Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 220 posts

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#171

Post by peteradio »

thelastgallon wrote: post #148
nephy wrote: post #35

I have a gas range, gas water heater, gas logs, and gas backup heat. My gas bill is around $15 a month. My home has proper ventilation to the outside and I have no intention of converting a cheap gas bill into a high electric bill.

Do you source your own gas? I live in Texas, fossil fuel and natural gas state, and gas bill is between $50 - $255/month. This is with barely any cooking.

How much friggin gas do you use? Do you own greenhouses or something? Is that your bill on the months where there is a surprise freeze and the whole state poops its pants? Something is obviously missing from your consumption figure.

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#172

Post by [deleted] »

perihelions wrote: post #127

- "Environmental epidemiologist Josiah Kephart studies pollution from cooking. In this 2021 photo he measured nitrogen dioxide levels from cooking in his kitchen. At right: A nitrogen dioxide air monitor shows 0.159 parts per million, or 159 parts per billion. That's above the World Health Organization hourly guideline of 106 ppb. Kephart has since replaced the gas stove with an electric one." That's *barely* above t…

[deleted]

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#173

Post by peteradio »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #140
fallingknife wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People pitching induction always mention that they boil water faster, and it's true. But in my experience with induction, which I admit is not a lot, it seems like that is the only thing it's better at.

Induction is really nice in terms of speed and responsiveness but it's harder to do the tiny adjustments that you can do with gas because the induction is digital rather than analog.

Tiny adjustments is a nice way of saying you avoid wild variations spatially and temporally when you use gas.

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#174

Post by peteradio »

sasmithjr wrote: post #107
nemo44x wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heating up water quickly is almost never a use case. It is not on the critical path for optimizations either. Unless you subsist on boiling noodles when you’re late for a meeting.

> Heating up water quickly is almost never a use case. It'd be helpful for my household for hot water for coffee and tea, and it'd also help us for heating up some extra water for grits or risotto when they need more. Also, isn't boiling water just the measurable outcome of the test but what matters is that the pot is coming to temp sooner? Pots and pans heating up more quickly is helpful all the time.

Its like having a car with outrageous acceleration. In the case of a car you are wildly careening all over the road doing cruisin usa wheelies backflips barrelrolls and all. In a pan it means scorched butter and half cooked bacon compared to burnt bacon on the same pan.

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#175

Post by _0ffh »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #128
ahoka wrote: post #44

Reading the comments here, these tactics were very successful!

> "In my field, we know who those groups are, and we know that work that's done by those groups is not really trustworthy because they have never taken a stance on the side of public health," says Laura Vandenberg, professor of environmental health sciences at University of Massachusetts Amherst. Notice how she does not criticize their methods or analysis, but rather the conclusions. Sounds like some groups have a pr…

Even better, she effectively says that anyone who does not advertise the "correct" bias is untrustworthy. Do these people have no shred of self-awareness?

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#176

Post by isoprophlex »

bob1029 wrote: post #74
isoprophlex wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Resistive heating? Sure. Those things are nasty. But otherwise... nothing beats 7.2 kW of inductive energy transfer straight into the bottom of your pan.

Where you seeing a 7.2kW induction element? The most powerful I could find was 5kW and the cooktop required a 50A circuit.

https://www.beko.ro/plita-incorporabila-beko-hii64200mt

Totally not the one I have but 7.2 kW is pretty common around here. Needs three phase power though (I think 2 phases are actually used), at 220 V.

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#177

Post by akaij »

rdl wrote: post #146
nemo44x wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heating up water quickly is almost never a use case. It is not on the critical path for optimizations either. Unless you subsist on boiling noodles when you’re late for a meeting.

Main thing induction seems actually worse for is being able to lift the pan above cooking surface and differentially heat different parts of the pan, particularly useful for Chinese/wok cooking.

Seems to be a function available in high quality cooktops? Here, called ProfessionalMode: https://www.vzug.com/ch/en/products/kitchen/cooktops/inducti...

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#178

Post by amanaplanacanal »

swayvil wrote: post #132
rolobio wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had my glass stove top shatter. Turns out that is the only thing they don’t warranty. I did not opt for the extended warranty on the next stove…

Also, apparently induction stoves require special cookware So you just throw out all your pots?

Aluminum doesn’t work, but any cast iron or stainless steel should be fine. I don’t think I even own any aluminum pans.

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#179

Post by 15457345234 »

lupusreal wrote: post #142
perihelions wrote: post #127

- "Environmental epidemiologist Josiah Kephart studies pollution from cooking. In this 2021 photo he measured nitrogen dioxide levels from cooking in his kitchen. At right: A nitrogen dioxide air monitor shows 0.159 parts per million, or 159 parts per billion. That's above the World Health Organization hourly guideline of 106 ppb. Kephart has since replaced the gas stove with an electric one." That's *barely* above t…

NPR could do so, but that wouldn't advance the agenda. This non-issue isn't being pushed by mistake.

I'm making a note that you're not supporting the current thing.

I'd like to point out, that I _do_ support the current thing.

Thank you for your attention.

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#180

Post by FireInsight »

prepend wrote: post #167
fragmede wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? The natural gas pipeline in San Bruno exploded in 2010, killing 8 people, and is far from the only disaster with natural gas, and you find it strange that people care what your house uses?

This isn’t really relevant though, is it? I don’t think anyone claims that infrastructure doesn’t have costs. Of course it does. But the argument is that the benefits are worth the cost. Brining up a gas pipeline explosion as relevant to a discussion about stoves isn’t useful unless you quantify what portion of that pipeline went toward cooking. The argument that all gas should be eliminated because 8 people died in…

Well, houses with gas stoves rely on gas. Households relying on gas likely make it less likely that other uses of gas are more accepted regardless of negative consequences.
Post reply on HN