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

191–200 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#191

Post by azinman2 »

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…

Except humanity has a very incomplete picture here that suffers cognitive biases. Coal outputs way more cumulative radiation than nuclear, amongst all kinds of other issues, but it’s slow and a little bit at a time so people don’t go up in arms. One or two booms gets all the attention.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#192

Post by s5300 »

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…

> The last nuclear generation station brought online was in 2016 and took 43 years to build! It also cost billions of dollars. Nobody has the appetite for that kind of endeavor.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

Anybody who says it does should not be allowed near anything in even the lowest levels of government/bureaucracy

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#193

Post by Ekaros »

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #93
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...

War could be effective in reducing carbon production, but sadly not enough combatants die on the continental soil, a few million dead combatants there each year would do wonders for cutting down emissions.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#194

Post by cecilpl2 »

jacquesm wrote: post #124
CWuestefeld wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Boiling water is a proxy for rate at which energy can be delivered to food.

Heating a pan up to temp is much faster on induction than gas.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#195

Post by carapace »

AlexandrB wrote: post #168
seoaeu wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

As long as there are other options, then I agree with seoaeu that the people who choose to buy polluting products and services do share the responsibility for climate change and other avoidable environmental destruction.

I also agree with you we should factor in CO2 production as a cost, to take advantage of the economic system (which actually works pretty well within it's domain after all, eh?)

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#196

Post by vegetablepotpie »

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.…

You’re right about the acute pollution from the fossil fuel industry. The affects are not distributed evenly. We need to solve that.

Climate change is already affecting us, we’ve lost a lot of agricultural productivity because of it, and it’s going to get worse faster than it has in the past.

Both these issues have their roots in fossil fuel extraction. If we can eliminate the extraction, we solve both issues.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#197

Post by chrisseaton »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #171
chrisseaton wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I can literally see the flames in almost all restaurants I go to.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#198

Post by seoaeu »

AlexandrB wrote: post #168
seoaeu wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

It doesn’t take a psychic to know that filling up your car with gasoline is going to cause a bunch of emissions. Or that the manufacture of a bicycle pollutes way less than a large SUV.

For some reason lots of people have this idea that the path to solving climate change is for consumers to make no changes to their wasteful consumption, but somehow fix it on the backend so everything is net-zero. In reality, the only workable path must include systematic changes that result in people consuming less (along with lowering industrial emissions for the consumption that remains)

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#199

Post by stripline »

danans wrote: post #166
taylodl wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't believe they're saying that the nuclear plant can't provide the base load, it's that the California government won't commit to buying the base load from the nuclear plant.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#200

Post by Ekaros »

throwaway4aday wrote: post #89
hgomersall wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you used induction? My experience is that it's much more responsive than gas.

Yes, it turns on quickly but it also has to vary on and off to maintain the temperature which leads to it either running too cool part of the time or too hot. Gas allows you to set the exact temp you need and it makes a smooth, quick transition and then maintains it perfectly.

Doesn't gas have trouble with very low outputs? Which really isn't such problem with either resistive or induction?
Post reply on HN