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

The case for induction cooking

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#311

Post by mmcgaha »

axiolite wrote: post #296
galangalalgol wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like cooking with gas because when my power goes out I can use a match to boil water when the boil water orders go into effect because mains keep bursting. Also I can make smores when I don't feel like getting a fire going. I do have an induction plug in hot plate and for actually cooking its really quite good. It boils water faster than all but my 21k btu burner on just 110v, dumps no heat into the room, cools dow…

> when my power goes out I can use a match to boil water A generator is a small investment to fix this and many other problems, without causing indoor air pollution.

Maybe we have a different opinion on what small is but to run a stove, you will need a whole house generator and the starting point is about $10k and most folks will end up spending twice that.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#312

Post by cgriswald »

galangalalgol wrote: post #264
netsharc wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article gets weird a few paragraphs in: people like cooking with gas because it's primal and sensual? Really? Is that the best you can come up with, in an NYT article?

I like cooking with gas because when my power goes out I can use a match to boil water when the boil water orders go into effect because mains keep bursting. Also I can make smores when I don't feel like getting a fire going. I do have an induction plug in hot plate and for actually cooking its really quite good. It boils water faster than all but my 21k btu burner on just 110v, dumps no heat into the room, cools dow…

I have a gas line to my grill outside. Induction inside.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#313

Post by cronix »

> Happily, there is induction, which uses electromagnets to efficiently heat cookware without the inherent pollution of fossil fuels like natural gas.

Yet about half of the electricity in NY is generated with natural gas[1], so most of the "benefits" this article touts, especially pollution, don't really exist. The other half comes from nuclear/hydro combined and renewables accounting for a tad. Same for electric car owners who think they're helping the environment. Nope, you just shifted the problem to where you don't directly see it but they contribute just as much. Probably more with the all of the inefficiencies added up from each steps of going from natural gas->steam->turbine->transmission lines->multiple transformers->charging car battery.

[1] https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=NY#tabs-4

Re: The case for induction cooking

#314

Post by hallway_monitor »

shaklee3 wrote: post #282
tomchuk wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kenji Lopez-Alt, of Seriouseats and “The Food Lab” fame, is coming out with his new book, “The Wok”, here is his travel rig: https://www.instagram.com/p/CaxbNwdvOTR/ . I’ve had a similar wok hob for years, and while fitting the wok to the curvature of the hob is essential, once you’ve got that figured out, it’s an absolute joy to use. Even, fast, powerful heat - nowhere near to a commercial gas hob, but neither is my…

his book came out a couple days ago. highly recommend it.

I made his smash burger today I think originally based on an HN recommendation. I also highly recommend it. https://youtu.be/Wwgn5k_TzKM

Re: The case for induction cooking

#315

Post by cubix »

worik wrote: post #274
galangalalgol wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like cooking with gas because when my power goes out I can use a match to boil water when the boil water orders go into effect because mains keep bursting. Also I can make smores when I don't feel like getting a fire going. I do have an induction plug in hot plate and for actually cooking its really quite good. It boils water faster than all but my 21k btu burner on just 110v, dumps no heat into the room, cools dow…

When I put a log burner in my house I choose one with a flat top for this reason. I get your point. But many things that cause electricity to go out (floods, earthquakes... Russian invasion) will put out the gas too

> will put out the gas too

Gas is obviously far more resilient, though not immune to more extreme problems. I’ve literally never experienced a gas outage, yet power outages are routine almost everywhere I’ve lived.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#316

Post by jeffbee »

alliao wrote: post #310
worik wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>All the vents in places I've rented have seemed hilariously ineffective even on the highest and super loud setting A consumer organisation here studied "rangehoods" and (if memory serves) they found them all to close to useless. consumer.org.nz - the reports are paywalled and I no longer subscribe, so mēh!

interesting... i wonder if it's because of the height constrained by aesthetic inputs.. i'm pretty sure if you stuck the vent like 50cm above the stove it surely can be a bit more than useless...

I think it's really just because there are no objective and enforced standards for it. I used to have a kitchen with a pretty high ceiling and a fume extractor mounted way up high, so high it was controlled by an IR remote, and it worked great while making little sound. Currently I have one of those integrated with a microwave oven that makes a lot of noise, blocks my view of half the range, and doesn't work at all. Plus even if it did work, it would vent right into my eyes, not to the outdoors.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#317

Post by mfgs »

ummonk wrote: post #257
js2 wrote: post #142

Top reader comment seems apt w/r/t the pollution aspect anyway: As a scientist (an immunologist) who leads a research lab on lung inflammation including asthma, the cavalier attitude Times columnists have toward scientific references in their articles is appalling. RMI is a thinktank with an agenda. Not a research institution. And Brady Seals is not a scientist. Note the lack of PhD. She has an MBA and has never work…

As someone who cooks with gas, I have a hard time believing that any dormant emissions from the stove when not in use are more significant than emissions from searing food itself… especially since natural gas has odors added to it to ensure we smell it.

The odour you smell is unburnt gas (to make gas leaks less dangerous). Burning gas produces carbon monoxide (among other things), which has no odour.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#318

Post by dehrmann »

dillondoyle wrote: post #269
amluto wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed please for the health effects being bogus. NOx emissions from gas stoves seem to be consistently reported as quite high indeed. For example: https://jacksonlab.stanford.edu/publication/methane-and-nox-...

Also doesn't take into account greenhouse gas/global warming affects on human and global health. (this assumes using more green energy in future to power induction electricity).

Natural gas for cooking is a negligible contributor to climate change. 2.8% of natural gas in the US is used for cooking. On a per-BTU basis (which isn't fair because natural gas has fewer carbons), the natural gas/oil split of US consumption is around 40/60. You're looking at around 1% of CO2 emissions in the US coming from natural gas used directly for cooking.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#319

Post by jws »

mfgs wrote: post #317
ummonk wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who cooks with gas, I have a hard time believing that any dormant emissions from the stove when not in use are more significant than emissions from searing food itself… especially since natural gas has odors added to it to ensure we smell it.

The odour you smell is unburnt gas (to make gas leaks less dangerous). Burning gas produces carbon monoxide (among other things), which has no odour.

You made me look it up. Methane has no smell, so they add an odorant. Usually these contain sulfur, so there will be some amount of sulfur dioxide in the combustion products. Sulfur levels as limited to 70ppb, and are typically around 7ppb. This compares to a natural atmospheric level of sulfur dioxide at 1ppb. So unless you are breathing something like 10% combustion product the contribution is negligible.

The rest of the odor molecule is hyrdrogen, carbon, and oxygen, so likely goes to water and carbon dioxide or monoxide.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#320

Post by jopsen »

The best argument for induction cooking is how easy cleaning it.

The fact that they don't pollute your home as much, and that installation is cheaper are just extra cherries on top.

If you spill something, on an induction stove you just wipe it with a cloth. It doesn't even burn onto the stove.

What more arguments do you need?

Post reply on HN