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

191–200 of 220 posts

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

#191

Post by sliken »

nemo44x wrote: post #51
dangus wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Induction ranges heat up water faster and use less energy than gas ranges: https://www.treehugger.com/which-more-energy-efficient-cooki... Since you mentioned that you have backup heating, I assume you don’t live in a very cold climate, in which case a heat pump for your backup heat and water heater is your most efficient lowest cost option, not a gas system. Part of your gas bill is just paying the gas company for a…

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.

Making spaghetti/tortellini/noodles, coffee, malt-o-meal, oatmeal, etc seems common enough for most to not be a "almost never use case". At least on stoves I've seen.

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

#192

Post by thelastgallon »

peteradio wrote: post #171
thelastgallon wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

the average cost of natural gas in the U.S. is a little over $100 per month: https://www.inspirecleanenergy.com/blog/sustainable-living/a...

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

#193

Post by lupusreal »

JoBrad wrote: post #189
lupusreal wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Everyone has an agenda, so it’s a good thing to discuss exactly what the competing agendas could be, and whether they are nefarious. NPR makes money by publishing articles, so obviously they will make more money by publishing content that people are likely to read. Those articles can be in some arbitrary continuum between fluff articles with sensationalistic headlines (aka clickbait) to highly technical articles with…

That's a whole lot of words that don't amount to a good excuse for NPR's deliberately shoddy journalism.

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

#194

Post by JoBrad »

lupusreal wrote: post #193
JoBrad wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has an agenda, so it’s a good thing to discuss exactly what the competing agendas could be, and whether they are nefarious. NPR makes money by publishing articles, so obviously they will make more money by publishing content that people are likely to read. Those articles can be in some arbitrary continuum between fluff articles with sensationalistic headlines (aka clickbait) to highly technical articles with…

That's a whole lot of words that don't amount to a good excuse for NPR's deliberately shoddy journalism.

I provided examples of why I didn’t think this was poor journalism, and why I thought this was an important story. Can you provide some examples of why you think this is shoddy journalism? Otherwise you’re really just shutting down the conversation.

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

#196

Post by the_third_wave »

lupusreal wrote: post #193
JoBrad wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has an agenda, so it’s a good thing to discuss exactly what the competing agendas could be, and whether they are nefarious. NPR makes money by publishing articles, so obviously they will make more money by publishing content that people are likely to read. Those articles can be in some arbitrary continuum between fluff articles with sensationalistic headlines (aka clickbait) to highly technical articles with…

That's a whole lot of words that don't amount to a good excuse for NPR's deliberately shoddy journalism.

> NPR's deliberately shoddy journalism.

I don't think "shoddy" is the correct term to use here. NPR/PBS, just like e.g. SVT/SR in Sweden, the BBC in the UK, NOS in the Netherlands and ARD/ZDF/NDR in Germany are better characterised by the term agenda-driven journalism - they tailor what they publish and how they publish to fit their desired narrative. They are certainly not alone in this but the difference with commercial actors is that these public broadcasters mostly use tax funds and/or special unavoidable levies to finance what comes down to poorly masked propaganda. NPR actually gets most of its funding from corporate sponsorships and donors but it does also receive state funding.

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

#197

Post by fragmede »

klabb3 wrote: post #182
fragmede wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't want to die is too simple?

I’m not a gas-proponent in any shape or form but this is at the very least an insufficient response. All forms of energy and infrastructure have accidents - a cost in blood. You could argue that gas has a higher total cost of life than other energy forms, perhaps. But it’s not like installing rooftop solar, maintaining windmills or dams are free from accidents. The safest energy in terms of deaths per Wh is fission I…

I'm responding to the notion that it's strange that people might not want to die. I don't have stats on the number of people that don't, apologies, I hate coming from a place where I have don't have data to support my views, but still, I imagine it's common enough not to be considered strange.

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

#198

Post by g-b-r »

gosub100 wrote: post #141
the_third_wave wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing how "pro-gas" comments tend to get greyed-out reminds me very much of the way those who went again the "current thing" were treated during the SARS2 pandemic. Why do many people here have to be so religious about these issues? Why has "supporting the current thing" been turned into something resembling a mantra? I wrote a fairly long comment [1] on my experience with different types of heat sources for cooking…

Its really weird, when you look at the backlash after the Ukraine war. Gas (the cheapest way to heat and cook) was extinguished (pun intended) overnight. So now lets rally for electric, which is quite expensive in California, and I know, lets shut down nuclear power plants, sack coal, and remove renewable clean hydro at the same time. What could possibly go wrong? If that doesn't look like a conspiracy (at least to t…

Yeah thanks republicans for not sabotaging your tycoon constituents

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

#199

Post by Clamchop »

peteradio wrote: post #169
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've used a consumer grade air quality meter and never found use of my natural gas stove to be an issue, even if doing a lot of cooking, but my oven does impact air quality quite a bit after a couple of hours. No idea if running the hood fan would impact the emissions from the oven. Since it's a rental, I haven't gone searching for a cause. In general, the only time I need the oven for an extended period of time is w…

I believe you should run the fan for all uses, you are in all cases combusting indoors whenever you are using the gas stove/oven, unless you are glancing at the time.

I haven't had a real range vent in my last three apartments. The hood just vents into the room.

Two of those were both gas and new construction.

So I'm guessing for a lot of people it doesn't matter very much!

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

#200

Post by ryandrake »

the_third_wave wrote: post #196
lupusreal wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a whole lot of words that don't amount to a good excuse for NPR's deliberately shoddy journalism.

> NPR's deliberately shoddy journalism. I don't think "shoddy" is the correct term to use here. NPR/PBS, just like e.g. SVT/SR in Sweden, the BBC in the UK, NOS in the Netherlands and ARD/ZDF/NDR in Germany are better characterised by the term agenda-driven journalism - they tailor what they publish and how they publish to fit their desired narrative. They are certainly not alone in this but the difference with comme…

But what, specifically, is their "Agenda?" What is "The Narrative?" These threads always seem to bring out people pointing their fingers at The Narrative, but they don't say what that narrative is. You can't just say "It's Their Agenda" and "It's The Narrative" and just leave it at that!

OP's point at least makes sense: The thing that actually seems to motivate journalism companies is to "make money by publishing articles." Where is The Narrative in that motivation?

Post reply on HN