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

371–380 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#371

Post by donw »

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…

God, this.

I like induction stoves. Easier to clean, and do 90% of what I need doing in a kitchen. Not having to run gas lines is a plus, and for the other 10%, I'm probably working on a grill or using a dedicated burner anyway.

But the UIs are awful.

Stop turning yourself off. Yes, I do intend to cook the thing I put on you for six hours. Just fucking do it.

Give me a knob. Gas stoves use knobs for good reasons. You don't need to invent new UX, just give me a motherfucking knob. A knob without complicated family issues is fine as well.

My stove does not need Bluetooth or WiFi. It's a stove. I expect it to work with minor maintenance for 40+ years. Protocols are going to change a lot between here and there.

I am not installing your app. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. Baphomet will call up and tell me he got right with Jesus before I install your app.

There has to be a market for people that want appliances that just... work.

Addendum: there are a few induction stoves with knobs, but they are definitely the exception, rather than the rule:

- https://www.bluestarcooking.com/cooking/cooktops/36-turn-ind...

- https://performwireless.com/7-best-induction-cooktops-with-k... (half of these are not full-size built-ins)

Re: The case for induction cooking

#372

Post by coderenegade »

redocneknurd wrote: post #345

is this an influencing operation to make people less dependent on Russian gas?

I think it's more likely to be a marketing campaign that's capitalizing on the Ukraine crisis. Articles like this were popping up last year, but it's ramped up a lot lately.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#373

Post by Timpy »

esperent wrote: post #333
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…

So essentially you should ignore this article and go find real scientifically researched info on this issue elsewhere. Anyone have any good links? And sorry, I watched the first 30 seconds of that YouTube video and don't see any reason why I'd trust it any more than the times article.

The host Rollie Williams has a graduate degree in climate change, maybe his style isn't for everyone but he's clearly knowledge and passionate about the subject.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#374

Post by AngryData »

ksec wrote: post #265
chimeracoder wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pretty easily mitigated with a vent hood which all these tests don't have running. Almost nobody in New York City (where the NYT is based and focuses its coverage) has a vent hood that vents outside the apartment. Older buildings don't have a hood at all, and new buildings have hoods which circulate air within the apartment, which doesn't really address concerns about accumulation of environmental pollutants.

>Almost nobody in New York City (where the NYT is based and focuses its coverage) has a vent hood that vents outside the apartment. Thanks. If this bit of context was clear from the get go it would have been a lot easier for those from EUR where we would expect vents outside the apartment to be the norm. ( Not speaking for all EUR, so there may be places this is not the norm ) As a matter of fact this is the first ti…

Many people in the US don't even realize their stove vent is just a filter. They look almost identical to outward venting hoods. Which means the filter medium is never replaced after it fills up with oils either.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#375

Post by stellar678 »

dehrmann wrote: post #318
dillondoyle wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The thing is "I absolutely must have gas installed in my house for cooking" turns into "well let's buy the gas water heater, and the gas central heating, and the gas dryer" and all of a sudden you're using was more piped-in gas for for non-cooking things than you are for cooking, but "cooking with gas" was the hydrocarbon foot in the door at your house.

Otherwise you might opt for an electric tankless water heater, a heat pump HVAC system, and just an electric dryer.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#376

Post by coderenegade »

occz wrote: post #362
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. Amon…

Gas can be carbon negative. If you make methane from syngas by gasifying or pyrolyzing biomass, you're still left with either ash, or carbon black, depending on the process used. This is solid carbon that was pulled out of the atmosphere by a plant, that can be sequestered away.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#377

Post by katbyte »

ghostpepper wrote: post #300
comex wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people like cooking with gas because it's primal and sensual? Really? Yes, really. I personally love the aesthetics of flames on the stove, and this might lead me to choose a gas stove over the alternatives despite minor downsides like being slower to bring water to a boil. On the other hand, the air quality issue seems like a much more significant downside, though I haven’t researched it much. (I haven’t personall…

Gas is also universally considered better to cook with than electric (not induction) which is presumably why every restaurant kitchen uses it. My guess is ‘sensuality’ is not even in the top five considerations when equipping a kitchen.

By what measure? Induction wins hands down for control, responsiveness, efficiency, and heat output: https://youtu.be/hX2aZUav-54

Doing a super low temp simmer on gas is hard. Double boilers are only something you need with gas. Induction imho and experience is just better all around. What the video for someone putting it far more eloquently then I ever could.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#378

Post by silisili »

noveltyaccount wrote: post #13

I switched from gas to induction during a kitchen remodel about 18 months ago. Took a couple of days to get used to, but it is considerably better than gas. Zero regrets. Faster, more precise, holds temperature better. E.g., I fry an egg on 6. Every time, I can reproduce my ideal fried egg (unless I break the yolk). When I was shopping for appliances about half of the salespeople tried to talk me into gas, but a few…

Commenting here as I don't think it's really worth a top level.

I feel it really depends on the person. For most Americans, induction is great. It's dead simple, repeatable, etc. But, I hate it!

I cook on cast iron. My wife cooks with a stir fry pan or wok. We went from gas to induction and both of us absolutely hated it. It's so hard to cook if you learned in a natural fire environment.

I hate having gas at all, I just wish there was a way to mimic its behavior.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#379

Post by newaccount74 »

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.

I think the problem is that nobody buys hobs with dials anymore. When they have the choice, most people prefer the sleek look and easy cleaning.

And the controls aren't all terrible. We have a cheap electric Ikea hob (non-induction), and the controls are decent. It has digits from 0-9 for each heater, so you can set every heater to the right power with a single touch.

If you spill something it starts beeping, and you have about 10 seconds to wipe the controls with a rag, or it turns off. It's annoying the first time it happens, but it's not a big deal in practice.

I use this hob everyday to cook for 5 people, so it's not like sensor controls are useless.

It also has some advantages, like individual timers for each heater. And the little one can't reach the controls and mess with them.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#380

Post by dzhiurgis »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #334
pdog wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know what isn't bad for your health? Good, clean healthy home-cooked food. Which, in millions of homes, is cooked swiftly and efficiently on gas ranges. Politicians and their media lackeys in the media need to stop trying to micro-manage peoples' lives.

I am a big fan of electrification but an induction range to replace my glasstop is on the order of $3-4,000 (and not in stock anywhere anyway) so I can't blame anyone for sticking with an old reliable gas range.

I use $30 single pot induction stove everyday. I cook for 3 people. It’s placed on top of old school electric one with spiral elements since we live in a rental. Sometimes I use both, but it’s my go to.
Post reply on HN