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

Switching to electric stoves can dramatically cut indoor air pollution (2025)

news.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 139 posts

Re: Switching to electric stoves can dramatically cut indoor air pollution (2025)

#91

Post by pkulak »

chomp wrote: post #85
pkulak wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the list _really_ go on though? I think we basically exhausted it (and one on that list is solved with a $10 torch, one with a cast iron pan, the other with an induction-friendly nabe). You can make lists for induction too: - Can't temper chocolate, cook a hollandaise, or do anything that requires low heat without using a double boiler. - Can't boil a large pot of water in under 20 minutes (unless you have a hig…

I mean really, all of my examples involve on-demand flame at a BTU higher than a torch, so I suppose the list doesn’t go on if you exclude things like charring eggplant for baba ganoush. Induction is super awesome for maintaining temp. But one isn’t superior over the other in all cases. My point was purely, people need high BTU fire sometimes based off how they cook. I mean, you won’t see me cooking tagine, but surel…

Fair enough. I do actually have a camping stove that I've used a couple times when I needed a flame.

Re: Switching to electric stoves can dramatically cut indoor air pollution (2025)

#92

Post by PhotonHunter »

syntaxing wrote: post #10
sm-silversight wrote: post #7

I don't care. Quality-of-life. I cook in a pan every day. Nothing but an open flame gives me the kind of control I need to cook with the precision I do. Whatever the harmful effects on my health are, that is a trade I make consciously. My life would be noticeably worse without my open-flame stove. I'd wager anyone who opines otherwise in this thread barely cooks or doesn't cook in a serious fashion. A gas stove is a…

No way. I cook everyday and induction is vastly superior than gas. The only time fire is vastly superior is when I use a wok which I have a stove I use outdoors. Most induction stoves have temperature maintained too. So it can keep your oil at a specific temperature let it be frying or confit or roasting spices.

Except that on all but the most expensive hobs, "simmer" is on-off and scorches the sauce. And on all but the most expensive hobs, the coil is much smaller than the pan you'd want to use (and many times much smaller than advertised). And the sides don't heat up like gas. And you can't use copper or clay pots like gas. And like many electronic things but unlike gas or the old resistive coil tops, induction seems to have longevity problems (perhaps that gets better as the technology matures, or perhaps it runs into the same electronic parts availability issues that plague modern appliances, I tend to think the latter).

Induction is fantastic for boiling water, and good for many things, but there's too many shortcomings to declare "superior than gas".

Re: Switching to electric stoves can dramatically cut indoor air pollution (2025)

#93

Post by Schiendelman »

6DM wrote: post #46

I didn’t see it in the article, but I wonder if this is still the case if people who properly vent before turning on their gas stoves and continue to vent for a minute after cooking is finished.

Almost no residential units have good venting. Even the better ones are good for the back burners, but the offgassing from the front ones is mostly uncaught.

Re: Switching to electric stoves can dramatically cut indoor air pollution (2025)

#94

Post by Schiendelman »

jMyles wrote: post #35

I love my induction cooktop. I despise - in fact loathe - the touch interface, which becomes useless with the slightest spill of oil (and can thus be stuck on high until the interface is sufficiently wiped off and dried). I have the Gasland IH77BFH. If someone has made a hack to modify this by adding physical dials, I'd be tickled.

There are a ton with physical dials!

Re: Switching to electric stoves can dramatically cut indoor air pollution (2025)

#95

Post by gpm »

hellisothers wrote: post #86

If you do the deep research on this there are many qualifiers to get the result they’re purporting. The main issue is you have to have little to no ventilation to make their numbers work. If you have a hood and or good indoor airflow to a window then this is all propaganda.

In practice... people don't use hoods (or maybe they don't work, but almost certainly the former). See for example this study https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/article/S2213-2198(26)00537-...

It was done on people suffering from asthma - with all the reason in the world to improve air quality. Replacing gas stoves with electric stoves a huge effect, on the other hand "installation of a ventilation hood over an existing gas stove in 15 other homes did not significantly change NO2 levels".

Re: Switching to electric stoves can dramatically cut indoor air pollution (2025)

#96

Post by Hikikomori »

chomp wrote: post #45
syntaxing wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No way. I cook everyday and induction is vastly superior than gas. The only time fire is vastly superior is when I use a wok which I have a stove I use outdoors. Most induction stoves have temperature maintained too. So it can keep your oil at a specific temperature let it be frying or confit or roasting spices.

