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

581–590 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#581

Post by mattmaroon »

namibj wrote: post #343
mattmaroon wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true of ceramic glass ranges? I had one once and I’m fairly sure whoever made that thing couldn’t even spell thermostat let alone add one. Pretty sure the knob was just a potentiometer.

There are electric stoves (contact heating; cast iron plates (european style)) with a thermostat in the center, and my induction plate only has a power dial. Yeah, gas doesn't have a thermostat usually, but the other types are usually not incompatible and as such there exist both variants.

Right I’m not debating that they exist but I think most of the flat ceramic tops we have here modulate power rather than temp. That is one great thing about induction. You can reduce a sauce without risking a runaway boil if you don’t monitor it closely at the right time.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#582

Post by wolverine876 »

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.

Hard to think of an industry where people use legacy technology instead of tearing it all out and replacing it with the newest thing.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#583

Post by wolverine876 »

ekianjo wrote: post #446
DeathArrow wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rather want to see what reputable scientists have to say than some random youtubers and activists.

Reputable scientists from the Lancet published hoaxes not too long ago. You cant trust anyone.

You can't trust anyone completely, not even one's Mom. But you can trust some people a lot more than others. If I have cancer, I trust my doctor a lot more than random people on Youtube.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#584

Post by wolverine876 »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #254
amluto wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed please for the health effects being bogus. NOx emissions from gas stoves seem to be consistently reported as quite high indeed. For example: https://jacksonlab.stanford.edu/publication/methane-and-nox-...

Pretty easily mitigated with a vent hood which all these tests don't have running.

I could see vent hoods helping, but I don't assume they mitigate the risk. They may not capture the gas sufficiently, quickly enough, etc. Maybe vent hoods in homes are not generally effective.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#585

Post by wolverine876 »

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.

> You're looking at around 1% of CO2 emissions in the US coming from natural gas used directly for cooking.

Often, a necessary part of solutions are 1% here and 1% there. There's not always big, satisfying chunks, or they aren't sufficient.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#586

Post by wolverine876 »

ekianjo wrote: post #450
stellar678 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You seem to think electricity is not produced by fossil fuels. In most countries the majority is made with gas and coal.

Reducing climate impact from energy production requires both reducing it at the point of production and at the point of consumption. By switching to electric energy at the point of consumption, you reduce demand for gas, etc. The production can then be switched to something zero-impact.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#587

Post by wolverine876 »

Throckmorton24 wrote: post #502
ekianjo wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Science is what one does, not what one is. yes but someone who has a MBA is definitely NOT a scientist but a salesman.

After years of lurking I created an account just to reply to this. While in the context of this article I agree with you - this author clearly has an agenda - the general MBA hate on HN amuses me so I thought I would share my anecdote. Also, Melissa Clark, the author, has a BA and an MFA. Maybe we need to hate on artists doing science? People’s lives take them down many paths. I am a “scientist” insofar as I have don…

> the general MBA hate on HN amuses

Like other communities, sadly, HN is egocentric, thinking what they do is important and that everything else - humanities, social sciences, arts, management, government, etc. - is a waste. The world should be run by hackers, of course. I would guess MBA News is similar.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#588

Post by wolverine876 »

ekianjo wrote: post #505
Throckmorton24 wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After years of lurking I created an account just to reply to this. While in the context of this article I agree with you - this author clearly has an agenda - the general MBA hate on HN amuses me so I thought I would share my anecdote. Also, Melissa Clark, the author, has a BA and an MFA. Maybe we need to hate on artists doing science? People’s lives take them down many paths. I am a “scientist” insofar as I have don…

> the general MBA hate on HN amuses me MBA graduates are by far used in companies in the Marketing and Sales departments, so interpreting my comment about them being salesmen as "hate on MBAs" is quite funny, because that's precisely how the hiring market sees them. Sure, there are scientists who happen to also have MBAs. That's a huge exception, so you won't win points by finding someone who happens to have that pro…

On what scientific or factual analysis do you base those claims about MBAs?

Re: The case for induction cooking

#589

Post by fastaguy88 »

sidpatil wrote: post #526
dtgriscom wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, at least, the standard is to have outlets every 4' (I think), and have the outlets alternate circuits. So, you plug into two adjacent outlets (not the same two in the same box, but adjacent boxes) and you'll be on different circuits.

> and have the outlets alternate circuits. That's the first time I've heard of that. Is that for kitchens only, or for all rooms?

I think it is for kitchens, and it is relatively new. My 25 year old refinished kitchen has the outlets, but not the separate circuits. No nespresso + toast.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#590

Post by wolverine876 »

Zenbit_UX wrote: post #238
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…

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…

> It might not be as bad as living with a smoker (as the NYT asserted)

They actually said,

“For children who live in a home with a gas stove, the increased risk of asthma is on par with living in a home with a smoker,” she said.

Post reply on HN