3 ms·

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/therm

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-cooking-stoves.html https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/06/thermal-efficiency-c...

ulnarkressty 5y ago
It's not that they are inefficient per se, rather they are taking the power generation losses into account, which will always be >0 when compared to directly burning fuel.
goodpoint 5y ago
Not at all. Induction is extremely efficient and that comparison is incorrect.
- joshuajill 5y ago
  The comparison is not incorrect, it takes into account externalities, which if you are environmentally minded is the right thing to do.
ThePhysicist 5y ago
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.
- joshuajill 5y ago
  The large majority of people use the grid, so it's very relevant IMO. But yes, if you somehow have your own source of energy to power a 2kW it's excellent.
m45t3r 5y ago
I did a quick read in the article and while it gets in conclusion that induction has only 15% efficiency compared to a typical open fire, it is considering also the conversion of heat in energy by a thermoelectric (that is the actual inefficient process). While I understand the point of the article this is not a valid general conclusion of the efficiency of induction cookers, since you can have much more efficient ways of producing energy. Induction cooks by themselves are very efficient in converting energy to heat (90% efficiency, according another claim in the article).
- joshuajill 5y ago
  The problem is "induction cooks by themselves" is a fictional entity. How do you get 2kW power autonomously in a cities where the majority of the world population lives nowadays?

ulnarkressty 5y ago

It's not that they are inefficient per se, rather they are taking the power generation losses into account, which will always be >0 when compared to directly burning fuel.

goodpoint 5y ago

Not at all. Induction is extremely efficient and that comparison is incorrect.

joshuajill 5y ago
The comparison is not incorrect, it takes into account externalities, which if you are environmentally minded is the right thing to do.

ThePhysicist 5y ago

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.

joshuajill 5y ago
The large majority of people use the grid, so it's very relevant IMO. But yes, if you somehow have your own source of energy to power a 2kW it's excellent.

m45t3r 5y ago

I did a quick read in the article and while it gets in conclusion that induction has only 15% efficiency compared to a typical open fire, it is considering also the conversion of heat in energy by a thermoelectric (that is the actual inefficient process). While I understand the point of the article this is not a valid general conclusion of the efficiency of induction cookers, since you can have much more efficient ways of producing energy. Induction cooks by themselves are very efficient in converting energy to heat (90% efficiency, according another claim in the article).

joshuajill 5y ago
The problem is "induction cooks by themselves" is a fictional entity. How do you get 2kW power autonomously in a cities where the majority of the world population lives nowadays?