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

481–490 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#481

Post by cameronh90 »

joshuajill wrote: post #460
jonas21 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is just as bad on the climate aspect. It asserts that cooking with gas "has been shown to be catastrophic for the environment." What's the basis for this assertion? They link to another NYT article that cites a study that says, "annual methane emissions from all gas stoves in U.S. homes have a climate impact comparable to the annual carbon dioxide emissions of 500,000 cars." [1] That might sound like a lo…

Yes, induction cooking is in par with a typical open fire in terms of electric efficiency. https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/06/thermal-efficiency-c...

This article is conflating all kinds of things. It says traditional cooking "outperforms" modern but is using a metric that essentially nobody cares about (thermal efficiency). It's just motivated reasoning to argue against electricity.

> The main discrepancy with these figures is caused when one doesn't take into account that electricity first needs to be produced in power plants which sometimes convert less than a third of the primary energy into electricity

That is, induction stoves are about 90% efficient at converting electricity to useful heat, but your electricity generation may not be depending on where you live. It's the same argument people make against electric cars and heat pumps.

As the grid decarbonises, electric cooking will become far more favourable than combustion cooking in terms of CO2 until eventually, hopefully, it is entirely zero emission.

Indeed the article doesn't seem to focus on what could have been its strongest argument: wood/biomass already IS carbon neutral, provided it's sustainably farmed. That does, however, exclude the fossil fuels used in production and distribution which may be significant or zero depending on source, but are usually quite low, albeit human resource intensive. If you want to go one layer deep you should aggregate up the carbon output of all the labour going into the production system but I digress.

Thermal efficiency only matters if you consider the carbon intensity of the source of the energy.

Besides, the major problem with combustion cooking is the particulates anyway, which are immensely better on an electric stove. And the article seems to consider convenience as an irrelevance rather than the primary motivating factor of essentially all technological development.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#482

Post by universa1 »

morsch wrote: post #398
universa1 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in Germany there are very few left with knobs... I think a price comparison listed like 10 models... Miele had/has some... Then there is neff with a "puck" thingy, somewhere in the middle and then some high priced stuff... [1] actually lists a few more, was looking for something bigger than 60cm (23inch??) wide. [1] https://geizhals.de/?cat=hkochf&xf=4220_11~4220_4~4220_5~422...

Those are standalone induction cooktops. It's common to install a cooktop on top of an oven by the same manufacturer. In that category, there are still many devices (from many manufactures, low and high end) with rotating knobs, integrated into the oven component. https://geizhals.de/?cat=hherdset&xf=1959_Induktion~8421_60~...

well, maybe was common, with a bit of money and a new kitchen I would guess it is more common to separate the two entities and not have the oven on the floor... also very neat for the dishwasher if you have the space :-)

Re: The case for induction cooking

#483

Post by Aeolos »

golem14 wrote: post #410
wutbrodo wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So they are lying, again? What are normal people suppose to do without expertise on any subject. This is unfortunately just how the world is. Epistemology is hard, and there are a ton of people out there who make it harder (Three guesses as to whether the author of this article, or any other crappy prestige-publication journalist, thinks they're lying). It's a scary and confusing world! At some level you just have…

Off-topic, but another area where it seems hard to get good answers is what cooking oil is actually best. E.g., palm oil / coconut oil gets hyped lately, but is it really healthy (in a meaningful way)? Is it gentle on the environment (very likely not). The industries (merchants of doubt) are so active, it's absolutely nontrivial for a well meaning layman not wanting to invest oddles of time to get to good conclusions…

Just use olive oil for everything except deep frying. It really is the best, and what is used by high end restaurants almost exclusively.

The smoking point is not a problem, the nasty stuff start appearing as couple dozen degrees _above_ the smoking point, so you can use that as an early warning system.

It also contains antioxidants, which bind some of the nasty stuff for a while, so it really is better for you for regular cooking.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#484

Post by Aeolos »

chrisseaton wrote: post #461
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!

> Many famous scientists, even some distinguished professors, don’t have a PhD

Examples? I'm really not aware of anyone, so I'm curious.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#485

Post by biot »

jws wrote: post #324
jeffbee wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's really just because there are no objective and enforced standards for it. I used to have a kitchen with a pretty high ceiling and a fume extractor mounted way up high, so high it was controlled by an IR remote, and it worked great while making little sound. Currently I have one of those integrated with a microwave oven that makes a lot of noise, blocks my view of half the range, and doesn't work at all.…

My vent is about 5 feet above the stove. We had to build a little soffit to get it just within code regulations. It has a huge blower that is located in a small attic space about 20 feet away. 100% recommend! You can’t hear it at all and you can watch all the vapor and smoke from the stove waft right up and away into the unit. The remote eats a pair of CR2450 cells every three months, so that could have been done bet…

Which model vent is it?

