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

251–260 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#251

Post by MisterBastahrd »

cecilpl2 wrote: post #188
AlgorithmicTime wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's not even mentioning that you can simply by steel discs the size of the burner and use whatever kind of cooking vessel you like.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#252

Post by adrian_b »

letitbeirie wrote: post #66
mcv wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not losing any if you're burning it inside the thing you want to heat (your home). You definitely lose a lot if you're burning it underneath the thing you want to heat (a pan on the stove); a lot of the heat goes around the pan. Just feel the air above the pan. All of that is wasted heat.

I could see gas being less efficient at heating a pan since it's using convection in an uncontained space. What I was getting at was the fact that with electric, you're burning the gas inside a heat engine to generate power first, so right off the bat your best outcome is the Carnot limit.

The modern power plants with combined cycle have an efficiency of up to 65%.

The power plants with heat cogeneration have an efficiency of up to 80%.

I doubt very much that even half of the energy consumed by burning gas ends inside the cooking pot in most cases.

Regardless of the energy efficiency or pollution risk of gas stoves, there are people who prefer other cooking methods just because they like their results better.

Even if I have a gas stove and I continue to pay for gas as if I would use it, because I live in a condo and there is no individual metering, I have stopped using the gas stove several years ago.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#253

Post by taylodl »

danans wrote: post #233
taylodl wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Other factors I'm sure PG&E is considering:

* Cost to extend the operating license of the plant. The NRC will likely mandate modifications be made in order to keep the plant running safely for another 20-40 yers.

* Public Relations. There's strong public opposition to nuclear power. PG&E already has a poor image in California. Closing the plant would be expected to generate some goodwill toward PG&E.

* Soaring insurance costs/increased liabilities. California has made it abundantly clear to PG&E that if Diablo were to have any problems affecting the public in any manner whatsoever then they are totally on the hook for the financial impacts. Look at what happened with the wildfires caused by arcing transmission equipment. Now imagine the costs associated with a nuclear "incident." That's simply too much risk.

Between the high financial risk and decreased dispatch that's a one-two punch that makes continued operations untenable.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#254

Post by epistasis »

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?

"Impossible" might be a bit strong of a word, but recent attempts have proven that the initial estimates of time and cost are not very useful for evaluating actual time and cost of completion. And completion is not a guaranteed outcome, as ballooning costs, corruption, or market conditions can cause failure and loss of billions of dollars of labor and materials.

* VC Summer in South Carolina: failed due to corruption and construction/design incompetence

* Vogtle in Georgia: might finish, but every few months gets delayed more for a grab bag list of reasons. See, for example:

https://thecurrentga.org/2021/12/03/construction-quality-iss...

* Flamanville in France: who knows what went wrong here

* Hinkley Point C in the UK: not looking great

* Olkiluoto in Finland: it finally finished and works! Yay!

https://thecurrentga.org/2021/12/03/construction-quality-iss...

Even in France's first generation of building, of the same design, costs rose as they built more. Nuclear just can not seem to find its groove of being reliably constructed or planned.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#255

Post by GoldenRacer »

wolverine876 wrote: post #219
GoldenRacer wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was trying to figure out how much CO2 burning natural gas creates to get a grasp of how big of an issue this is. I found a source claiming 116.65 pounds of CO2 per million BTU produced by burning natural gas. Even if we assume chefs have a really hot burner cooking at 20,000 BTU per hour, that's 2.3 pounds CO2 per hour. Add on a little more for the methane released (some sources say 1/3) if you want. Let's just rou…

The impact of something else doesn't change the impact of what you do. If someone hands you a $1 million check, you don't say 'this is nothing compared to a $1 billion check; I'm not going to cash it'. If you create an open source project, you don't say 'it's not Linux, so I'm going to abandon it'. It's an absurd rhetorical argument. Just cut the GHG where you can. This relative impact argument is the latest FUD, IMH…

> Just cut the GHG where you can.

I 100% agree and wasn't trying to discourage anyone from cutting where they can. I just think it's important to actually cut where you can and not make insignificant changes, pat yourself on the back, and call it a day.

Imagine you had an employee that spent 7 hours a day browsing reddit 15 minutes a day smoking cigarettes and 45 minutes actually working. You approach them about wasting time and they respond "You know what boss, you're right. I'll cut out my smoke breaks." You'd be correct to tell them the 15 minutes of smoke breaks aren't the problem, the 7 hours on reddit is the problem!

