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

261–270 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#261

Post by briandear »

chociej wrote: post #218
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?

Consumer Reports, for one, is happy to report that "No other cooking technology we’ve tested is faster than induction." I would think a lot of the advantages of induction are really obvious, so I don't think your statement that they are "inferior to gas in every way" is particularly in good faith. No gas in a building should be obviously advantageous. Reduced ability to cause burns or fires too. Reduction of use of a…

Why can’t people have the choice for gas or induction? Why must government tell us what kind of stove to use? If reducing greenhouse gases from stoves matters to you, you can make the choice to do that.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#263

Post by laveur »

For me I think this misses another issue that may or may have not been pointed out: The bigger issue isn't people or resturaunts using gas, but the gas pipelines themselves leaking and emitting green house gasses. Natural Gas isn't going anywheres anytime soon even if we switch over to electric. So why isn't the government making sure leaky gas pipelines get fixed and maintained?

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#264

Post by kkfx »

linsomniac wrote: post #144
kkfx wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well... I'm full-electric since years and I still have to find a device that really match gas... Induction for me is NEVER able to hold a certain temperature, essentially all plate I've used at low temp just run-and-stop continuously witch combined to very thick pot allow a nearly-constant temp but definitively not much constant. Classic resistance on aluminum alloy and non-stick PTFE coating on contrary can regulate…

It sounds like you and the parent both have much more demanding needs than we do. My wife and I a pretty serious home cooks, and have been quite happy with our Samsung Chef Collection induction range. We pretty much home cook all of our food, but don't go so far as to make anything where we need to the degree PID feedback temp control. Not saying there isn't a need for it, just trying to figure out what percentage of…

I do cook on indution since years, simply I have to say that it does work but it's not on par nor better than gas in cooking terms, for me suffice, I like the ability to move most electric appliances around also, I like the easiness to clean the induction plate BUT I understand people who don't, that's is.

Having built a new home I do not have gas at all and I have a p.v. system so no interest in gas "extra comfort/regulation", in air quality I have a VMC so...

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#265

Post by briandear »

D13Fd wrote: post #49
cthalupa wrote: post #6

I've got a Control Freak, probably the highest end induction cooktop available for a home chef, and is even used in 3 michelin star restaurants like Alinea. It's amazing for consistency, holding temperature, and a dozen other things. It's quite responsive in general! But I still reach for my Iwatani butane stove and copper saucepot sometimes. These are still significantly more responsive even than a top of the line i…

Quoted post unavailable.

3 degrees? Citation needed.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#266

Post by smallpipe »

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…

The problem isn’t the gas being burned, it’s the gas not being burned. Natural gas is a much stronger greenhouse gas, to the point where leaks make up more of the greenhouse effect of residential gas than the CO2 from burning said gas.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#267

Post by al_borland »

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…

I think the point is that a lot of the actions being taken are more for optics than impact.

This ban is only in LA, tiny localized action is more like someone handing you a check for 30 cents when you're a billionaire... you're probably not going to bother cashing that check. I'm not even a millionaire and I have often let checks for less than $1 sit around for too long, so I can't cash them.

Focusing on these 30 cent checks, which distract from the million and billion dollar checks, seems to just be a means to kick the can down the road. We don't have time for that.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#268

Post by spookthesunset »

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…

You are forgetting how much of the heat coming from the gas stove is simply heating the air around the pot instead of heating what is in the pot. The efficiency of gas stoves is pretty crap-tastic. Induction heats only the pot, and thus heats only what is inside.

(setting aside tiny losses from heating the pan, etc...)

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#269

Post by spookthesunset »

adolph wrote: post #127
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.

Do modern electric cooktops not operate by PWM?

Only if you measure the pulse width in terms of seconds and not milliseconds.

What is interesting is the hot plate on my 3d printer uses millisecond PWM, but not my stove. I'm not quite sure what the advantages of either method are?

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#270

Post by cecilpl2 »

briandear wrote: post #257
cecilpl2 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess you use a BBQ or eat food that doesn't require cooking for a couple days?

Power failure is very rare where I live so it didn't occur to me. I have never experienced a power outage for more than a few hours in my entire life.

Post reply on HN