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

181–190 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#181

Post by wolverine876 »

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…

> 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.

This argument seems to assume that all power generation has equal impact on climate change, which clearly isn't true. Am I misunderstanding?

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#182

Post by coding123 »

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…

That's saying nothing about the extreme amount of gas that will still be burned to heat the food now.

Gas being burned to heat something is way more efficient than gas being burned to turn turbines to make electricity to be transported hundreds of miles to a restaurant only to be used to heat coils at 1500 watts to boil water. I am guessing at least 15 times more gas would be used.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#183

Post by linsomniac »

kkfx wrote: post #47
AstralStorm wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps, so far I have seen "relatively few" induction plate of various vendor and shape, none do that at low/mean temp, only pushed to the maximum (witch is used normally just to boil since for frying means melting the fryer itself, so where "the right temp" does not count that much). IR models, including some pro one from a restaurant of some friends, do the same, but at least heating outside the pot the effect is…

I believe my Samsung Chef Collection ($3300-ish range ~5 years ago) does indeed have PWM or similar sort of fine control. Maybe you are just talking about the standalone induction hobs, but our range definitely seems to do more than just cycle the element on and off, or if it does it cycles it multiple times a second.

Unless I'm missing something, here is the test you proposed, on our highest power burner (it may take a few minutes to finish processing and get 4K available), jumped to the "money shot", jump back to see other details: https://youtu.be/l4vg59llPlY?t=108

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#184

Post by wolverine876 »

gwbas1c wrote: post #162
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.

I wonder what affected your air quality more? I could see it either way.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#185

Post by Ekaros »

hansthehorse wrote: post #161
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…

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.

We have come to understand quite a lot better how long it is safe to operate nuclear plants. And less than 40 years is not that old yet for one. Clearly possible not to be at end of lifespan.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#186

Post by DFHippie »

forum_ghost wrote: post #73
D13Fd wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t obtain goodwill, it just delays the inevitable while we continue putting these gases into the atmosphere.

Populations of insects have collapsed, fish stocks have collapsed, biosphere is polluted by millions of tons of forever chemicals dumped into the Pacific ever year. Chemicals that keep accumulating in every life form. Earlier puberty in girls by several years, lower testosterone in men by more than 50% in two generation. Intersex fish. Some species are even reproducing asexually which for some was thought impossible.…

Two things can be bad at the same time. The people trying to do something about CO2 are the same people trying to do something about PFAS. And not doing something about CO2 doesn't cause something to be done about PFAS.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#187

Post by wolverine876 »

elil17 wrote: post #160
gwbas1c wrote: post #146

Is hydrogen practical? What about other forms of bio-gas? Personally I wonder if shutting down the gas network for cooking, and backup generators, is short-sighted. It seems to make more sense to push for mixing in carbon neutral gas sources and letting cost be more of a motivating factor. IE: I pay about $20 a month for gas in the summer when I just use it for cooking and grilling. They could swap in carbon-neutral…

Yeah, it's absolutely short sighted. Gas appliances are more efficient than electric appliances powered by natural gas fired power plants. While hydrogen might be a way's away (plus it requires redesigning everything), people (for example, Oberon fuels in California) are already mixing renewable dimethyl ether (similar to propane, but the central carbon atom is an oxygen atom) with propane in tanks for gas grills. St…

Doesn't that omit the impact of natural gas on climate change?

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#188

Post by cecilpl2 »

AlgorithmicTime wrote: post #72
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!

Induction stoves are seriously inferior to gas, in every way. They are slower to heat. They are more expensive to operate. They are more fragile. They rely on complex electronics vs. simple mechanics. They require specific cookware made out of only certain materials. They require direct contact with the "burner" to work. In what possible way are they superior?

They are faster to heat than gas since they can deliver all energy directly to the pan, whereas gas wastes ~75% of the energy heating the surrounding air. They boil water much faster than even an electric kettle for this reason.

Pot handles don't get hot from the hot air going up the side.

They are much easier to clean. Spills don't get burnt onto the cooktop.

There's no risk of fire or burning oneself.

No risk of a gas leak from bumping a knob.

No harmful pollutants emitted by combusting fossil fuels in an interior space.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#189

Post by formerkrogemp »

zionic wrote: post #64
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!

> 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.

Funny story and rather infamously, the researchers who studied the fumes from gas stoves almost immediately ripped out their gas stoves after the results came back from the studies. Several states are passing or have passed copy-paste laws, written by gas companies, making ripping out gas stoves cost a fee even if the gas company isn't ripping out the gas stoves themselves.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#190

Post by dibujante »

mschuster91 wrote: post #134
mananaysiempre wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 buil…

The problem at the root cause is the public's (reasonable!) expectations about safety. Humanity has experienced twice just how much damage a nuclear reactor blowing up can cause, not to mention how brittle they are and how lax people treat safety - just look at how many accidents happened at Sellafield - or the terrorism risk. Many of the experimental design ideas add the question of nuclear weapons proliferation on…

The other problem is the public's unreasonable expectations about safety. Given the amount of radiation already emitted into the atmosphere by fossil fuels, a nuclear power plant meltdown cannot be considered to be a remarkable addition to that balance.
Post reply on HN