What a gas stove ban means for restaurants • Hacker News Board

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#401

Post by ajsnigrutin » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 9:51 PM UTC

seoaeu wrote: post #136

spaetzleesser wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"you think that "the dirty industry" are just emitting carbon for the fun of it?" Yes, for fun and profit.

Profit from whom? All these industries ultimately sell the resulting end products to people. This idea that Exxon Mobile is solely to blame for gasoline emissions or that a factory owner is the only one responsible for the emissions from their factory, rather than the person who purchases and uses those products is quite frankly absurd.

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.

Yes, the fishing industry is to blame for shipping caught fish from USA to china and back, and the whole thing is very absurd.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#402

Post by Kon-Peki » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 9:54 PM UTC

isopod wrote: post #338

karmicthreat wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not OP, but San Soo Gab San (Western & Foster) was always great when I lived in Chicago.

Hey, if you’re going to make a trip out of it, when you’re done with the BBQ, head a few blocks south and take in the German bars on Lincoln Ave. There used to be a cool little Karaoke place at Lincoln and Western, too.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#403

Post by saxonww » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 9:58 PM UTC

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 would prefer gas over regular electric for kitchen stove and range. I like having a gas water heater, although I understand there are more expensive electric units that end up being more efficient, and that is appealing. I would like to have a gas clothes dryer vs. electric, but don't have the option.

Regular electric ranges typically do not perform as well for cooking. They can be better for cleaning and aesthetics, e.g. smooth top ranges are attractive and easy to clean, but most everyone I've ever talked to who actually likes to cook prefers gas ranges because they can get hotter and are better at temperature control. I don't know if I've ever talked to someone who cares about electric vs. gas ovens though, and I am not sure that either would necessarily have a performance advantage over the other.

Induction ranges are a very appealing subset of electric, but tend to require beefier circuits than most people have running to their kitchen; I've pointed out in other conversations that older houses in the US often don't have the panel capacity to retrofit without also replacing the panel. Induction is also not compatible with aluminum, copper, or glass cookware, which may comprise the majority of cookware in the US (just a guess).

I would agree that most people don't care about this, and will use whatever they have.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#404

Post by gruez » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 10:03 PM UTC

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #392

gruez wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.…

>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.

I'm not sure what time period "classic" implies, but what you described hasn't been the case for years.

About 12 percent of all U.S. beer was sold in returnable bottles in 1981. Since 2007, the percentage has been negligible, according to statistics kept by the Washington, D.C.-based Beer Institute.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/reusable-beer-bottles-facing-ex...

>Yes, some energy goes for transport and washing of those bottles.

I find it strange that you admit this is a thing, but ultimately gloss over it. What really is the TCO of plastic bottles vs glass bottles? It's tempting to conclude that reusing must be better than throwing stuff out, but given the costs associated with transporting heavy glass bottles and/or sanitizing them, it's not exactly obvious which one has overall higher costs.

>(or return them for recycling, and then china burns them).

There's a lot wrong with recycling today (eg. ending up in landfills because recycling is too expensive), but what you described isn't one of them. Landfill space in the US is cheap as it is. Nobody is shipping plastic half-way across the world only to incinerate them.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#405

Post by jhbadger » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 10:04 PM UTC

I grew up using traditional electric (not even inductive; just the normal 1970s kind) and it was absolutely fine. Where I live now has gas (the first in my 50+ year life) and I don't think it's something amazing; I actually find it kind of irritating to be honest. I think it's just what people are used to. Going to electric from gas is irritating, but so is the reverse.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#406

Post by AdamH12113 » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 10:06 PM UTC

spookthesunset wrote: post #269

adolph wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do modern electric cooktops not operate by PWM?

Only if you measure the pulse width in terms of seconds and not milliseconds. What is interesting is the hot plate on my 3d printer uses millisecond PWM, but not my stove. I'm not quite sure what the advantages of either method are?

PWM normally works with a constant DC voltage. If you’re driving a resistive heater with AC, the duty cycle loses its meaning unless the PWM frequency is much less than the AC frequency.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#407

Post by subsubzero » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 10:08 PM UTC

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #359

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.

No post body was provided.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#408

Post by bergenty » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 10:09 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #398

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…

I don’t know about chefs but my mom always complains about how hard it is to cook with induction heating because it takes very long to switch between high and low temperatures. You can’t be as reactive with induction cooking (alternatively moving the pan off the direct heat and moving it back again might achieve this)

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#409

Post by gruez » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 10:12 PM UTC

vegetablepotpie wrote: post #256

seoaeu wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who finance those emissions are ultimately their customers. If you drive a polluting SUV or eat a ton of beef, those emissions emissions are a consequence of your decisions. The systematic issues that folk talk about abstractly are things like “too many people pick SUVs rather than commuting by subway” or “society needs to switch away from eating so much beef”. It isn’t just a matter of waltzing into a fac…

Although personal responsibility is a factor for emissions, my thesis is that it’s not the primary factor. When I talk about systemic issues, I talk specifically about the distribution of personal choices people can make that lead to outcomes. Taken into context, this means that if I only have one choice for electricity provider, and my investor owned utility makes a decision to burn coal to generate electricity, the…

>Taken into context, this means that if I only have one choice for electricity provider, and my investor owned utility makes a decision to burn coal to generate electricity, there’s very little I can do to change that

Many jurisdictions in the US allow people to sign up for alternative energy providers. Electricity is fungible, so technically you might be using electrons from a coal power plant, but on a kWh basis you are supposed to be getting all your electricity from renewable sources. That's basically how so many companies can say they're running on "100% renewable power", without having to build wind turbines/solar panels around their facilities.

>If the area I live in has only single family zoning, things are so spread out that it means that most people need a car for basic human needs like going to work and getting groceries.

1. You can vote with your feet.

2. of all the issues to bring up, this seems like the weakest one. NIMBY zoning laws are probably the most grass-roots type of lobbying there is. It's hard to blame corporations for that.

>You can throw all the personal responsibility that you want at that and not make any meaningful changes.

The comment you replied to doesn't mention "personal responsibility" at all. It only mentions "people" and "customers", ie. groups of people. If 80% of consumers don't want their electricity bills to rise and like white picket suburban houses, that's ultimately a problem with "people" and "customers", even if the remaining 20% are trying to be green but can't be.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#410

Post by tristor » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 10:14 PM UTC

Interestingly, I take significant steps to reduce my emissions footprint, but the one thing I won't give up is cooking with a gas stove. It's simply better /as a cook/ than other options. I've used high-end induction, I've used radiant electric, I've used different pan types. Gas is simply the best all-rounder, and has some unique properties that can't be replicated any other way. I take my home cooking very very seriously, and consider it a requirement to have a dual-fuel range.