »

nicoburns wrote: post #150
epistasis wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

Seems like it would still be better to switch off a gas plant and replace that with geothermal, etc. IF the nuclear staton is still in good working order of course.

First, they are also adding far more generation to get rid of gas, that's part of the IRP process that's happening right now, and the law SB 100 mandated a fast changeover.

The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant does not meet old laws on the use of once-through-cooling, laws that grandfathered in existing licenses, but required new operating licenses to meet the environmental rules. 15 years ago, the utility started evaluating the cost of fixing the cooling situation, and found that it was not economical. Which led to the 2015 decision to not extend the license, and replace DC with renewables, geothermal, storage, and hydro.

Even if it were cheaper to retrofit the cooling, there's a strong technological argument to instead invest in new technologies. Every bill on dollars invested in these new technologies makes them cheaper and drives down prices for future installs. However spending billions on cooling does nothing to improve future construction efficiency. Nuclear power is less a technology than it is a construction project. We do not gain efficiency in construction when we build more nuclear infrastructure.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#175

Post by daveslash »

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...

This is a low quality comment, but it reminds me of the signage purportedly spotted at a BP Gas Station that said "You are responsible for your spills" https://thebasispoint.com/bp-gas-station-sign-you-are-respon...

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#176

Post by [deleted] »

hellotomyrars wrote: post #91
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…

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.

[deleted]

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#178

Post by wolverine876 »

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...

In life, do we behave in every way like the worst person we know? If my neighbor doesn't take out their trash, that doesn't mean I shouldn't do it. In fact, it works the opposite way: We each influence others; if we don't do it, fewer around us will; if we do something good, more people around us will - we set the standards. I try to act like the best person I know (and fail often!).

Consumer do emit significant amounts of carbon, and whatever someone else does, we need to reduce it. Pointing the finger at someone else and saying, 'well they do it', doesn't help climate change; it just throws around blame - generally a useless distraction in life - and adjusts our standards to the lowest denominator.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#179

Post by danans »

kmtrowbr wrote: post #155

I don't see how it makes sense: the electricity has to be generated, which is almost always via burning something to heat a boiler. Then the electricity is sent to houses via the grid, which involves further losses. So you burn something, make heat, make electricity, send the electricity though wires, to make heat. Vs, just making heat directly in the house to accomplish the job. If all our electricity came from rene…

> Why not focus on improving how we generate electricity before we tear out all the gas?

You have to shift the demand side while you are shifting supply, in order to keep the incentive for investment going.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#180

Post by lkbm »

kmtrowbr wrote: post #155

I don't see how it makes sense: the electricity has to be generated, which is almost always via burning something to heat a boiler. Then the electricity is sent to houses via the grid, which involves further losses. So you burn something, make heat, make electricity, send the electricity though wires, to make heat. Vs, just making heat directly in the house to accomplish the job. If all our electricity came from rene…

> But most does not. So, this seems like putting the cart before the horse. Why not focus on improving how we generate electricity before we tear out all the gas?

What percentage should be from renewables before we start switching? What if it takes 10 years to get 90% of stoves replaced? It's surely not a "wait until the grid is 100% clean" situation.

Then add in the fact that induction stoves (and I believe electric stoves) are significantly more efficient than gas. With gas stoves, a ton of the heat just goes out into the kitchen, whereas induction gets much more directly into what you're cooking.

There's also the climate impact of unburned gas leaking into the atmosphere, though I don't know how significant this is. Ideally, we want to get to a place where we don't have to build gas transmission infrastructure to every building. This will take ages, so if it's important, we should start now, not after everything else is in place at the generation side of things.

Outside of climate concerns, there are also some significant negative health effects of gas stoves. e.g., much higher rates of asthma in households with gas stoves[0]

I have a strong preference for cooking with gas, mostly due to familiarity, but there are major downsides to the technology.

[0] https://slate.com/technology/2020/12/gas-stoves-hazardous-as...

Post reply on HN