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

301–310 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#301

Post by TheSoftwareGuy »

hristov wrote: post #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 t…

Honestly we should be banning new gas hookups (as proposed here) and going even further to incentivise removal of existing ones. Climate change is a life or death situation, and we need to be acting way faster. That alone is reason enough.

The other reason is that it is better! You can actually get an induction stove to heat up faster than a gas stove, if it is wired properly

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#302

Post by russdill »

KingMachiavelli wrote: post #275

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…

Commercial induction woks go up to ludicrous power levels. I've seen 15 and 20 kW models online.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#303

Post by gkop »

tomtheelder wrote: post #213
gkop wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you spell it out for us? If induction cooktops are capable of continuous control of their output, why do they cycle significantly in set temp mode? At least, I would expect them to cycle minimally for fine tuning, relying on the continuous control of output as much as possible instead of cycling.

Well they don't have perfect output control, but also cycling is just usually a good way to maintain a temperature when you've got a pan and some food sitting on top of it since there's quite a bit of inertia in actually changing the temperature of whatever is on the stove. There are very expensive ones with separate temperature probes that do a lot less cycling and hold the temperature really steady, but most people…

Thanks for the reply, I’m still curious though

> cycling is just usually a good way to maintain a temperature when you've got a pan and some food sitting on top of it since there's quite a bit of inertia in actually changing the temperature of whatever is on the stove.

Why precisely is cycling more effective than attenuating down (better word please?) the output? I don’t see what the thermal inertia of what’s on the cooktop has to do with making the optimal (for cooking) choice between cycling and modulating the power.

Without detailed knowledge of the precise energy and time costs, I think it’s a fair default assumption that continuous power modulation should be more efficient, because it’s in a sense a superset of cycling, with much more fine grained control, but you can always set the continuous power output to 0 or 1 to accomplish cycling if in a specific scenario it is helpful.

Maybe when you say “a good way” you mean “a good enough way”? That makes sense, but doesn’t really sell induction stoves relative to gas (if you want to sell induction stoves relative to gas, I suggest to downplay any cycling and promote the continuous output modulation)..

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#304

Post by carabiner »

dghughes wrote: post #63
carabiner wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It definitely is.

Is gas preferred over charcoal? I've no clue about what you are talking about but I figure charcoal would have been the oldest cooking method anywhere. Gas has no flavour or soul compared to charcoal cooking.

Taste the meat, not the heat. Some nicer kbbq places have in-table charcoal grills. You have to change your clothes at home.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#305

Post by russdill »

karmicthreat wrote: post #293
KingMachiavelli wrote: post #275

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…

I miss Korean BBQ on a gas or charcoal burner. The only places I have ever managed to have it that was at Jongro in NYC or everywhere in Korea. The electric burner experience just isn't as fun.

I think you could easily reproduce the gas experience with a combination of induction and convective heating. It'd be more reliable and it would be easy to have a set temperature rather than needing the wait staff to periodically adjust the burner. It would need appropriate cost and engineering. Plus the under table apparatus would probably be much smaller.

The wood charcoal experience is of course very unique.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#306

Post by brewdad »

pao wrote: post #288

Seems like a lot of the interest in these bans is coming from new research like this [Stanford study]( https://news.stanford.edu/2022/01/27/rethinking-cooking-gas/ ) showing gas stoves emit more methane than previously thought. They say all residential stoves in the US emit GHG equivalent to 500,000 cars. There are 276 million cars in the US. So, this problem is about 1/500 of the car problem. If you eliminated all s…

Why would this disincentivize construction? If anything, building a home without gas infrastructure should be cheaper. Lower building costs. One less utility meter to be installed. Reduced "impact" charges. Assuming it doesn't lead to a decrease in new home demand vs older homes with gas, this should be a boon to the construction industry.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#307

Post by dlisboa »

pao wrote: post #288

Seems like a lot of the interest in these bans is coming from new research like this [Stanford study]( https://news.stanford.edu/2022/01/27/rethinking-cooking-gas/ ) showing gas stoves emit more methane than previously thought. They say all residential stoves in the US emit GHG equivalent to 500,000 cars. There are 276 million cars in the US. So, this problem is about 1/500 of the car problem. If you eliminated all s…

This relates to a difficult topic, which is: should modern civilization be 100% carbon neutral?

Some things are inherently difficult to make electric, yet we need them to have what we'd call a "modern civilization". Planes are the biggest one: there is a drive to use more trains instead of planes, but should we give that up? It is definitely a step backwards in civilization, as large parts of the world are now impossible to go to and from. Some people admonish flight tourism as hedonistic and say it harms the planet: but should people not be allowed to travel intercontinentally? Is that the world we want?

I believe the investment in carbon capture and greenhouse gases abatement should be increased. Not just because we'll not meet our climate goals and need a way to clean our atmosphere, but because even if we do we still need some things that burn fossil fuels (possibly for hundreds of years).

In that sense, if all of our energy grid was renewable, heavy industries didn't burn coal, and all cars were also electric, would it matter that we have gas stoves and other modern conveniences? Maybe not.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#308

Post by russdill »

pao wrote: post #288

Seems like a lot of the interest in these bans is coming from new research like this [Stanford study]( https://news.stanford.edu/2022/01/27/rethinking-cooking-gas/ ) showing gas stoves emit more methane than previously thought. They say all residential stoves in the US emit GHG equivalent to 500,000 cars. There are 276 million cars in the US. So, this problem is about 1/500 of the car problem. If you eliminated all s…

This doesn't just apply to cooking gas though

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#309

Post by Mikeb85 »

KingMachiavelli wrote: post #275

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…

> Since gas stoves are so inefficient, natural gas should provide no cost benefit.

In North America, the cost of gas is basically just the cost of transmission. It's so plentiful it's almost free.

Agree that the move to electric has tons of benefits though.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#310

Post by tomerv »

hristov wrote: post #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 t…

+1

> skipping all the chimneys, vents and fans needed to remove the smoke from the kitchens.

Every kitchen needs ventilation, even if it's fully electric. And if a restaurant is doing a lot of frying this ventilation needs to go somewhere it won't be a nuisance to the surrounding.

Post reply on HN