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

361–370 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#361

Post by function_seven »

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.

Same way planting a seed today will give you a tree in 20 years.

Existing infrastructure is emitting CO₂. The stuff we replace it with won't. The gas pipes that are shut off will no longer leak methane.

The next century will be dominated by how we deal with the last century's monumental carbon emissions. We went from 300 to 400 ppm by burning immense amounts of fossil fuels. To go from 400 back to 300 will take a bit of effort. No single policy—in isolation—will "reverse climate change". But all of them will.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#362

Post by balls187 »

inerte wrote: post #357
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.

I'm a fan of ClimateTown's videos. My girlfriend is in the oil and gas industry and the latest video on who is to blame for gas prices was a real treat for her.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#363

Post by UncleMeat »

jacquesm wrote: post #205
cecilpl2 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boiling water is a proxy for rate at which energy can be delivered to food. Heating a pan up to temp is much faster on induction than gas.

Sure, but it's not just about energy transfer, it is also about temperature stability, ability to ramp up and down in a short time, ability to deliver that heat gradually. You can't compare an immersion coil with an induction plate or a gas stove directly by only looking at the energy transfer efficiency. There is much more to it than that.

Induction is way faster at changing the temperature of the pan than gas.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#364

Post by daniel-cussen »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #347
daniel-cussen wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Second. It's just not cooking with electric, it sucks. It's not an adequate substitute the way electric heat is a substitute for gas heat. Not equivalent. I think it's ineconomical, takes too long to cook for a restaurant, just fucking sucks. It fucking sucks. Big gas ranges are the best, especially if they produce a huge flame and you can cook your bacon quickly and really get it nice, crispy. With electric the baco…

>Plus it takes for ever to boil anything Tell me you've never cooked on induction without telling me. If there's ONE thing an induction range does quantitatively better than a gas range, it's boil water...

Oh that's induction...just used electric resistance heating, that makes sense. Yeah water boilers.

OK, well I take back the comment I made, not fully informed.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#365

Post by Larrikin »

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…

I've only lived in apartments that have had had gas ranges or connections in Philly, Tokyo, and Chicago.

The biggest annoyance after my latest move was that every single apartment had flat top electric ranges so I didn't even have option of preferring apartments with gas ranges.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#366

Post by hnov »

chimeracoder wrote: post #358
hnov wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You could be running gas through fuel cells if you want, still not as efficient as amortizing existing infrastructure. This reminds of the EV debacle, you should be buying a used Prius or walking places if you care about the environment, everything else is just posturing.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#367

Post by golemiprague »

lkbm wrote: post #180
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…

> But most does not. So, this seems like putting the cart before the horse. Why not focus on improving how we generate electricity before we tear out all the gas? What percentage should be from renewables before we start switching? What if it takes 10 years to get 90% of stoves replaced? It's surely not a "wait until the grid is 100% clean" situation. Then add in the fact that induction stoves (and I believe electric…

Somehow it looks to me like it will take much more time to rump up our electricity production, especially from renewable sources, than switching at some stage to electric stoves and cars. Not that I mind improving the situation in all fronts but it certainly not the main issue that we need to focus on. I don't even believe climate change is such an issue but I also don't mind trying some improvements to appease people who are worried, it is just that we need at least to focus on the main problems and make it in a way that will not be too costly and bankrupt us all.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#368

Post by jklinger410 »

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…

> Why not focus on improving how we generate electricity before we tear out all the gas?

It's incredibly simple. We can, at will, change how the "single" source of energy is generated. There is no time that is too early to have all energy consolidated to one source.

Not only because the plants that generate the electricity are more efficient and cleaner than everyone burning their own fuel (even when they are gas or coal), but because if we are prepared already, as SOON as we make the change to renewables or nuclear, suddenly everything is more clean.

I don't want to be rude here, but I HAVE to assume fully functioning adults are arguing from bad faith here, rather than "not understanding" this concept.

Don't be coy, tell us why you really don't understand this.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#369

Post by jklinger410 »

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…

> It sounds like you and the parent both have much more demanding needs than we do

Okay but devil's advocate, bringing it back to the original topic, wouldn't restaurants also have more demanding needs than the average person?

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#370

Post by joshgachnang »

karmicthreat wrote: post #323
joshgachnang wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree on San Soo Gab San as my fave (both the Chicago and Morton Grove locations are good). There was an awesome one in Lincoln Park that I'm pretty sure closed down that had all you can eat KBBQ _and_ all you can eat sushi.
Post reply on HN