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

271–280 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#271

Post by saiya-jin »

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…

Dude, you are completely missing the point. Real change should be regulatory, to massive corporations that do by far most damage.

Blaming average joe is turning large part of population into fed-up-by-all-this-shit group, I can see it around me quite a bit.

Me personally I am still all in, but at this point I am completely fed up with radical and utterly naive folks who blame all general population and push for more restrictions, celebrating straws and ignoring lobbying elephants. Thats not where real solution is.

Going your way is a very ineffective solution that will take too long to get into effect (convince population that will make politicians realize this is what gets them elected, and over time regulations come), and the damage needs to be addressed now

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#272

Post by seibelj »

wolverine876 wrote: post #202
seibelj wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.'

> Eco-Cycle is unable to provide any data to back up this number, telling Reason that it was relying on the research of one Milo Cress. Cress—whose Be Straw Free Campaign is hosted on Eco-Cycle's website—tells Reason that he arrived at the 500 million straws a day figure from phone surveys he conducted of straw manufacturers in 2011, when he was just 9 years old.

> Cress, who is now 16, says that the National Restaurant Association has endorsed his estimates in private correspondence. This may well be true, but the only references to the 500 million figure on the association's website again point back to the work done by Cress.

https://reason.com/2018/01/25/california-bill-would-criminal...

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#273

Post by danShumway »

shepherdjerred wrote: post #169
danShumway wrote: post #130

From what I can tell, gas stove bans would really just be a side effect of the broader measure, which is requiring homes to be "emission free". The measure seems to be more directly about heating/water/etc... Which makes me wonder if it might not just make sense to add some exclusions for some specific appliances for places like restaurants. I don't know the numbers, but I doubt that stoves in specific are the highes…

Quoted post unavailable.

I know, right? The nanny state is ridiculous, next they'll ban lead paint in nurseries.

----

But more seriously, regulations should be driven by the amount of harm the regulation would prevent, the costs/side-effects of the regulation, etc... I'm unsure where gas stoves fall on that spectrum without more research.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#274

Post by kodah »

vegetablepotpie wrote: post #196
forum_ghost wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In California (which this article and thread are about) agriculture is actually up in terms of productivity and down in terms of water utilization. The problem is the solvency of Ag's GDP value on the state register, which went from 5% to 2%, is not up. I'm not sure agriculture is really affected as much by fossil fuels as it is by economic pressure and water cost/benefit ratios given the economic pressure.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#275

Post by KingMachiavelli »

A large reason electric (restive and induction) are seen as inferior to gas is that portable units are limited to 120v/15a (few are 20a) so the total possible power is technically less than a gas stove; 2800w effective. However, gas stoves are very inefficient so in reality it's not a huge problem and 240v electric stoves could even be hotter (~4000w) than a gas stove.

> Xie estimates that he pays around $500 to $700 a month on gas, and about $1,200 on electricity.

Since gas stoves are so inefficient, natural gas should provide no cost benefit. It's likely that much of that electricity use from higher AC and refrigerator compressors demand due to gas stoves heating up the interior space (commercial kitchens can get very hot).

It's interesting that Korean BBQ is mentioned since I already see many places using induction stoves for obvious safety reasons; customers are cooking their own food. Hot pot and Hibachi places also seem to either be using electric as well. IME doing KBBQ at home with a portable induction stove and it works very well.

I think overall its ideal for even commercial kitchens to move to electric, it would greatly improve indoor air quality and likely make the kitchen environment more comfortable due to less waste heat. That said there are some cases where having an actual flame is important so it would be nice to see some solution for those dishes - perhaps larger portable propane tanks?

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#276

Post by colinmhayes »

vegetablepotpie wrote: post #129
gruez wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

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…

> they do it for money.

They do it because it's what consumers want. It's not industries job to kneecap themselves so that less scrupulous companies can gain market share.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#277

Post by Mikeb85 »

forum_ghost wrote: post #85
chrisseaton wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many (most?) restaurants are electric-only. Are you in the restaurant industry? Maybe you know more than me, but about 3/4 of restaurants I go to in Europe have open kitchens, and I mean it's completely obvious that every single one of them is using gas, as you can literally see the flames, and I guess those with closed kitchens it's similar, so I can't square what you're saying with my own eyes.

European restaurants (in any EU country, even Germany) absolutely do use gas, and it's fairly common. Depending on the restaurant, i'd go as far as to say "all" of them use it. At least the ones worth mentioning. Heating up hotdogs can probably done one something other than gas. Fewer natgas stover in Germany, more in Italy. Netherlands has like 92% of households hooked up to natural gas. Restaurants are mostly gas o…

> At least the ones worth mentioning

Of the top of my head can name a fair amount of 2/3 star restaurants that are all electric.

BTW, Germany is among the MOST addicted to gas in the EU, despite their greenwashing.

Generally the nations with the most nuclear energy are the lost likely to choose electric > gas.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#278

Post by colinmhayes »

wildrhythms wrote: post #236
gruez wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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...

But if they weren't royal caribbean would.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#279

Post by mlindner »

Ekaros wrote: post #193
UnpossibleJim wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People like you are really sick. Mass murder is not a solution to anything.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#280

Post by colinmhayes »

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's not a company's fault that the government is unwilling to neutralize externalities. Deciding to do so when everyone else doesn't just means you will fail as consumers switch to cheaper, higher pollution alternatives.
Post reply on HN