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

Barilla passive cooker

barilla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 528 posts

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#431

Post by benj111 »

jiggawatts wrote: post #63
unpythonic wrote: post #37

The claim: reduces CO₂e emissions by up to 80%* The asterisk: water boiling phase excluded When I boil pasta, I use full heat to get the water boiling, drop in the pasta, then let it come back up to a boil, then drop the temperature as low as possible to keep a slow boil going--about medium-low. Guesstimating that the boil takes about as long as the time to cook the pasta, I'd say that the pasta cooking portion only…

A better way to save energy is to use an electric kettle to get the water up to boiling. This is about three times as energy-efficient as a gas hob. Combined with passive cooking it could save real money… Technology Connections on YouTube has a good video about how electric kettles are the superior way to boil water: https://youtu.be/_yMMTVVJI4c

Unless it's winter where you're heating your house anyway, in which case the gas hob is more efficient.

But gas is a lot cheaper than electric anyway so I wouldn't expect a kettle to be much cheaper.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#432

Post by kergonath »

masklinn wrote: post #412
kergonath wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have the mother of all hotspots on the pan (less relevant for boiling) where the induction ring itself is and getting simmer right is harder. Not at all. There is no significant hot spot as heat is actually produced by the bottom of the pan and not the coils themselves. > Induction as implemented right now is on/off with full blast for the duration and just increased downtime. It is not the same as low constant…

I guess you could have a hot spot on the pan if the coils are ill-designed or you’re putting a large pan on a small burner? The pan will only heat up near the coil, so if the coil covers only the center third of the pan, only that will heat up (though some pans have a heat-spreading layer to mitigate this, and sometimes to add some more inertia depending on the pan’s purpose).

> I guess you could have a hot spot on the pan if the coils are ill-designed or you’re putting a large pan on a small burner?

Yes, but then it’s hardly a problem with the technology if you put a large pan on a small burner.

As for the rest, in all cookers I have seen, the coils cover the whole surface, except for a small spot in the centre. Besides, induced current does not happen only where the cookware is closest to the coil. The magnetic field is more spread out than that and the heating surface is larger than just the surface of “contact” (there is no real contact, but anyway).

I assume there could be an exceptionally badly designed induction cooktop with hot spots (it’d have to have a very weird geometry, though), but that would take some effort.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#433

Post by jounker »

gomox wrote: post #177
rsynnott wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's partially because 1100W kettles are less _useful_. I'm mostly a coffee drinker, and use a bean to cup machine for that. But I still use my kettle a good bit, because it's quicker to boil the kettle and then pour into the pan and bring back to the boil than bringing cold water to the boil in the pan. I've got a 3kW kettle, though, if I had a 1100W one I wouldn't do that because it _wouldn't_ be quicker.

Unless you have some sort of thunder-wok burner the 110V kettle is still way faster than the stove. Source: have a 110V kettle and a gas cooktop with very large burners, still use the aforementioned trick.

Hi end gas ranges will beat a good electric kettle in the USA. (kettle 7min, range In the other hand the US kettle beat the crap out of our old gas range, and even the good range is not nearly as fast as a crappy electric kettle in germany, which clocks in at 4 min.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#434

Post by rrwo »

This works for rice and other grains too.

Another trick is that you don't need a giant pot of water, just enough to cover the pasta, especially for smaller pasta like penne/fusilli etc.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#436

Post by bjohnson225 »

housingisaright wrote: post #241

How you like to cook pasta aside. This is so dumb. No one is going to solve the climate crisis with not boiling the pasta while certain companies is reaponaible for basically all emissions. What is the word for this? When you try socialise problems like this to try shift blame? I’m still surprised how many people don’t know thar “climate footprint “ is invented by one of the bigger oil companies in a similar campaign…

Shifting all responsibility to producers is about as helpful as shifting it all to consumers. Clearly there is responsibility on both sides. Burning gas for cooking or heating is bad for emissions, so it is reasonable for people to avoid doing so for longer than necessary. Same goes for producers burning fossil fuels for electricity, etc.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#437

Post by paranoidrobot »

Tepix wrote: post #395
BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Death only increases the amount of carbon emissions this method saves.

But your decomposing family will release CO2!

It's offset against the future CO2 emissions of the family and their descendants.

(Gee, this thread got dark. Like carbon-black dark)

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#438

Post by benj111 »

jve wrote: post #430
jiggawatts wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better way to save energy is to use an electric kettle to get the water up to boiling. This is about three times as energy-efficient as a gas hob. Combined with passive cooking it could save real money… Technology Connections on YouTube has a good video about how electric kettles are the superior way to boil water: https://youtu.be/_yMMTVVJI4c

Speaking about electrical kettle: why aren't there insulated kettles that would help me save energy when I re-boil water after 20 minutes? EDIT: Ah, there are some: https://www.amazon.com/DASH-Insulated-Electric-Kettle-Cordle...

If you're reboiling water aren't you already doing it wrong.

Ideally you should only be boiling the water you need.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#439

Post by MezzoDelCammin »

Probably the best way to save both water and energy when boiling pasta is to avoid using excess water altogether.

With a bit of practice it's pretty easy to make pasta in a similar way one makes rice - let almost all the water soak into it.

The trick is twofold: 1. One needs a pan that's not too shallow (i.e. the pasta needs to stack up on itself, not just barely cover the bottom of the pan)

2. The first minute or so some stirring is necessary to avoid the pasta clumping together.

Works best if the recipe calls for some sauce to be applied in the end (pesto, carbonara, etc.). In that case it's best to add the sauce when there's still some residual starchy water, using it as a thickening / binding agent for the sauce.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#440

Post by benj111 »

armada651 wrote: post #174
sltkr wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is about three times as energy-efficient as a gas hob. I sincerely doubt this figure in cases where electricity is generated from fossil fuels in the first place. For example, I lived in the Netherlands where 80% of electricity is still produced by fossil fuels, mostly in gas-fired power plants. As I understand it, generating electricity from gas has an efficiency of only about 50%. That means you lose a lot o…

> In the winter, the gas stove will be more efficient since all the heat that doesn't go into your food, heats up the room (heating is typically also based on gas in the Netherlands, so this is basically free energy). The efficiency loss of the electric kettle also gets converted into heat that heats up your home, energy doesn't just disappear.

An electric kettle is ~90% efficient, the rest is lost to the surroundings but the electricity generation (assuming gas) is ~60% so the entire process, gas to hot water is ~60% and most of the waste you don't get the benefit of.

And gas stove kettle is ~40% efficient but you get the other 60% back as heat in the surroundings, so the entire process is ~100% efficient.

Assuming you need that waste heat of course. In the summer that 60% inefficiency really is an inefficiency.

Post reply on HN