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

391–400 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#391

Post by HalcyonCowboy »

elil17 wrote: post #343
kec wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't really true. Electric heating is as close to 100% efficient as is practical in the real world. I would also be shocked to learn that gas turbines at a power plant extract fewer watts per unit of gas than a simple (likely poorly maintained) burner in a residential setting.

That may be true for stoves where heat goes into the air but it’s not true for other appliances. Most modern gas furnaces have an efficiency of about 80%, meaning 20% of energy is lost as exhaust. Some newer systems have efficiencies as high as 98.5%, and older systems might go as low as 56% [1] Natural gas combined cycle plants (they have have multiple turbines for increased efficiency) around 50% efficiency (effici…

This is not true since the vast majority of electric whole home heating units sold today are heat pumps, which are up to 300% efficient [1]. If the power generation and distribution is 33% or higher efficiency, then a heat pump will outperform a natural gas furnace operating at 100% efficiency.

EDIT - Here's a video that explains it much better than I could, although it's a bit long, this YouTuber is great. [2]

[1] https://tristate.coop/advantages-heat-pumps-energy-efficienc... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFEHFsO-XSI

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#392

Post by ajsnigrutin »

gruez wrote: post #84
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep... BP can cause a huge maritime catastrophe (deepwater horizon spill), but let's blame Johnny Average here for drinking soda by using a straw. The whole carbon footprint thing was created to shift blame from the dirty industry to inviduals - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oi...

>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 fun but profit.

Look at the classic beer industry... you have/had a crate full of standardized glass bottles, with metal caps and paper labels, you pay some deposit to take the crate and the bottles, you drink the beer, return the crate and the empty bottles to be washed and refilled, get back your deposit (or take a new full crate), and that's it. Yes, some energy goes for transport and washing of those bottles.

Now look at soda industry.... you have 6 plastic bottles full of soda, capped with plastic, with plastic labels, wrapped in plastic (a "six pack"), set on a pallet, wrapped in more plastic, that you throw away after you drink them (or return them for recycling, and then china burns them).

And in the meantime, we're discussing and banning plastic straws.

And this is just a tiny thing, compared to all the poisons that are emited by large industries, especially in 3rd world countries using unregulated, dangerous chemicals (pesticides, herbicides,...) that are killing the local ecosystems, so nestle can earn 2cents extra on a box of cocoa powder.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#394

Post by guerrilla »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #383
guerrilla wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every example of corporate CO2 emission is in service of consumer needs. They have no power over how such things are produced. Markets are not democracies. Everything those corporations are doing can be done in a sustainable way, but they choose not to for the sake of growth. You're also forgetting all the manipulative advertising and propaganda driving people to consume more for the sake of growth. Anyway, even if…

Every molecule of CO2 produced goes into a good that consumers purchase. I would argue that corporations have zero carbon footprint and consumers have 100% of the carbon footprint. >[consumers] have no power over how such things are produced. Consumers have 100% of the power. If they dont purchase a good, it wont be produced. The whole reason Industries dont move away from carbon is because consumers refuse to pay mo…

> I would argue that corporations have zero carbon footprint and consumers have 100% of the carbon footprint.

Nope, because they have no control over the products that are available, how they are produced and most likely cannot afford to pay more.

> Consumers have 100% of the power.

No, 0%. They have _NO_ vote on how industry does what it does. Industry is not a democracy. They cannot just not buy food and electricity. That's stupid. They have to buy the things they can afford. The working class doesn't just have extra cash laying around, they buy what they can afford, unlike infinite growth corporations who are trying to avoid profit loss.

Alas, I can see you've already made up your mind about this.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#395

Post by bluescrn »

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 we seem to be throwing away the best opportunity that we've ever had to reduce driving quite significantly - by giving up on WFH and forcing people to commute again.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#397

Post by matwood »

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…

My preference is a high end gas cooktop with an electric stove. I also like gas fireplaces. Almost everyone I know has gas and prefers it.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#398

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

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 honestly would be interested for an actual chef to weigh in.

I'm all for using an induction stovetop at home, but have people actually seen chefs fry over an open flame? They're moving the pan around, lifting it up and around, using it to toss the food, etc. That would basically be impossible with an induction stovetop.

It seems rather tone deaf to me to not address the issues that the chefs are actually concerned about.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#399

Post by ajsnigrutin »

wolverine876 wrote: post #178
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep... BP can cause a huge maritime catastrophe (deepwater horizon spill), but let's blame Johnny Average here for drinking soda by using a straw. The whole carbon footprint thing was created to shift blame from the dirty industry to inviduals - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oi...

In life, do we behave in every way like the worst person we know? If my neighbor doesn't take out their trash, that doesn't mean I shouldn't do it. In fact, it works the opposite way: We each influence others; if we don't do it, fewer around us will; if we do something good, more people around us will - we set the standards. I try to act like the best person I know (and fail often!). Consumer do emit significant amou…

If someone builds a shitty damn (for holding water), and it collapses, and this results in flood waters destroying whole cities, and while your house is being destroyed by water, is it really worth it to focus on your neighbor pissing into the water from his rooftop? I mean yes.. technically he's contributing to the flooding, but you know...

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/dbabxu/til_tha...

combine this ^ with:

https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2016/12/05/tale-fish-two-cou...

> An example of this would be when a wild cod is caught off the coast of Alaska and, due to economic factors, is shipped to another country to be fabricated into fillets and packaged. If this process of turning a whole fish into packaged fillets occurs in China, the cod fillets are declared “Wild Caught Product of China” upon import into the United States.

So, I cannot buy straws because of pollution, but large industry, can catch fish in alaska, transport it to china, process it there, transport it back to US and sell it?

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#400

Post by [deleted] »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #309
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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN