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

521–530 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#521

Post by Gigachad »

cwkoss wrote: post #374
danShumway wrote: post #130

From what I can tell, gas stove bans would really just be a side effect of the broader measure, which is requiring homes to be "emission free". The measure seems to be more directly about heating/water/etc... Which makes me wonder if it might not just make sense to add some exclusions for some specific appliances for places like restaurants. I don't know the numbers, but I doubt that stoves in specific are the highes…

Why not just apply a gradually increasing natural gas tax across the state? Wouldn't that have a similar effect to a ban-for-future construction, provide consumers with choices, and generate revenue?

The problem with that is you end up with people who are too poor to afford to replace their gas kitchen and too poor to afford this new tax. By applying it only to new builds, you eventually phase out gas without ever putting financial stress on anyone.

You can then speed it up later by paying for houses to be upgraded to electric.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#522

Post by Gigachad »

spookthesunset wrote: post #268
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…

You are forgetting how much of the heat coming from the gas stove is simply heating the air around the pot instead of heating what is in the pot. The efficiency of gas stoves is pretty crap-tastic. Induction heats only the pot, and thus heats only what is inside. (setting aside tiny losses from heating the pan, etc...)

Technology connections did a video on this recently showing an electric kettle required about 100wh to heat a volume of water and his gas stove took over 300wh to heat the same volume. And it was even worse when he used the large burner.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#523

Post by seibelj »

wolverine876 wrote: post #510
seibelj wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eco-Cycle is unable to provide any data to back up this number, telling Reason that it was relying on the research of one Milo Cress. Cress—whose Be Straw Free Campaign is hosted on Eco-Cycle's website—tells Reason that he arrived at the 500 million straws a day figure from phone surveys he conducted of straw manufacturers in 2011, when he was just 9 years old. > Cress, who is now 16, says that the National Restaur…

The publication Reason isn't usually considered the most credible source. I'll just leave the claims as 'unfounded', which is fine.

Ah yes, when the news disagrees with your worldview attack the source. The article is well-researched with plenty of links, but your response is expected.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#524

Post by petre »

bergenty wrote: post #408
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Your mom's stove has the stupid +/- touch UI, just like mine. Using a knob would solve the problem. I am not complaining because +/- is easier to clean.

The other issue is that induction is invisible, there is no flame. But moving stuff around on x-y has the same effect as with a gas stove. On induction, the pan is the stove. Take it off the induction and the heat subsides. Move it off center and you heat only part of the pan.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#525

Post by [deleted] »

mason55 wrote: post #427
hammock wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much every argument I have read in this post boils down to "electric is better" but crucially ignores a) the idea that preferences are individual, and b) even accepting something as universally "better" doesn't mean we ought to legislate it across an entire group of people (AKA centrally plan the economy).

One person’s “centrally planned economy” is another person’s “managing negative externalities” A lot of the “electric is better” posts have an implied “gas stoves are bad for people and the environment so we should get rid of them but it’s fine because electric is better anyway”.

[deleted]

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#526

Post by hammock »

turtledove wrote: post #430
hammock wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much every argument I have read in this post boils down to "electric is better" but crucially ignores a) the idea that preferences are individual, and b) even accepting something as universally "better" doesn't mean we ought to legislate it across an entire group of people (AKA centrally plan the economy).

Electric pollutes less. Electric induction has a faster response. Electric is more energy efficient. Electric doesn't require a separate line and utility run to the house. Electric boils water faster. Electric produces less greenhouse gasses. I mean, there's subjectively better ("I prefer to cook with it") but there are objectively better traits too.

Imagine if someone told you you had to marry someone other than your wife, because your wife’s genes are more likely to produce disabled offspring that would place a great burden on the social safety net.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#527

Post by petre »

cmclaughlin wrote: post #501
dekhn wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've only had one experience with induction- probably 15 years ago now. It was a place we stayed in hawaii (like pre-airbnb) and there was a sign saying if you even looked at it wrong it would scratch the surface (necessitating a full replacement). Are they really strong now or do you still have to worry about scratching? Some googling suggests that you still need to be careful with cast iron.

Cracking the glass of a induction cooktop is still a problem. So I recommend carbon steel over cast iron for this purpose. They’re similar in that they both need to be seasoned. But carbon steel is much lighter and it’s smooth unlike most modern cast iron cookware.

Carbon steel deforms over heat. Also leaks oil through the pores. Or maybe I should have bought a more expensive pancake pan? Otherwise I like it; using both but I am extra careful with the cast iron.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#528

Post by petre »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #498
dekhn wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've only had one experience with induction- probably 15 years ago now. It was a place we stayed in hawaii (like pre-airbnb) and there was a sign saying if you even looked at it wrong it would scratch the surface (necessitating a full replacement). Are they really strong now or do you still have to worry about scratching? Some googling suggests that you still need to be careful with cast iron.

No different than a standard resistive electric stovetop with ceramic glass.

It looks almost the same but it's very different as the glass doesn't heat up like the resistive and the heat is instant, like gas and unlike resistive which has a lot of inertia. The glass only heats up from the cookware which is also a safety benefit (less likely to burn yourself).

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#529

Post by frosted-flakes »

petre wrote: post #528
frosted-flakes wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No different than a standard resistive electric stovetop with ceramic glass.

It looks almost the same but it's very different as the glass doesn't heat up like the resistive and the heat is instant, like gas and unlike resistive which has a lot of inertia. The glass only heats up from the cookware which is also a safety benefit (less likely to burn yourself).

But the glass itself should be the same.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#530

Post by petre »

cmclaughlin wrote: post #500
frosted-flakes wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

North American electrical infrastructure is natively 240v, split phase (two 120v hots, with a centre-tapped neutral). All houses have 240v power, and all stoves and ovens are already 240v at 40 or 50 amps. If there's a need for 240v power at a particular location (such as a high powered window AC unit), it's generally quite easy to switch a standard 120v circuit to 240v and replace the outlets on the circuit with the…

Getting a bit off topic here, but I’d like to learn more about this… In most cases wouldn’t you need to run a thicker wire to replace a 120v outlet with 240v?

You run two hots instead of one, that's 200% "thicker". Between the two hots you now have 240V. Between each hot and the neutral you have 120V like before.
Post reply on HN