What a gas stove ban means for restaurants • Hacker News Board

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#281

Post by kkfx » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 7:24 PM UTC

linsomniac wrote: post #183

kkfx wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, so far I have seen "relatively few" induction plate of various vendor and shape, none do that at low/mean temp, only pushed to the maximum (witch is used normally just to boil since for frying means melting the fryer itself, so where "the right temp" does not count that much). IR models, including some pro one from a restaurant of some friends, do the same, but at least heating outside the pot the effect is…

I believe my Samsung Chef Collection ($3300-ish range ~5 years ago) does indeed have PWM or similar sort of fine control. Maybe you are just talking about the standalone induction hobs, but our range definitely seems to do more than just cycle the element on and off, or if it does it cycles it multiple times a second. Unless I'm missing something, here is the test you proposed, on our highest power burner (it may tak…

Oh, wow, you've made a dedicated video, I'm honored :-)

Well, no, I have bough and seen far cheaper plates, can't compare the USA prices but they are around 200-300€ from local kitchen appliance large vendors like Electro Depot, CDiscount, Ubaldi etc... And none of them offer such kind of behavior like the one in your video.

To be more precise IF I put a pan with so little water on the the largest burner at boost level it evaporate in few seconds and start to make the pan itself red than white hot in few seconds more. I need to use the MINIMUM power for such cases.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#282

Post by Ekaros » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 7:27 PM UTC

mlindner wrote: post #279

Ekaros wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

War could be effective in reducing carbon production, but sadly not enough combatants die on the continental soil, a few million dead combatants there each year would do wonders for cutting down emissions.

People like you are really sick. Mass murder is not a solution to anything.

Now if only world population would agree and did something with those who engage in it...

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#283

Post by oceanplexian » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 7:27 PM UTC

oldgradstudent wrote: post #248

mschuster91 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem at the root cause is the public's (reasonable!) expectations about safety. Humanity has experienced twice just how much damage a nuclear reactor blowing up can cause, not to mention how brittle they are and how lax people treat safety - just look at how many accidents happened at Sellafield - or the terrorism risk. Many of the experimental design ideas add the question of nuclear weapons proliferation on…

> Humanity has experienced twice just how much damage a nuclear reactor blowing up can cause We haven't, really. We were quite lucky. What if the Chernobyl disaster had reached the Pripyat river, and in turn contaminated the Dnieper? We are all familiar with them geography of Ukraine now. What if a radioactive cloud from Fukushima had reached Tokyo? What would have been the cost of a temporary evacuation of Tokyo?

I mean.. in both cases you would have to wait for the radiation to dissipate. Have people remain indoors and wait a few days for the cloud to pass. In the case of contamination of a water source, you would want to filter the water before drinking until the radioactive fallout burns itself out. Plus water is exceptionally good at stopping radiation so a nuclear accident into a body of water is like the best case scenario.

Nuclear radiation isn’t a boogeyman, and isn’t the most dangerous type of contamination by a long shot. I would be way more worried about a chemical spill or a industrial accident that released toxic gas.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#284

Post by Maursault » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 7:29 PM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #225

Maursault wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is such a foolish law, environmentally speaking. I concur. This is the same thing as blaming Climate Change on road vehicles when most of Climate Change is caused by energy, shipping, construction, concrete manufacture, glass making, etc. Mostly, Climate Change isn't caused by the People. It's business and industry causing it. IOW, greed causes Global Warming. So they're focusing on a space that has negligible…

> This is the same thing as blaming Climate Change on road vehicles when most of Climate Change is caused by energy, shipping, construction, concrete manufacture, glass making, etc. Do you have data on how much each of those sectors contributes? IIRC, road transportation contributes a relatively large amount.

Thanks for the homework, but no thanks. You do it.

Off the top of my head, consumer vehicles globally contribute 5-6% of Climate Change-causing emissions. If you'd care to look, you'll see this pales in comparison to the major contributors, electricity generation, agriculture, deforestation, oil drilling, etc.

