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

361–370 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#361

Post by tomcam »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #279
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.

Absolutely. My high heat cooking produces a good deal of particulate emissions and always sets off the kitchen air filter, but it's all from the food in the pan. It has nothing to do with the burner technology. I know this because it doesn't happen when I'm boiling.

If you’re boiling you have worse problems than particular emissions

Sorry, couldn’t resist

Re: The case for induction cooking

#362

Post by occz »

cronix wrote: post #313

> 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…

>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.

You're right in that from a strict energy perspective, burning gas to cook food is more efficient than converting energy to electricity and then utilizing it to cook food [1], but that only addresses one small part of the downsides of cooking with gas. Among other things, these are the things that come to mind right away:

- Induction has the potential to be emissionless, gas can never achieve that. At its best, gas can be carbon-neutral if it is not fossil-sourced. - Induction has zero local emissions, while gas is not great for indoor air quality. - Induction can't leak lethal gasses into the home where it exists - Induction is much less likely to cause an indoor fire and burn down the home where it's installed

>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 transformerscharging car battery.

The concern of direct energy efficiency is still the same as for induction vs gas, but to imply that it would be worse for the environment is abject nonsense. EVs perform better from an environmental perspective in all but the worst grids in the world (basically 100% coal power), and only get better as grids become carbon-free, while ICEs remain awful.

I'll agree that EVs are not the solution to our transportation-energy concerns, though. The solution is bicycles and trains, and transitioning away entirely from the car, which in all its forms is terrible from an energy-efficiency perspective.

[1] https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/06/thermal-efficiency-c...

Re: The case for induction cooking

#363

Post by namibj »

danans wrote: post #321
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought a newer home (2016) with a gas range and it doesn’t have the wiring either. We desperately want induction plus a outdoor vented range hood, so we are considering a partial remodel to do it. The idea is to bring in an electrician, replace our 150A panel with a 200A one, bring up wiring for induction into the kitchen, and wrap wiring around the house for a level 2 EV charger (another want, might as well knock…

> replace our 150A panel with a 200A one, A 150A panel should accommodate both your induction stove and EV charger. The stove's 50A rating assumes you are running all burners are running simultaneously, which is rare. You need 200A if you going fully electric (for hot water, HVAC, oven and clothes dryer).

Also most stoves (at least here) seem to allow de-rating by configuring them to self-limit their current draw to accommodate breakers/circuits not sized large enough to handle their full capacity.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#364

Post by timc3 »

ascar wrote: post #92
hades32 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

German here. So few people here have induction because people still think that most pans couldn't be used. But I love it! But also few here use gas. It's mostly ceramic hobs

As a fellow German I didn't go induction on purpose, because I prefer the ceramic hob cooking experience. "Pans cannot be used" wasn't part of the decision. Having "control nobs" on the front rather than a touch area on the cooking surface was a hard requirement for me though and seems to be getting rarer every year. I'm actually amazed how much people love induction here, but I guess that's also because it's mostly…

Ceramic is terrible. Every kitchen I have had with ceramic has it thrown out immediately since induction has been available.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#365

Post by tux1968 »

ptomato wrote: post #42

Let me know when you can buy one of decent quality in the US with actual physical controls instead of some insane touch system designed by somebody who has apparently never actually been in a kitchen and marketed to people who won't use it but just want a thing that looks cool.

Mine doesn't have physical knobs, either. And worse, it has a flashing red indicator light, that blinks when it is plugged in and turned OFF. So maddening, had to wire up an external switch just to keep from getting angry every time I walked past it. Still, it is great for cooking, and worth putting up with these minor annoyances.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#366

Post by namibj »

Ekaros wrote: post #231
trulyme wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoa. Is that an import/export opportunity here? In EU the prices of both are comparable.

There is also good to remember that these units at least higher powered are designed for 3-phase 400V that is 3 230V phases. Which I have understood isn't very common or easily available in households in some places around the world.

I haven't seen a stove yet in Germany (residential at least) that can't cope with all the phase inputs tied to the same phase.

They are just 3-phase because the utility demands 10+ kW loads to be 3-phase loads, and they often exceed that slightly. Check out the install guide on e.g. some IKEA built-in models, specifically regarding the wiring instructions.