Can’t (properly) cook a tortilla on an electric burner, though you can get subpar results in a pan Can’t char a pepper on an electric burner Can’t heat a nabe on an electric burner Also during hurricane season, my gas burner still works when the power goes out. The list goes on of things that electric simply cannot do. To claim one is superior over the other ignores a lot of the ways people cook. They are just simply…

I get good tortillas on induction.

Can char pepper in the oven.

Can also get a portable gas stove.

Re: Switching to electric stoves can dramatically cut indoor air pollution (2025)

#97

Post by sieabahlpark »

atrettel wrote: post #44
lokar wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Induction is more precise with better control

And induction gets hot immediately. And it is easier to clean. And it is less likely to cause fires. It's just a better technology all around when compared to gas stoves. The only issue I personally have with it is that it is not compatible with all cookware.

[dead]

Re: Switching to electric stoves can dramatically cut indoor air pollution (2025)

#98

Post by jMyles »

Schiendelman wrote: post #94
jMyles wrote: post #35

I love my induction cooktop. I despise - in fact loathe - the touch interface, which becomes useless with the slightest spill of oil (and can thus be stuck on high until the interface is sufficiently wiped off and dried). I have the Gasland IH77BFH. If someone has made a hack to modify this by adding physical dials, I'd be tickled.

There are a ton with physical dials!

Do you have one in particular you'd suggest? That matches the performance, cooling, and profile of mine?

Re: Switching to electric stoves can dramatically cut indoor air pollution (2025)

#99

Post by Spooky23 »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #74
Spooky23 wrote: post #30

I’ll be frank - I don’t buy this stuff because there are well funded agendas behind it. We find ourselves in an era where electrical utilities have shifted from widow & orphan dividend stocks to growth companies… and shockingly the environmental people are fully mobilized with gas everywhere. Asthma is clearly correlated to urban areas with exposure to various pollutants. We’d see those same clusters in suburban popu…

There are well funded agendas behind literally any study that makes it in front of you. An agenda is not inherently bad or corrupt. Even if it works to their advantage, if the health information is accurate, then you need to take it seriously. Your lungs do not care who funded it. I have an agenda to better my life. It’s important context, but it doesn’t make me inherently corrupt or untrustworthy, let alone wrong. T…

I don’t think that bussing protestors is a problem per se, but it’s useful as an assessment of how much cash is behind an issue. I used to be an officer of a union that did that regularly. It was very obvious what our agenda was and how it was paid for.

I don’t like environmental activists in general. They tend to attract well meaning people focused on a narrow aspect of an issue and pivot to a broader or specific policy goal.

I resent people in warm and cozy grandfathered in buildings in NYC making engineering decisions for me. Air side heat pumps are not ideal for upstate, and it’s making it impossible to build housing units.

Re: Switching to electric stoves can dramatically cut indoor air pollution (2025)

#100

Post by Forgeties79 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #99
Forgeties79 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are well funded agendas behind literally any study that makes it in front of you. An agenda is not inherently bad or corrupt. Even if it works to their advantage, if the health information is accurate, then you need to take it seriously. Your lungs do not care who funded it. I have an agenda to better my life. It’s important context, but it doesn’t make me inherently corrupt or untrustworthy, let alone wrong. T…

I don’t think that bussing protestors is a problem per se, but it’s useful as an assessment of how much cash is behind an issue. I used to be an officer of a union that did that regularly. It was very obvious what our agenda was and how it was paid for. I don’t like environmental activists in general. They tend to attract well meaning people focused on a narrow aspect of an issue and pivot to a broader or specific po…

> but it’s useful as an assessment of how much cash is behind an issue

But is this inherently a problem?

You’re getting mad at a caricature. Unless you have some sources showing there is some larger issue with “bussing in protesters,” I’m sorry I just don’t think your argument holds any water. An organization mounting resources to organize people who are legitimately interested in their cause is not a bad thing, and as someone who’s worked with a union I’m a surprised at this take. I’m sure people said the same thing about MLK JR’s million man march. Do you think those people all just paid for a ticket and showed up?

Obama’s campaign did “souls to the polls,” which was so effective republicans banned voting on Sunday in several states lol. But ultimately, it was a completely fair play and helped people exercise their vote. People oppose these things because they don’t want certain people voting, plain and simple. Same goes for protesting. Somehow protestors are always “doing it wrong,” it just so happens critics also disagree with the causes by total coincidence.

Post reply on HN