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

321–330 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#321

Post by BeetleB »

sroussey wrote: post #312
brewdad wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People don’t want a lack of gas line. Those that care can turn their own gas off, yet sell to someone that does care.

Do we have statistics on people's preferences?

Anecdotes:

I've yet to live in an apartment/house that actually had a gas stove.

No one I know made gas a criterion when house/apartment hunting. They use whatever the place has. When leaving a place with a gas stove, none of them cared if the new place would be electric or gas.

On the flip side, I know quite a few people that exclude places with gas stoves when hunting for housing, because they're used to electric and are worried about fires (never mind if their worry is reasonable or not).

So I've definitely met more people who insist on electric than on gas.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#322

Post by daniel-cussen »

buro9 wrote: post #15
ars wrote: post #4

This is such a foolish law, environmentally speaking. I totally understand doing this once we've phased out burning natural gas for electricity. But we are not there today, today we are burning natural gas for electricity. So using electricity instead of natural gas in your home is wasteful. And yes I'm well aware that induction stoves are a thing. But induction stoves of today cannot run all four burners and the sto…

> I totally understand doing this once we've phased out burning natural gas for electricity I've been thinking about this in Europe. How to wean oneself off of gas. The big wins are electric generation, and those can be done within a reasonable timeframe by states with largely unilateral decision making. But the long tail... Domestic use of gas. That's hard. How does one ask an entire populace to rid themselves off o…

And do it for bad political reasons, as opposed to good political reasons or good reasons in the absolute?

Like I don't let Joseph Biden tell me how to talk, what to think, who to blame, whom I should stand by or do in. I'm not going to let him tell me how to cook.

Plus it looks counterproductive, like an uneconomical reduction in gas usage leads to a higher gas usage in the profitable part of the economy to make up for it.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#323

Post by karmicthreat »

joshgachnang wrote: post #297
karmicthreat wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Huh, I've never used an induction one, and I've been to a bunch in Chicagoland and LA. Even at home we use a butane grill.

What's a good one in Chicagoland? I get over there every once in a while.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#324

Post by ryukafalz »

macspoofing wrote: post #229
Ekaros wrote: post #210

I wonder what are the particulate emissions of gas cooking? Is it entirely sootless? It is not really so big issue with powerplants as those can have more effective control of process and cleaning of output. But at poorly ventilated situations it seems possible to cause lot of harm.

>I wonder what are the particulate emissions of gas cooking? Is it entirely sootless? Yes. It is entirely sootless[1]. There are no health concerns with gas cooking. There are certainly related concerns, like gas leaks leading to fires or CO poisoning - but of course this isn't the reason for the ban. [1] Kind of ... all cooking (i.e. the act of applying heat to particles) results in some level of 'harmful' emissions…

> There are no health concerns with gas cooking.

Citation needed.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/5/7/21247602...

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#325

Post by hnov »

TheSoftwareGuy wrote: post #301
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

How's ripping out and replacing existing infrastructure going to reverse climate change? Not to mention that CA is about to have a lot of electricity shortages that will likely necessitate the burning of gas to generate it.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#326

Post by jcranberry »

vkou wrote: post #111
jcranberry wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick google tells me household consumption contributes to 72% of GHG emissions: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es803496a

This is a pointless game of accounting, that distracts from the issue at hand. As long as producers aren't taxed for emissions, consumers can't pick lower-emission producers.

We should be approaching the problem from all avenues, so I agree. But this campaign that ordinary people shouldn't arsed to do anything because it won't make a difference is absurd.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#327

Post by russdill »

sudden_dystopia wrote: post #156

Because the electricity isn’t generated by mostly natural gas anyway and will continue to be for the foreseeable future…this doesn’t reduce emissions, it’s just authoritarian virtue signaling. If they tell those of us that live in a cold climate that we can’t have gas furnaces and gas water heaters, they are going to be rudely awakened by our response.

Generating electricity with natural gas is not surprisingly more efficient than cooking with natural gas.

Also, in California, less than half of the electricity is produced by natural gas.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#328

Post by hnov »

BeetleB wrote: post #321
sroussey wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don’t want a lack of gas line. Those that care can turn their own gas off, yet sell to someone that does care.

Do we have statistics on people's preferences? Anecdotes: I've yet to live in an apartment/house that actually had a gas stove. No one I know made gas a criterion when house/apartment hunting. They use whatever the place has. When leaving a place with a gas stove, none of them cared if the new place would be electric or gas. On the flip side, I know quite a few people that exclude places with gas stoves when hunting…

Gas and (real) rangetop extraction are definitely things that I consider, but I do love to cook. An inductive stove-top would be fine, but a resistive one would be a huge negative for me.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#329

Post by danShumway »

JamesBarney wrote: post #295
danShumway wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Another huge consideration is who it harms. Does it only affect the person who chooses to engage in that activity or is it hurting someone else who cannot consent.

This is a good point, but utility/housing bans, lead paint bans, electrical wiring standards, and so on, are often less about someone individually harming themself, and more about having a standard minimum quality/safety level for houses being sold, as well as for protection for other family members/kids.

Back to the lead paint example, there's something of an argument to be made that if you want to handle lead, you should be able to. But it's nice for everyone else to not have to wonder if the house they're buying is a toxic death trap that will cognitively affect their children.

Similarly, if gas stoves do significantly reduce air quality in a way that matters (again, that's an if), I don't think it's too unreasonable to impose restrictions on people renting out properties or building houses.

When we talk about how much harm a regulation is preventing, we treat harm that comes from informed consent as less dire than harm that comes from uninformed action or as a result of other people's choices that an individual had no control over. A lot of building codes and standards have impacts on not just harms that come from informed consent, but also on other people as well who might just want to know that their kitchen isn't silently harming them.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#330

Post by cheriot »

hnov wrote: post #325
TheSoftwareGuy wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How's ripping out and replacing existing infrastructure going to reverse climate change? Not to mention that CA is about to have a lot of electricity shortages that will likely necessitate the burning of gas to generate it.

All infrastructure is going to be upgraded at some point. Why wouldn't we make sure the new stuff has fewer externalities?

It will take a generation to upgrade every kitchen. These sort of "start the incremental change" ordinances need to happen at some point. Might as well start now.

Post reply on HN