And US residential does have 240V single-phase available.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#367

Post by occz »

bluGill wrote: post #230
dragonwriter wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They aren't as popular in the US because they're considered commercial appliances and it's assumed you are on a business budget if you want to buy one. No, there are plenty of consumer models. But they aren't as popular because the US has significantly more abundant, domestically produced, and (largely, because of that and not taking climate seriously) cheaper natural gas, and has only recently started in some loca…

Electric stoves are very common even where natural gas is available, and even more common where it isn't. The only induction stoves I can find are very high end models. I'm thinking about it, but for the cost I can install gas (including plumbing) and save money. Even on the high end there is often on model with induction so if you want some other option as well you are stuck.

Induction stoves do indeed seem to be more expensive in the U.S, but they don't seem to be entirely out of budget for the average consumer: IKEA sells a few for around $600-800.

IKEA in Sweden where I live has induction stoves for as cheap as $300, and I would assume that similar prices will become available in the U.S in the future.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#368

Post by alexchamberlain »

stickfigure wrote: post #338
Zenbit_UX wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before anyone reads this and decides, "oh ya the NYT is lying to me and gas is fine", it's not. Gas in your home is objectively bad for your health, the environment and is overall worse than induction when it comes to the cooking experience in just about all ways. That being said, It might not be as bad as living with a smoker (as the NYT asserted) but it is bad for you. The YouTuber Climate Town did an excellent vid…

"The dose makes the poison." We should not accept any health claims without quantification. "Objectively bad for your health" is not particularly relevant, even if I accept that at face value. For example, in right-hand-drive countries, making left turns is "objectively worse" for your health than making right turns.

Even with quantification, you may still want to do it anyway. If I remember the numbers correctly, eating a bacon sandwich everyday increases your risk of dying from heart disease by 25% - that takes the risk in the UK from 4/10000 to 5/10000. ^ Given the second number, I don’t worry about having the odd bacon sandwich. The exact example is irrelevant, rather everything in life has pros and cons, risks and rewards - you have to choose which one works for you. (I write this as an induction hob convert :) )

^ This is based on a vague memory of a lecture on Risk Communication from Prof David Spiegelhalter around 10 years ago.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#369

Post by namibj »

carterschonwald wrote: post #211
angry_octet wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just have to be pedantic and say that what you are describing is the very opposite of PWM, which runs at high frequencies (e.g. 30kHz), varying the duty cycle over the tiny slice of time. The only problem with good PWM is audible harmonics, usually only children can hear them.

Those whines drive me crazy and I’m 34! Do any induction cooktops not have that terrible whine? At least with the duxtop portable induction I had to return it because the whine was so bad. Which leads to the question : which ones do not have a whine? Does the breville? Or which? It’s not something any reviews I’ve seen talk about

They can work at frequencies and with electronic designs that are far out into the ultrasonic range.

You may want to check out those that apparently can handle non-magnetic cookware; those apparently run on higher frequencies to make up for the weaker magnetic effect.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#370

Post by caslon »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #359
Zenbit_UX wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before anyone reads this and decides, "oh ya the NYT is lying to me and gas is fine", it's not. Gas in your home is objectively bad for your health, the environment and is overall worse than induction when it comes to the cooking experience in just about all ways. That being said, It might not be as bad as living with a smoker (as the NYT asserted) but it is bad for you. The YouTuber Climate Town did an excellent vid…

> environment and is overall worse than induction would love to see an induction stove with a usable UI. everything I have used is designed by a person that never had to cook for more than 1. the automatic off during the slightest spill, and the impossibility to operate buttons with wet/greasy hands, has to be one of the biggest design mistakes in the history of engineering. my idea of a great time is to invite this…

What kind of induction stove do you have? Mine just has knobs. I push down and turn them clockwise, physically, and it heats up. I push down and turn them counter-clockwise, it lessens the heat, or turns it off.

It's the same as the gas stoves of my childhood; I'm not sure how it could be simpler. It even has the icons indicating which knob is for which burner. Is your stove postmodern?

Post reply on HN