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

231–240 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#231

Post by taylodl »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #70
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…

As my sibling comment also queries, I wonder what you mean by "Building a new nuclear power station is logistically impossible." Can you expand on this further?

Cost overruns, quality control issues, and the inability to manage large, industrial construction projects lasting a decade or more. I'm reminded of a quote I recently read for why the U.S. continues building aircraft carriers even we arguably no longer need them: it's so we can remember how to build them and keep all the supply chains in place. Nuclear power stations represent the limit for what private enterprise is capable of building. I've always we should have adopted the French model where there's a singular design everybody adheres to, it's approved and methodically modified and everybody in the industry knows how to build them. Instead ours are all snowflakes - which increases the complexity that much more.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#232

Post by the_third_wave »

rbanffy wrote: post #61
the_third_wave wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange to see my previous factual post with a link directly to NOAA downvoted, I'd say let the data speak for themselves? Here's some more data: LA lies quite high, somewhere between 80 and 130m above sea level: https://elevationmap.net/los-angeles-us-1002042754 Long Beach lies at 10 m, Monterey at 5 m over sea level. With an average sea level rise of 1.04 mm/year it will take 5000 years for Monterey to get its feet…

I think the issue is that you tried to confront a joke with a fact. It was a joke, after all (LA will last a lot longer than Florida, for instance). I suppose there won't be any Korean BBQ in Florida by the turn of the next century.

Those Floridians should just take a page out the Dutch play book on how to handle sea water incursions and start building those dikes. Average sea water rise around FL is about 2.5 mm/year so they still have some time.

When all fails they can just move to Yakutat, AK which sees a yearly sea water level drop of 15.5 mm/year. Any other place around Alaska will do since the sea water level goes down everywhere (or the land goes up which is part of the reason for the sea level drop).

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#233

Post by danans »

taylodl wrote: post #201
danans wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That makes sense. Thanks for the details.

> at least a factor in that decision anyway.

What were the other factors? Were the plummeting LCOE of renewables and storage part of it? Also what about the (previously low) price of natural gas?

Now that natural gas is expensive, it seems like keeping Diablo Canyon operational for another 20 years is back in the table if federal funds can be used to subsidize it:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/analysts-differ-on-feasibil...

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#234

Post by macspoofing »

D13Fd wrote: post #48
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

> I don’t care how small or large it is.

Good for you. I care and maybe you should too, because there is a credibility cost to this kind of action. This ban is obviously purely performative, and though you may see value in performative actions like this, others are turned off by them which leads to distrust of institutions and non-compliance.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#235

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#236

Post by wildrhythms »

gruez wrote: post #84
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

>The whole carbon footprint thing was created to shift blame from the dirty industry to inviduals you think that "the dirty industry" are just emitting carbon for the fun of it?

Carnival cruise ships alone produce 10x more pollution than all vehicles in Europe combined[1]. So yes, it is for fun. And profit.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/8bceef94-86cd-11e9-a028-86cea8523...

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#237

Post by macspoofing »

epistasis wrote: post #94
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…

> 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…

> it will be replaced with zero carbon generation, including geothermal.

No. It will be replaced by gas, because we've pretty much tapped out on sources of geothermal and hydroelectric power, and wind/solar are intermittent. So the only thing that's left is gas or coal.

>which will consist both of "regular" lithium storage, and some newer less tested tech for longer duration storage.

No. Lithium for long-term grid scale storage (let's say, on the order of even a day, though in reality we need a few weeks of storage) is never going to work. Outside of pumped storage (for which you need the right geography), there are no other options.

You're going to be burning gas or coal if you shut down Nuclear. Germany is finding that out the hard way.

>so if it doesn't happen then somebody is violating the law. It was senate bill 1090, passed in 2018:

Congress can pass any bill they want, but physics wins every time.

>I spend most of my hobby time researching energy, and find that nuclear proponents are often the lowest information contributors on forums, repeating dates talking points, and in the rare cases that they have data, it's far out of date.

In all your research around energy, did it ever strike you as odd that no region in the world is powered by renewables (outside of hydro and geothermal)? How about the fact that Germany, at the same time they are touting wind energy, is building multi-billion dollar pipelines to ship Russian gas for decades? Should raise some questions on the viability of solar and wind - no?

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#238

Post by ars »

krallja wrote: post #88
ars wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heat pump water heaters are also bad, I wanted to buy one and didn't because they are very slow to heat the water. Too slow to be useful for me. They are especially bad in northern climates since the incoming water is cold, and they put cold air in your house - which then has to be heated by the home heater. An A/C is already a heat pump.

> water heater…slow it goes in an insulated tank? why does the speed matter? the tank is always at temperature. if you run out of hot water, that’s a tank size issue, not a heater technology issue.

A 40 gallon tank can provide 2 showers per hour. You can get 80 gallon ones for residential use, larger than that is in commercial territory.

But that's still just 4 showers - if you have a bunch of people all getting ready for an event, and you also have laundry to do (which uses double what a shower uses, although takes longer) and run the dishwasher, etc.

It's not enough. You would need a truly mammoth tank.

Instead you have a large fire at the bottom, and heat the water almost as fast as you use it, then you don't run out.

A heat pump water heater would simply not work for a 6 person home in the north in the winter.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#239

Post by chociej »

elil17 wrote: post #164

Your home stove is probably around 7,000 BTU/hr (perhaps up to 20,000 if you have a fancy stove). Professional woks use 100,000 at the very minimum.

That's only 30 kilowatts, which is really modest in terms of power demand for a commercial kitchen. And electric cooking can often deliver heat more efficiently to the cookware. Electric equivalent to 100k BTU/hr gas is not very hard to achieve.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#240

Post by Mikeb85 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #197
Mikeb85 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's very informative, thanks.
Post reply on HN