Live data from Hacker News

What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

latimes.com

201–210 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#201
post #166
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?

Nuclear can guarantee base load, PG&E is arguing the preference for dispatching base load will be given to renewables which would cause Diablo to be dispatched at an expected rate of 50% of what it's being dispatched today. Such a scenario is financially untenable to continue further operation, hence the decision to not renew the operating license - or at least a factor in that decision anyway.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#202
post #68
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

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…

> infinitesimally ... completely ... totally ... utterly ... insane

Words like that are an attempt to add impact, but they don't change the underlying facts and argument. Can you back up these claims?

Paraphrasing Mark Twain, 'replace all your adverbs and adjectives with 'damn', and then edit for a family-friendly newspaper.'

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> things that barely matter

Can you support the claim that they barely matter? From what I've seen, consumers produce a significant amount of GHG.

Why not solve both now? There's no reason to wait for someone else to do something, and many solutions take time to develop and implement.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but it's not just about energy transfer, it is also about temperature stability, ability to ramp up and down in a short time, ability to deliver that heat gradually.

You can't compare an immersion coil with an induction plate or a gas stove directly by only looking at the energy transfer efficiency. There is much more to it than that.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#206
Do residential and commercial gas stoves even have a material impact on our emissions?

Just like the paper straw debacle, I find it comical that legislators waste so much energy on ridiculously trivial things instead of putting that energy into something with larger returns.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#207
post #50
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a wood joke? I'm not sure you want everyone burning wood.

Just the korean BBQs. Wood, or other biofuel that gets you a flame.

How is that better than natural gas for climate change and air quality?

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#208
Wow. So much bullshit. Where do I start. Most importantly, the motion only bans gas appliances in new construction. Now think about this and re-read the article with this important fact in mind, and you will discover that nothing in the article is actually the least bit relevant for the proposed ordinance. Everything they talk about refers to existing restaurants in existing buildings, which will not be affected by the ordinance.

Even in todays time of massive construction the percentage of actual new buildings is incredibly small. This is a necessary result from the high cost of construction. I am trying to remember if I ever stepped in a genuinely newly built (i.e., less than a year old) building this year, and I cannot. And I live in a city with massive construction and cranes everywhere.

In a city like LA, where most of the area is already built up, there is are so many existing buildings, that it will be many decades before anyone has any difficulty finding a fire grilled meal.

Now about cost. They talk about how expensive it will be to rip out all the gas stoves and put in electric. Again completely irrelevant. If you already have gas stoves, then you are in an existing building, then you will not be affected by the proposed ordinance. The theory about how there will be a glut of used gas stoves on the market is equally stupid.

The part where a restaurant owner compares his gas bill to his electric bill is especially dumb. What does that have to do with anything? He has no electric stoves, his electric bill is mostly for air-conditioning, lighting and ventilation. (Ironically a lot of it I am sure goes for air-conditioning to remove the heat from his kitchen and ventilation to remove the smoke from his gas appliances.)

What the article does not say is that if you stick to the actual proposed ordinance, everyone's costs will go down significantly. When you are talking about new buildings, avoiding the need to build the gas infrastructure results in significant savings and so does skipping all the chimneys, vents and fans needed to remove the smoke from the kitchens. Gas pipes are much more expensive to build than electrical wires, considering they have to move gas under pressure and ensure there are no leaks.

Furthermore, if this ordinance is passed, it will result in savings not only for the developers of new buildings but for all people with gas hookups. This is because the way things currently stand, all gas company customers pay for any new capital outlays of the gas company. Thus, when the gas company has to put in a pipe to feed a new building they charge all their existing customers for that, and include a nice profit margin in their charges. Well, with this new ordinance these charges will be avoided. By the way, this is why the gas company is paying for articles like this.

Regarding quality of food, all of the issues are solvable. You can make an electric wok to heat up fast. If you absolutely need a gush of hot gasses, you can create that with electricity and heat pumps. If you need the smoky smell of barbecue and grill you can achieve that by heating up wood chips with electricity while controlling their temperature without combusting them. This will actually smell and taste better. Gas smoke is not pleasant at all. The pleasant smoky smells and tastes come from chemicals in the wood that evaporate without combustion. Thus, for example, wine that has been casked in wooden barrels is often said to have a pleasant smoky smell, even if the barrels are not actually burned.

All of this is possible and it will be created once there is demand. But there has to be some demand, or at least a promise of demand. And to create initial demand in new buildings, where you are actually making significant savings by not hooking up gas at all, is just an easy slam dunk decision.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#209
post #64

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!

> singe the praises

Ah, that's lovely. :)

- - - -

Also pilot lights: older gas ranges have tiny flames burning 24/7 just in case you want to cook something in the middle of the night. (Most newer models use electric sparks "on demand" to light.)

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#210
I wonder what are the particulate emissions of gas cooking? Is it entirely sootless? It is not really so big issue with powerplants as those can have more effective control of process and cleaning of output. But at poorly ventilated situations it seems possible to cause lot of harm.
Post reply on HN