In the context of my above comment, if you really wanted to cut your CO2 production, you'd stop eating beef. Producing a pound of beans results in around 1 pound of CO2 emissions. When people start eating those instead of steak to cut their emissions, I'll start taking their desire to get rid of gas stoves seriously. Meanwhile, the world is warming up.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#256

Post by vegetablepotpie »

seoaeu wrote: post #153
vegetablepotpie wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not op, but no, they don’t do it for fun, they do it for money. Emitting carbon has negative externalities (climate change) that are not priced into the emissions, rather they are passed onto the future you and future generations. We can change this by putting a price on carbon. This will incentivize the growth of cleaner alternatives, give Joe an opportunity to not contribute to emissions, and this will affect the p…

The people who finance those emissions are ultimately their customers. If you drive a polluting SUV or eat a ton of beef, those emissions emissions are a consequence of your decisions. The systematic issues that folk talk about abstractly are things like “too many people pick SUVs rather than commuting by subway” or “society needs to switch away from eating so much beef”. It isn’t just a matter of waltzing into a fac…

Although personal responsibility is a factor for emissions, my thesis is that it’s not the primary factor.

When I talk about systemic issues, I talk specifically about the distribution of personal choices people can make that lead to outcomes. Taken into context, this means that if I only have one choice for electricity provider, and my investor owned utility makes a decision to burn coal to generate electricity, there’s very little I can do to change that. If the area I live in has only single family zoning, things are so spread out that it means that most people need a car for basic human needs like going to work and getting groceries. In my city electricity and transportation represents 80% of emissions. These systems have big impacts. You can throw all the personal responsibility that you want at that and not make any meaningful changes.

We don’t have to have these systems, you could empower the community to make power purchasing agreements to buy electricity on the wholesale market that would be cleaner than what the utility provides. You could pass mixed use zoning to allow developers the autonomy to build commercial/residential mid rise buildings. People could walk to a lot more stuff. We just choose not to do that.

This is a matter of waltzing into your town hall, state legislature, and congress and demanding that we allow people the ability to make better choices. If people had real choices, we’d have better outcomes.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#257

Post by briandear »

cecilpl2 wrote: post #188
AlgorithmicTime wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And when there is a power failure, what then? I live in hurricane country and being without power is a real concern. I happen to have a backup generator which runs on natural gas. But electrical outages are a real thing.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#259

Post by guerrilla »

wolverine876 wrote: post #228
guerrilla wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 90% of the problem is caused by someone else, then spending 99% of the media coverage and legislation on me is just a highly-effective diversionary tactic! Come on, now.

> 90% of the problem is caused by someone else Is that true? Or is it true that no factor is more than 10%, so everyone can use this rhetoric and say '90% isn't me!' Also, if you think about it, though it's a very trendy take (which you can see repeated many times on this page) - think past the trend: it's a transparent, embarrassing abdication of responsibility. As just one person, only a tiny amount of the world is…

Neither is true nor false, it was a rhetorical exaggeration for effect. But yes, it's very close because corporations are far more responsible for CO2 than individuals.

> Transportation (27% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) – The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation primarily come from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Over 90% of the fuel used for transportation is petroleum based, which includes primarily gasoline and diesel.2

> Electricity production (25% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) – Electricity production generates the second largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately 60% of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas.3

> Industry (24% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from industry primarily come from burning fossil fuels for energy, as well as greenhouse gas emissions from certain chemical reactions necessary to produce goods from raw materials.

> Commercial and Residential (13% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from businesses and homes arise primarily from fossil fuels burned for heat, the use of certain products that contain greenhouse gases, and the handling of waste.

> Agriculture (11% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture come from livestock such as cows, agricultural soils, and rice production.

> Land Use and Forestry (13% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) – Land areas can act as a sink (absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere) or a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, since 1990, managed forests and other lands are a net sink, i.e., they have absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit.

> the media coverage covering things that interest their readers and not generally addressing technical regulations of power plants?

This is insanely naive. The media is propaganda which benefits their owners, the same ones that own the polluting corporations.

3/4 of Transportation comes from road travel, only 45% of which is consumers, so... 9% of emissions due to road travel by consumers. The EPA doesn't distinguish between "Commercial and Residential" but we can be extremely generous and say 50% of that residential (we're ignoring that commercial is actually using the vast majority due to refrigeration, lighting and air conditioning)... then around 15% is due to things consumers have direct power over. Obviously I mixed numbers (greenhouse gasses vs. just CO2) but as you can see by rough estimate, the rhetorical exaggeration is not far off at all. Newspapers just blame individuals so that those who actually have control of these things and profit from it can keep profiting.

> Instead of pointing the finger and using rhetoric, which accomplishes nothing, what are you doing about climate change?

Nice ad hominem but it would fail even if it weren't a logical fallacy, because the answer is far more than almost everyone, which is pretty easy in Sweden using public transportation, buying only green electricity, living next door to two second hand stores and buying virtually nothing ever anyway (being a minimalist) and running everything into the ground before I replace it.

> Instead of pointing the finger and using rhetoric

Correctly identifying the source of the problem is exactly what everyone should do in every situation, otherwise you end up with the wrong solutions.

[1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#260

Post by rhacker »

macspoofing wrote: post #234
D13Fd wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Especially when you feel like the makers of the rule changes did not first ask you. That's the biggest issue.
Post reply on HN