Re: The case for induction cooking

#486

Post by froh »

joshuajill wrote: post #460
jonas21 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is just as bad on the climate aspect. It asserts that cooking with gas "has been shown to be catastrophic for the environment." What's the basis for this assertion? They link to another NYT article that cites a study that says, "annual methane emissions from all gas stoves in U.S. homes have a climate impact comparable to the annual carbon dioxide emissions of 500,000 cars." [1] That might sound like a lo…

Yes, induction cooking is in par with a typical open fire in terms of electric efficiency. https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/06/thermal-efficiency-c...

Unless the electricity comes from renewables...

Re: The case for induction cooking

#487

Post by sleightofmind »

levital wrote: post #471
Scandiravian wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That looks really nice - I might consider that one if I'm switching away from gas later this year How is it for keeping a constant, low-mid temperature? One of the issues I have with induction is that the heat is applied in bursts rather than as a constant with gas This means that when frying with some oils, induction will either heat them past their smoke point in the burst or the temperature will be too low in-betw…

Mine does it in bursts I think (it's fairly obvious when cooking rice, as the water bubbles up periodically), but I've never had a problem with that. I can say that I don't have smoke problems with olive oil, which I believe is one that shouldn't be used with high temperatures. That said, I'm probably an ok cook at best and I don't eat meat so I can't really say how it would work with that. However, I found that at l…

This, then, is a limitation of your induction unit. Mine has two modes: Heating, and Temperature. In temperature mode, the cycling you describe occurs. For this reason I almost never use temperature mode. In heating mode, I get the most consistent rice ever (for me, I'm not a cook, just someone who likes rice). Making pancakes in a cast-iron pan, I find myself occasionally switching between 3 and 3.5 on the heating settings -- these are arbitrary numbers assigned by the manufacturer -- to keep the cast iron at the desired heat. It's trivial. I suppose I should try the temperature setting for this -- unlike making rice in a sauce pan, the cast iron probably would probably compensate for the intermittent heating of temperature mode.

My unit is just single-hob portable induction cooker from Duxtop: 15 heat settings -- think of it like continuous power settings -- and I think? about 10 (cycling) temperature settings.

I'm quite optimistic that a high-end unit such as the one used in the Asian restaurant mentioned in the article would hold constant temps without the annoying recycling -- and believe me, I find the on/off business just as annoying as you find it.

I look forward to a time when I have the room for a full-sized induction cooktop. I think that with a decent induction disk (I think I'll just buy a 3/32" disc of mild steel and avoid the laminated units sold commercially, or even just repurpose a crepe pan) I'll be able to do things like Spanish eggs, where just a portion of the pan must be kept heated.

One thing I've found is that egg pans (small saute pans) with just the right slope for flipping eggs are not easy to find in induction-compatible pans. But I did find one pretty close to perfect, and an induction disc will take allow reuse of my favorite non-induction egg pan.

I'm really sold on induction. It's not best for everything, but I can live with its shortcomings while enjoying its advantages.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#488

Post by gassius »

Groxx wrote: post #440
modeless wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the vents in places I've rented have seemed hilariously ineffective even on the highest and super loud setting. Maybe good ones make a difference but how many people actually have good ones? And how many people actually use them every time the stove is on?

Every rental I've lived in has not had ventilation. It has had a range hood with a fan... and zero ductwork. The fan pulls up from under the hood, and blows it straight into my face, out the top of the hood.

There are extractors that work without a vent, they filter and release on the same space. I am not saying that was your case, or even if it was, the filters were properly maintained, just saying that those hoods exists. Searching for Recirculating Range Hoods would give more info about those

Re: The case for induction cooking

#489

Post by pinetlk »

I have an induction stove. It works (fine-grained temperature, fast heating, easy cleaning, no heat in kitchen) but I find stove cooking in general to be unsatisfying. It just seems like a very tricky way to cook food. For starters, you have to use some kind of oil, and most oil is not even good for you when heated at high temperatures. I would much prefer to cook everything on a bbq or some kind of oven method. That bbq taste is so obvious and special, and oven cooking is so easy.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#490

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

Scandiravian wrote: post #478
levital wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mine does it in bursts I think (it's fairly obvious when cooking rice, as the water bubbles up periodically), but I've never had a problem with that. I can say that I don't have smoke problems with olive oil, which I believe is one that shouldn't be used with high temperatures. That said, I'm probably an ok cook at best and I don't eat meat so I can't really say how it would work with that. However, I found that at l…

Thank you for the comprehensive answer! Olive oil has indeed been one of the problematic ones for me - to be fair, it might simply come down to my inexperience cooking with induction I think I will get some additional cast iron cookware when I make the switch. Hopefully it'll be able to retain the heat better between bursts and make the average temperature more stable :-) I appreciate that you took the time to answer…

cast iron is seriously under-rated. they're a tiny bit harder to clean, but they're nonstick without giving you cancer, and you can get them really hot without damaging them.
Post reply on HN