Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

When it heats it faster, there is less loss into the environment before all of it gets up to the required temperature. Efficiency gains is _always_ the desired optimization when you look at what new energy policies are trying to do.

Could you elaborate a bit on this. There seems to be a genuine group of people who are against burning fossil fuels. Burning natural gas causes health issues in cities, create water pollution that kills lakes, rivers, and ocean, and it causes global warming. Fossil fuels are also a major contributing to geopolitical instability in Europe, with all the recent wars having major aspects of fossil fuel politics in them.

It sucks for individuals that removing fossil fuels in Europe will have a negative impacts economically in the short term until either nuclear or alternative solutions can replace existing fossil fueled infrastructure. Replacing existing infrastructure is always costly, and core infrastructure is even more expensive. That said, the current wars and current problems from fossil fuels also cost a lot of money. The longer we wait on upgrading existing infrastructure the more it will cost in the long term.

They're superior for lots of things, but inferior in ways that are very important for many cooks. I cooked professionally so I've got a whole lot more experience than most using stoves— including induction stoves at work.

If a typical home cook was buying a stove for their house, I'd recommend induction without thinking twice, especially if they have kids or can't have a hood that vents outside. Even without considering environmental concerns, I'd choose induction for restaurant pastry work— the precision and consistency are really great. It's also nice to not have all of the heat from 30 90k BTU burners all the time in a small room, too.

But for most uses, having a flame you can see, hear, and feel affords much more expressive heat control than digital displays and pan temperature alone. Most pan work is about feel rather than "heating something at x temperature for y time." Also, being able to pick the pan up a few inches to jostle the contents while still getting nearly the same heat transfer is really important for high heat sautées. It's also much much more expensive to get an induction burner that doesn't have a tiny hot spot in the middle of the pan— even with a relatively small burner, the gas flame still spreads out more, which is critical for things like searing large cuts of meat properly. In many ways, gas is a better tool from a functional perspective, environmental issues aside.

My dad is a retired mechanical engineer— he was the chief engineer at a fairly large company for years, and he knows a lot about heat transfer. He won't even entertain the idea that induction stoves are inferior to gas stoves in any way. He's probably also used a stove about two dozen times in his life and standing in front of one he vibes like someone learning to drive. It's the equivalent of his arguing I should use a compass, French curve and drafting templates when figure drawing. Induction being more precise and efficient on paper doesn't make it better in all use cases, and some use cases are really important to some people. Ultimately, the emissions and efficiency make induction the way to go, and I've only seen glib countetarguments against that. But the people telling others— even ones with vastly more experience cooking— they're wrong for preferring gas as a cooking tool are saying more about their own understanding of cooking than the other person's.

Many of the comments here just don't care about the potential harmful effects called out in the article. But I think there are two important questions:

1."Should I be worried about Nitrogen Dioxide from my stove?"

2."In the absence of trustworthy, detailed research, how would I know to be worried about Nitrogen Dioxide?"

I feel the focus should be on the second question -- "big stove" seems to have prevented us from making an informed decision on the topic, and that should make us all concerned regardless of the particular dangers of Nitrogen Dioxide. Personally, I'd like to know whether it matters for my health. With the existing data, I can't tell.

We produce 170TWh per year in Sweden. 41% is hydro, 29% is nuclear and 19% wind. So a large chunk is nuclear, but far from the majority.