If we could overnight stop the major contributors, such as industrial processes, your ice car just wouldn't matter.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#285

Post by kec » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 7:29 PM UTC

elil17 wrote: post #160

gwbas1c wrote: post #146

Is hydrogen practical? What about other forms of bio-gas? Personally I wonder if shutting down the gas network for cooking, and backup generators, is short-sighted. It seems to make more sense to push for mixing in carbon neutral gas sources and letting cost be more of a motivating factor. IE: I pay about $20 a month for gas in the summer when I just use it for cooking and grilling. They could swap in carbon-neutral…

Yeah, it's absolutely short sighted. Gas appliances are more efficient than electric appliances powered by natural gas fired power plants. While hydrogen might be a way's away (plus it requires redesigning everything), people (for example, Oberon fuels in California) are already mixing renewable dimethyl ether (similar to propane, but the central carbon atom is an oxygen atom) with propane in tanks for gas grills. St…

This isn't really true. Electric heating is as close to 100% efficient as is practical in the real world. I would also be shocked to learn that gas turbines at a power plant extract fewer watts per unit of gas than a simple (likely poorly maintained) burner in a residential setting.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#286

Post by tootie » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 7:30 PM UTC

throwaway27727 wrote: post #51

D13Fd wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

If you really want to optimize for the long term, obtaining goodwill by not making the forced habit changes first would be better.

People can stop burning fossil fuels any time they want and yet they don't. 72M voted for a climate denier in 2020. We absolutely have to start telling everybody what to do.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#287

Post by CaliforniaKarl » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 7:31 PM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #184

gwbas1c wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in MA, and in my old house I heated and cooked with gas. In the summer my gas bill was $30. In the winter my gas bill would go up to about $200. One extremely cold January in 2015 nearly cost $300. So, yeah, space heating uses much more gas than cooking.

I wonder what affected your air quality more? I could see it either way.

Modern gas furnaces use the outside atmosphere for combustion. It helps get them high (for gas) efficiency levels!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBVvnDfW2Xo

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#288

Post by pao » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 7:36 PM UTC

Seems like a lot of the interest in these bans is coming from new research like this [Stanford study](https://news.stanford.edu/2022/01/27/rethinking-cooking-gas/) showing gas stoves emit more methane than previously thought.

They say all residential stoves in the US emit GHG equivalent to 500,000 cars.

There are 276 million cars in the US. So, this problem is about 1/500 of the car problem. If you eliminated all stoves today (eliminate, not replace with induction), you would make an impact equivalent to reducing driving by 0.2%.

Of course it only applies to new construction. If it disincentivizes construction, that's widely considered a feature, not a bug. California is the Land of Unintended Consequences.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#289

Post by epistasis » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 7:41 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #237

epistasis wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> switch off Diablo Nuclear Power plant and replace it with gas plants. This is not true, it will be replaced with zero carbon generation, including geothermal. For intermittent zero carbon generation, there needs to be matched storage, which will consist both of "regular" lithium storage, and some newer less tested tech for longer duration storage. This is mandated specifically by law, so if it doesn't happen then s…

> it will be replaced with zero carbon generation, including geothermal. No. It will be replaced by gas, because we've pretty much tapped out on sources of geothermal and hydroelectric power, and wind/solar are intermittent. So the only thing that's left is gas or coal. >which will consist both of "regular" lithium storage, and some newer less tested tech for longer duration storage. No. Lithium for long-term grid sc…

Bald assertions do not refute reality.

Here is a year old article on the DC replacement package, and there are lots of CPUC PDFs that are more recent and go into more detail:

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/california-approv...

> we've pretty much tapped out on sources of geothermal

No, the technology is changing and there are far far more sites due to enhanced geothermal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_geothermal_system

> Lithium for long-term grid scale storage (let's say, on the order of even a day, though in reality we need a few weeks of storage) is never going to work.

The GW and GWh of deployed lithium ion batteries seems to disagree with your unsourced version of reality...

> Congress can pass any bill they want, but physics wins every time.

I've found that people that say that "physics" is why we can't deploy renewables never, not even once, can back up their assertion with any physics. It's a dead give away that you haven't even evaluated the problem.

> In all your research around energy, did it ever strike you as odd that no region in the world is powered by renewables

Before there was a telephone network, did it ever strike anyone that because it didn't exist, it would never be possible?

Energy technology is changing at an immense pace, and anybody who says "we can't do it because we haven't done it before" is not really thinking about reality.

Germany is always brought up as if it is some sort of energy disaster, and even if it were, it would not disprove the ability of renewables to power a grid. There's all this vague rumors and unsourced assertion about Germany really screening things up, but no technical details, quantitative assertions, or benchmarks that back that up.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#290

Post by WalterGR » Fri, Jun 03, 2022, 7:41 PM UTC

WalterGR wrote: post #3

Actual article title: "The end of Korean BBQ in L.A.? What the gas stove ban means for your fave restaurants" Subtitle, emphasis mine: "Chinese and Korean chefs in Los Angeles are worried that a ban on future gas stoves may alter their kitchens forever."

(Originally submitted title was editorialized and has since been corrected. It was something like “Los Angeles gas ban will destroy Korean BBQ.”)