4 ms·

Yeah, I also think it's the wrong priority - I mean, what are you going to replace them with? Electric stoves? Then you'd better make sure that the electricity

by rob74 4y ago

Yeah, I also think it's the wrong priority - I mean, what are you going to replace them with? Electric stoves? Then you'd better make sure that the electricity is 100% from renewable sources, otherwise you'll be burning fossil fuels to convert to electricity (with limited efficiency) and then using that electricity to heat stuff (again, with limited efficiency). Then it's much better to burn the fossil fuel to directly heat stuff... And I don't think it's only Korean chefs that are worried, most professional kitchens use gas stoves.

scrollaway 4y ago
Removing local gas means removing a massive network of gas that leaks a lot. And yes it also means that it’s easier to go fully renewable down the supply chain, even if it’s not immediate. There are advantages to all this regardless. And for exceptional cases, it’s worth noting gas can be bought by the canister… this is how my mother uses her gas stove in Athens, no gas distribution network reaches her.
jl6 4y ago
> Then you'd better make sure that the electricity is 100% from renewable sources Yes, that is also the plan, and we can work on more than one thing at a time.
amluto 4y ago
Induction stoves are quite efficient. Gas stoves, perhaps counterintuitively, are not. This is mostly because the considerable majority of the heat from the flame goes around the pot without heating it. (A pot on a grate is a terrible heat exchanger.) So it is not obviously a loss to burn gas to make electricity and then to use that electricity to cook. It may even be a win. All of this ignores that electric cooking can use renewable sources and that gas fired plants can control NOx emissions.
- al_borland 4y ago
  I've been looking into replacing my terrible electric range with one that has induction burners. One consideration I saw when looking at comparisons was that electric and induction really require a flat bottom pan. If your pan is curved, you need gas to evenly heat it. So when it comes to something like a wok, you need gas. To eliminate gas is to eliminate the wok as a means of cooking.
  - wumpus 4y ago
    Sounds dire! But there are multiple solutions, and you can find a lot on the Internets about them.
  - amluto 4y ago
    For a wok, you need an actual electric wok, a special induction stove for woks [0] (of course this is a thing!), or gas. On the flip side, if you have a mediocre pan with a thick base but thin walls, an induction stove won’t heat the walls the way a gas stove would, which will reduce burning. [0] https://www.atcooker.com/products/commercial-induction-wok/ https://www.atcooker.com/products/commercial-induction-wok/ for example. I have no idea if this is any good.
    - al_borland 4y ago
      Interesting. I wonder if the law makers are looking at the environmental cost of producing all these new cooktops vs using what has already been produced. Kind of like the plastic Nalgene bottle you already own, and functions perfectly fine, is better for the environment than throwing it out to buy a new stainless steel bottle. Granted, the water bottle example doesn't require a fuel source for continued use.
      - amluto 4y ago
        Most of these laws are for new construction.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > This is mostly because the considerable majority of the heat from the flame goes around the pot without heating it. (A pot on a grate is a terrible heat exchanger.) I always wonder: Why aren't pots insulated? Just putting the lid on allows me to cut the flame ~~ 80%.
  - Kirby64 4y ago
    You want pots to conduct heat, not contain it. The closest comparison is cast iron which has a large mass, so heat ebbs and flows from it slowly (and, is more consistent). Insulation would mean you have an even harder time transferring heat to the pot, so it's not only worthless, it's actively bad.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      > Insulation would mean you have an even harder time transferring heat to the pot Obviously, insulate the sides and top.
  - amluto 4y ago
    You don’t want insulation — you want a heat exchanger. This product is actually quite effective: https://turbopot.com/ https://turbopot.com/
GoldenRacer 4y ago
I was trying to figure out how much CO2 burning natural gas creates to get a grasp of how big of an issue this is. I found a source claiming 116.65 pounds of CO2 per million BTU produced by burning natural gas. Even if we assume chefs have a really hot burner cooking at 20,000 BTU per hour, that's 2.3 pounds CO2 per hour. Add on a little more for the methane released (some sources say 1/3) if you want. Let's just round up to 3 pounds CO2 equivalent/hour cooking for what is likely an overestimation. If anyone has better estimates or sees an error in my math, I'd be happy to hear. Meanwhile producing a pound of beef causes 22 pounds of CO2 equivalent emissions. So, if you order a 16 oz steak that was cooked for 15 minutes on a gas stove, the stove was responsible for <3.5% of the emissions. So yeah, seems like a feel good measure that doesn't actually make much of a difference. But maybe that's the point? https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php
- wolverine876 4y ago
  The impact of something else doesn't change the impact of what you do. If someone hands you a $1 million check, you don't say 'this is nothing compared to a $1 billion check; I'm not going to cash it'. If you create an open source project, you don't say 'it's not Linux, so I'm going to abandon it'. It's an absurd rhetorical argument. Just cut the GHG where you can. This relative impact argument is the latest FUD, IMHO. It's incredible to see whoever come up with one reason after another to resist action on climate change, and then see everyone repeat it. Meanwhile, the world is warming up.
  - GoldenRacer 4y ago
    > Just cut the GHG where you can. I 100% agree and wasn't trying to discourage anyone from cutting where they can. I just think it's important to actually cut where you can and not make insignificant changes, pat yourself on the back, and call it a day. Imagine you had an employee that spent 7 hours a day browsing reddit 15 minutes a day smoking cigarettes and 45 minutes actually working. You approach them about wasting time and they respond "You know what boss, you're right. I'll cut out my smoke breaks." You'd be correct to tell them the 15 minutes of smoke breaks aren't the problem, the 7 hours on reddit is the problem! In the context of my above comment, if you really wanted to cut your CO2 production, you'd stop eating beef. Producing a pound of beans results in around 1 pound of CO2 emissions. When people start eating those instead of steak to cut their emissions, I'll start taking their desire to get rid of gas stoves seriously. Meanwhile, the world is warming up.
russdill 4y ago
LA is working towards a 100% carbon-neutral power grid by 2035.

