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

What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#421

Post by mason55 »

bergenty wrote: post #408
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly would be interested for an actual chef to weigh in. I'm all for using an induction stovetop at home, but have people actually seen chefs fry over an open flame? They're moving the pan around, lifting it up and around, using it to toss the food, etc. That would basically be impossible with an induction stovetop. It seems rather tone deaf to me to not address the issues that the chefs are actually concerned…

I don’t know about chefs but my mom always complains about how hard it is to cook with induction heating because it takes very long to switch between high and low temperatures. You can’t be as reactive with induction cooking (alternatively moving the pan off the direct heat and moving it back again might achieve this)

Are you thinking of electric coil? Induction heats up super fast (way faster than gas or electric coil) because the stove itself doesn’t get warm - it transfers energy directly into the pan.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#423

Post by gruez »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #401
seoaeu wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Profit from whom? All these industries ultimately sell the resulting end products to people. This idea that Exxon Mobile is solely to blame for gasoline emissions or that a factory owner is the only one responsible for the emissions from their factory, rather than the person who purchases and uses those products is quite frankly absurd.

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/dbabxu/til_tha ... combine this ^ with: https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2016/12/05/tale-fish-two-cou ... > An example of this would be when a wild cod is caught off the coast of Alaska and, due to economic factors, is shipped to another country to be fabricated into fillets and packaged. If this process of turning a whole fish into packaged fillets occurs in China, the co…

>Yes, the fishing industry is to blame for shipping caught fish from USA to china and back, and the whole thing is very absurd.

I don't see how it's any more absurd than manufacturing iPhones in China only to have it shipped half way across the world to the American consumer.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#425

Post by s1artibartfast »

guerrilla wrote: post #394
s1artibartfast wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every molecule of CO2 produced goes into a good that consumers purchase. I would argue that corporations have zero carbon footprint and consumers have 100% of the carbon footprint. >[consumers] have no power over how such things are produced. Consumers have 100% of the power. If they dont purchase a good, it wont be produced. The whole reason Industries dont move away from carbon is because consumers refuse to pay mo…

> I would argue that corporations have zero carbon footprint and consumers have 100% of the carbon footprint. Nope, because they have no control over the products that are available, how they are produced and most likely cannot afford to pay more. > Consumers have 100% of the power. No, 0%. They have _NO_ vote on how industry does what it does. Industry is not a democracy. They cannot just not buy food and electricit…

>No, 0%. They have _NO_ vote on how industry does what it does. Industry is not a democracy. They cannot just not buy food and electricity. That's stupid. They have to buy the things they can afford. The working class doesn't just have extra cash laying around, they buy what they can afford..

There are options to buy low carbon, and nobody does. People can vote with their wallets or they can vote at the ballot box. They will pay the increased cost either way.

I think you are in error if you think that somehow making the change with regulations means the cost wont be passed to consumers.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#426

Post by ska »

hristov wrote: post #208

Wow. So much bullshit. Where do I start. Most importantly, the motion only bans gas appliances in new construction. Now think about this and re-read the article with this important fact in mind, and you will discover that nothing in the article is actually the least bit relevant for the proposed ordinance. Everything they talk about refers to existing restaurants in existing buildings, which will not be affected by t…

> so does skipping all the chimneys, vents and fans needed to remove the smoke from the kitchens.

This probably remains almost unchanged for a kitchen with the same capacity. The food creates a ton of vaporized oils, smoke, and steam regardless of how it's heated.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#427

Post by mason55 »

hammock wrote: post #386
pao wrote: post #288

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 s…

Pretty much every argument I have read in this post boils down to "electric is better" but crucially ignores a) the idea that preferences are individual, and b) even accepting something as universally "better" doesn't mean we ought to legislate it across an entire group of people (AKA centrally plan the economy).

One person’s “centrally planned economy” is another person’s “managing negative externalities”

A lot of the “electric is better” posts have an implied “gas stoves are bad for people and the environment so we should get rid of them but it’s fine because electric is better anyway”.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#428

Post by agar »

bergenty wrote: post #408
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly would be interested for an actual chef to weigh in. I'm all for using an induction stovetop at home, but have people actually seen chefs fry over an open flame? They're moving the pan around, lifting it up and around, using it to toss the food, etc. That would basically be impossible with an induction stovetop. It seems rather tone deaf to me to not address the issues that the chefs are actually concerned…

I don’t know about chefs but my mom always complains about how hard it is to cook with induction heating because it takes very long to switch between high and low temperatures. You can’t be as reactive with induction cooking (alternatively moving the pan off the direct heat and moving it back again might achieve this)

Switching between high and low on my induction cooktop is immediate.

If you can see red coils on your mom's stove under the glass, it's not induction.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#429

Post by mikkergp »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #398
KingMachiavelli wrote: post #275

A large reason electric (restive and induction) are seen as inferior to gas is that portable units are limited to 120v/15a (few are 20a) so the total possible power is technically less than a gas stove; 2800w effective. However, gas stoves are very inefficient so in reality it's not a huge problem and 240v electric stoves could even be hotter (~4000w) than a gas stove. > Xie estimates that he pays around $500 to $700…

I honestly would be interested for an actual chef to weigh in. I'm all for using an induction stovetop at home, but have people actually seen chefs fry over an open flame? They're moving the pan around, lifting it up and around, using it to toss the food, etc. That would basically be impossible with an induction stovetop. It seems rather tone deaf to me to not address the issues that the chefs are actually concerned…

I think _because_ of their intimate knowledge of the craft, Chef's are going to give you a wider variety of answers with less certainty than anyone else.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#430

Post by turtledove »

hammock wrote: post #386
pao wrote: post #288

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 s…

Pretty much every argument I have read in this post boils down to "electric is better" but crucially ignores a) the idea that preferences are individual, and b) even accepting something as universally "better" doesn't mean we ought to legislate it across an entire group of people (AKA centrally plan the economy).

Electric pollutes less. Electric induction has a faster response. Electric is more energy efficient. Electric doesn't require a separate line and utility run to the house. Electric boils water faster. Electric produces less greenhouse gasses.

I mean, there's subjectively better ("I prefer to cook with it") but there are objectively better traits too.

Post reply on HN