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

461–470 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#461

Post by chrisseaton »

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…

> And Brady Seals is not a scientist. Note the lack of PhD.

Why do you think you need a PhD to be a scientist? Many famous scientists, even some distinguished professors, don’t have a PhD. A PhD isn’t even the only type of doctorate!

Re: The case for induction cooking

#462

Post by Ntrails »

jstummbillig wrote: post #418
Ntrails wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is overall worse than induction when it comes to the cooking experience in just about all ways. The way you would know this to be true is when professional kitchens are defaulting to induction instead of gas. (I think this has started to happen in a few high end places, which is exciting) I am putting in a new kitchen soon and it will have a gas hob + electric oven because I love cooking and gas is my default. Ever…

> The way you would know this to be true is when professional kitchens are defaulting to induction instead of gas. That is not how you would know that. There are plenty of industries where people stick to the "tried and true" (for various reasons, some of which might even be reasonable) and chose to neglect efficiency gains or long term health of either their employees or customers.

I think I was unclear.

    If A then B true
was my meaning, not

    If and only If A then B true
Hence highlighting that we have seen some of this already!

Side note. The high end ones move first as they discover something better. See the proliferation of technological machines in modern professional kitchens. But the trend gets set and the upper mid range starts to follow and then it will be what chefs want to use because it is best.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#463

Post by snovv_crash »

stellar678 wrote: post #375
dehrmann wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

On the west coast there are frequently power outages from downed trees. Gas doesn't go out if you have a tank, so anyone even a little bit rural uses gas if they can.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#464

Post by KineticLensman »

One problem with induction cooking is that the magnetic fields can prevent the correct operation of certain implanted medical devices such as Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillators and pacemakers.

I had an induction hob unit fitted in my kitchen ten years ago (replacing gas) and loved it for the instant controllability (although not the controls themselves, as covered elsewhere here). But last year I had an ICD implanted after an episode of cardiac fibrillation, and was advised by the NHS arrhythmia nurses not to use the hob (or at least to keep an arms length away from active hobs). So because I love cooking I had it replaced with a ceramic unit, which is much less satisfactory. It's made by the same company (NEF) that made the old induction hob and in fact has identical controls and physical footprint. But it's less responsive than induction (or gas) because of the residual heat and harder to clean than induction because the surface gets scorchingly hot which can burn spills on.

So having used gas, induction and ceramic, I'd definitely pick induction as my favourite, except for the one small problem that can stop my ICD sensing imminent sudden cardiac death or (unlikely) reset my ICD which would trigger an annoying warning buzzer inside my chest (but that's a whole different topic)

Re: The case for induction cooking

#465

Post by traceroute66 »

coryrc wrote: post #388
katbyte wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Try stir-frying with a wok, lift the pan to shake it without losing all heat or not having to be gentle when setting it back down because it's metal-on-metal not metal-on-glass. Or how about my 11" cast iron; the induction only heats the middle 7". Half the pan is useless.

> Try stir-frying with a wok, lift the pan to shake it without losing all heat

In a home context its irrelevant. You're not doing true wok cooking at home anyway, your piddly little small bore home gas feed won't be providing anywhere near the required intensity.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#466

Post by traceroute66 »

mattmaroon wrote: post #298
cespare wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true that most induction cooktops/ranges aren't great for woks, but in principle the induction surface doesn't have to be flat -- it can be a concave shape to match the wok. In fact these exist -- if you search for "induction wok burners" you can see some pictures. (I only recently became aware of this after watching this video of a chef who uses induction cooking in a small kitchen: https://www.youtube.com/watc…

You’ll never really get wok hei with induction. It’s a mistake to think of a wok as just a differently shaped pan. Proper wok cooking is cooking is actually mechanically different. It’s mostly done with the hot air that rises up the side of the wok. Modernist cuisine has a great cutaway illustration on this. The food is constantly flipped into the air above the wok where it is heated by the extremely hot air. Of cour…

> You’ll never really get wok hei with induction.

In a home context its irrelevant. You're not doing true wok cooking at home anyway, your piddly little small bore home gas feed won't be providing anywhere near the required intensity.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#467

Post by Ntrails »

Kliment wrote: post #447
Ntrails wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is overall worse than induction when it comes to the cooking experience in just about all ways. The way you would know this to be true is when professional kitchens are defaulting to induction instead of gas. (I think this has started to happen in a few high end places, which is exciting) I am putting in a new kitchen soon and it will have a gas hob + electric oven because I love cooking and gas is my default. Ever…

Get a standalone induction plate. They're cheap and portable and they let you try it out without a huge expense. I do 90% of all my cooking on a single induction plate I paid ~$60 for. Non-induction electric hobs are trash, and induction is much closer to gas, but more controllable, less messy, and less dangerous. That said, I would strongly recommend against a builtin induction hob. They're expensive as fuck, and ea…

> They're expensive as fuck, and eat lots of counter space.

I am comfortable with the latter at least, as my default would be a 5 ring gas hob! I cannot imagine cooking with fewer than 3 rings. (Say, duck breast, mash, veg is a pretty basic meal)

> Get a standalone induction plate. They're cheap and portable and they let you try it out without a huge expense.

That is actually a good shout, and not something I had considered. Am currently "camping" kitchen'd in the utility room with a microwave and a 2 ring camping gas stove. Will have a gander, Thanks :)

Re: The case for induction cooking

#468

Post by angry_octet »

worik wrote: post #289
angry_octet wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These systems are used commercially all the time, just not in the backwater of the US.

It is odd how so many of these consumer advances take a generation longer to penetrate the USA. Bit harsh to call it a "back water".. Corporate advances in malfeasance often originate there! Gotta love the pop art too, real inovators

Culinary back water would be unfair, but definitely laggards when it comes to innovation, especially if there is some regulation involved, doubly slow if there are entrenched interests. America is quicker to innovate if someone can make a buck.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#469

Post by Kliment »

Ntrails wrote: post #467
Kliment wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get a standalone induction plate. They're cheap and portable and they let you try it out without a huge expense. I do 90% of all my cooking on a single induction plate I paid ~$60 for. Non-induction electric hobs are trash, and induction is much closer to gas, but more controllable, less messy, and less dangerous. That said, I would strongly recommend against a builtin induction hob. They're expensive as fuck, and ea…

> They're expensive as fuck, and eat lots of counter space. I am comfortable with the latter at least, as my default would be a 5 ring gas hob! I cannot imagine cooking with fewer than 3 rings. (Say, duck breast, mash, veg is a pretty basic meal) > Get a standalone induction plate. They're cheap and portable and they let you try it out without a huge expense. That is actually a good shout, and not something I had con…

> I cannot imagine cooking with fewer than 3 rings.

You're allowed to own more than one standalone induction plate. And you're also allowed to position them freely over your work area :)

Re: The case for induction cooking

#470

Post by ThePhysicist »

joshuajill wrote: post #454

The major con of induction though is the very poor energy efficiency: 15% That's on par with a typical open fire. https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/06/thermal-efficiency-c...

That figures includes all losses from the entire power generation chain, it's hard to take seriously. The heat transfer energy efficiency of an induction stove is about 80-90 %, which is much better than for let's say an electric oven or even a gas stove. Also, electricity for induction can be generated from renewable sources, unlike for gas or open fire cooking.
Post reply on HN