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

581–590 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#581

Post by eternityforest »

DocG wrote: post #451
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'm not a professional cook. I miss gas stove over the induction because: 1. I have visual indicatation on how hot it is. The numbers is just not so good indicator. 2. I miss trashing pans around, specially when managin multiple things at once. Glass induction would not be able to withstand it. So suddenly I have to be gentle with machinery. 3. God forbid I spill something in the middle of cooking on induction. Sudde…

I think better tech could solve a lot of this.

1. Can partly be solved with LEDs

2. Should be solvable too. Just stop using normal glass. There's got to be an engineering plastic that's good enough. If Celazole is proven nontoxic that should work, perhaps with fiberglass reinforcement.

3. Can probably be solved too, with nonflat burners. The magnetic field should reach a centimeter up just fine, high enough to be above spills and not worsen messes.

4. Is why we need better battery technology.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#582

Post by fulafel »

wolverine876 wrote: post #207
fulafel wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just the korean BBQs. Wood, or other biofuel that gets you a flame.

How is that better than natural gas for climate change and air quality?

Even if it wasn't, the benefits of the natural gas ban would be only minimally reduced due to small share of natural gas stove usage being in Korean BBQs.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#583

Post by xigoi »

jdgoesmarching wrote: post #413
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 can’t imagine many professionals would wildly appreciate changing their core tool from underneath them, regardless of whether the tool is actually better. If I wanted to stir the pot with a grenade, I’d say it’s like asking Vim users whether they should all move to VS Code.

I'd gladly move to VS Code if it was more efficient than Vim (and not controlled by Micro$oft, but that's irrelevant). However, that's far from being the case.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#584

Post by ClumsyPilot »

subsubzero wrote: post #407
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quoted post unavailable.

I don't know if you never got the news or what, but entire forest ranges, bigger than most countries, have dissapeared, like the atlantic forest

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#585

Post by ClumsyPilot »

marvin wrote: post #556
Gibbon1 wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the standard neoliberal solution that never works vs California's experience that phase outs and bans work well.

It currently costs $600 to permanently remove one ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. How many percent of the United States' CO2 emissions are subjected to this level of CO2 tax, along with similar import taxes to avoid shifting emissions to locales with no tax? This will work.

can you imagine the amount of fraud that will be happening in CO2 accounting? The carbon credit market is already fraud-galore!

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#586

Post by lkbm »

kmtrowbr wrote: post #417
lkbm wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Thank you. I appreciate your comments. It does make sense that most of the heat from a gas stove does not go into the cooking vessel. In fact I often use the electric kettle to speed cooking by pre-boiling water, then adding it to the cooking pot. And I also can see that the unvented exhaust from the combustion of the gas is unhealthy. And also, that leaks of gas into the atmosphere from poorly maintained pipes adds…

My initial reaction to the gas stove thing when NYC started on it a few months ago was definitely "this is not the big culprit in climate change". There are clearly other laws and policies that are more important that we're not doing, and that's frustrating.

But gas stoves, much as I love 'em, are a problem, so we should be addressing that. I do think it's the right time to start shifting people over to electric/induction stoves. I'd favor taxing natural gas or gas stoves rather than outright banning, (and ideally we'd just do a "carbon tax" that covered all greenhouse gases), but political realities might mean the ban is the best we can do.

As for heating in colder climates, from what I understand, heating is also almost always more efficient using a heat pump, so in general I think it holds true that we should be weening off of natural gas everywhere.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#587

Post by elil17 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #511
elil17 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean it impacts the climate whether it’s burned in a burner or in a power plant. We shouldn’t do either, but if you stop just the appliances you’ll just end up burning more in a power plant.

> if you stop just the appliances you’ll just end up burning more in a power plant That power plant doesn't have to use natural gas.

Right but they do at the moment

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#588

Post by dhzhzjsbevs »

wheels wrote: post #548
marvin wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't understand why this was downvoted. The induction stoves I've used all had a touchpad controls, for some reason. They take one second to change the power output 10%, with hotkeys for 100% and 40%. It would be trivial to add a dial with some simple fail-safe. They're incredibly responsive, though, more so than the gas stoves I've used. Never tried the following with gas, I'm guessing it would work, but you can ea…

It's just a stupid trend in electric cooktop design, not something specific to induction. I've got an SMEG induction combo oven/stove and it has real knobs – out front, where they belong. They also make induction cooktops with real knobs.

Know what brand? I'm planning a remodel and I fucking hate this "smart" trend in my home appliances. Luckily at least the dumb stuff is cheaper.

Already found a knobby oven but all the induction tops are damned touch screens.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#589

Post by buro9 »

martincollignon wrote: post #554
buro9 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For where I live in London, ground heat pumps are infeasible and air heat pumps would produce too much noise and not be permitted under conservation area rules. What most of the UK needs is an effective drop-in replacement to a combi boiler, ideally one that doesn't need a large water storage cylinder. It could even be a combination of a slow boiler (for radiators) and a fast water heating unit (for bath/shower/taps)…

For dense, urban environment I think district heating should we the way to go. Works very well in Denmark!

Still unrealistic.

Requires land for the district heating facility, and then ripping up the road to lay plumbing, etc.

For the UK the solution is known: create and mass produce an electric alternative to the combo boiler.

The numbers required, and the time to fit them offers at least a decade of mid-skilled manufacturing and trades employment, as well as recycling opportunities for the old boilers (aluminium, steel, brass).

The cost can also be spread over time and you can start anywhere once the boilers exist.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#590

Post by morberg »

petre wrote: post #544
cmclaughlin wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes thin carbon steel cookware warps. My wok is a good example of that. But there plenty of high quality thick carbon steel cookware on the market that’s stronger. What do you mean it leaks oil? I’ve never noticed any like that.

I always find oil on the induction cooker glass, under the pan. So I assume it leaks through pores when the oil gets hot and fluid? It's an ok quality pancake pan. https://www.amazon.com/Kitchencraft-Non-stick-Crepe-Master-C... (the reviewers that claim it sticks have not heated it up properly and the peeled off "teflon" is just burned crêpe)

Carbon steel should not have any non-stick coating applied from factory. Using a pure carbon steel pan will create a slick surface. Look at e.g. DeBuyer for a good brand.

In your case I think that oil gets over the lip and around the pan.

Post reply on HN