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

351–360 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#351

Post by colin_mccabe »

dynm wrote: post #318

This article is all about climate change and cooking. But in case anyone is interested, I got interested in the health effects of gas stoves vs. induction a few months back. I was frustrated that no one seemed to give the magnitude of the harm. My conclusion was that using a gas stove for your entire life rather than an electric cooktop plausibly creates enough enough NO2 to reduce life expectancy by a couple of mont…

It seems questionable to evaluate what happens when you cook without any ventilation. You need ventilation to avoid smelling like food later on. Poor ventilation also has other bad consequences.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#352

Post by micromacrofoot »

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…

Gas pipes in old cities like New York and Boston leak constantly, these cities have had thousands of active leaks for a century.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#353

Post by chimeracoder »

corrral wrote: post #333
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

> 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 They're more expensive, though, and it's harder to find ones without 100% terrible touch controls (especially if you're also trying not to pay a ton of money). If you have a cheap gas range and want an electric replacement at roughly the same price, your options are all garbage,…

> They're more expensive, though, and it's harder to find ones without aren't 100% terrible touch controls (especially if you're also trying not to pay a ton of money).

They're more expensive, but amortized over the cost of the lifespan, it's not a big difference. And because it's more efficient, it's oftentimes going to be cheaper in the long run, depending on the relative price of gas and electricity in your area.

The touch controls issue is real, and I'm sympathetic to that because I really despise them myself. That said, there's no inherent reason that induction stoves have to use these - it's just a style choice - and I suspect as induction stoves get more widespread, if enough people prefer tactile controls, more options will become available. It's not a good enough reason to hold up local public policy that will have a measurable, positive climate impact.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#354

Post by eastbound »

corrral wrote: post #333
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

> 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 They're more expensive, though, and it's harder to find ones without 100% terrible touch controls (especially if you're also trying not to pay a ton of money). If you have a cheap gas range and want an electric replacement at roughly the same price, your options are all garbage,…

As my marketing teacher used to say: It’s not sold until it’s in the landfill.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#355

Post by m00x »

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

Give me the data where it says how much gas stoves contribute to climate change.

It's probably so insignificant that it's purely a point for virtue signaling. I've had a gas stove for years and I still haven't needed to refill the tank, and it's not even that big of a tank. Shipping your new induction stove will probably use more gas than you will in a decade of cooking.

Induction stoves can't be used for things like Woks since you need the heat to come up to the sides of the wok, not just in the part that touches the stove. Many other cuisines need gas stoves to properly work.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#356

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #336
wolverine876 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This argument seems to assume that…

Interestingly enough, dinner hours are the times when California relies the most on natural gas for electricity production. Hopefully that changes in the future, but I wonder if all this ordinance does is further centralize natural gas usage at a single point of failure.

That's still a benefit. Pipes leak, so by burning all the gas in the same place, you lose way less gas to leaks, and you also gain efficiency since big generators have less waste than small ones.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#357

Post by inerte »

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…

> By the way, this is why the gas company is paying for articles like this.

That's such huge coincidence! During a break I started to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX2aZUav-54 (still on the first few minutes) and the author talks _exactly_ about that, where a gas company (industry?) is paying people to post #cookingwithgas videos.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#358

Post by chimeracoder »

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.

> 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.

Burning gas at a power plant to generate electricity is still much more efficient than burning gas at home generate heat for cooking.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#359

Post by bjt2n3904 »

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…

And there you have it. The essence of environmentalism.

Find a small problem, propose drastic measures to counter it, end up making the problem worse.

Then, later, accuse everyone of impeding progress, and that there is an urgent need for even more drastic measures.

Post reply on HN