by rob74 4y ago

scrollaway 4y ago

Removing local gas means removing a massive network of gas that leaks a lot. And yes it also means that it’s easier to go fully renewable down the supply chain, even if it’s not immediate. There are advantages to all this regardless. And for exceptional cases, it’s worth noting gas can be bought by the canister… this is how my mother uses her gas stove in Athens, no gas distribution network reaches her.

jl6 4y ago

> Then you'd better make sure that the electricity is 100% from renewable sources Yes, that is also the plan, and we can work on more than one thing at a time.

amluto 4y ago

Induction stoves are quite efficient. Gas stoves, perhaps counterintuitively, are not. This is mostly because the considerable majority of the heat from the flame goes around the pot without heating it. (A pot on a grate is a terrible heat exchanger.) So it is not obviously a loss to burn gas to make electricity and then to use that electricity to cook. It may even be a win. All of this ignores that electric cooking can use renewable sources and that gas fired plants can control NOx emissions.

al_borland 4y ago
I've been looking into replacing my terrible electric range with one that has induction burners. One consideration I saw when looking at comparisons was that electric and induction really require a flat bottom pan. If your pan is curved, you need gas to evenly heat it. So when it comes to something like a wok, you need gas. To eliminate gas is to eliminate the wok as a means of cooking.
- wumpus 4y ago
  Sounds dire! But there are multiple solutions, and you can find a lot on the Internets about them.
- amluto 4y ago
  For a wok, you need an actual electric wok, a special induction stove for woks [0] (of course this is a thing!), or gas. On the flip side, if you have a mediocre pan with a thick base but thin walls, an induction stove won’t heat the walls the way a gas stove would, which will reduce burning. [0] https://www.atcooker.com/products/commercial-induction-wok/ https://www.atcooker.com/products/commercial-induction-wok/ for example. I have no idea if this is any good.
  - al_borland 4y ago
    Interesting. I wonder if the law makers are looking at the environmental cost of producing all these new cooktops vs using what has already been produced. Kind of like the plastic Nalgene bottle you already own, and functions perfectly fine, is better for the environment than throwing it out to buy a new stainless steel bottle. Granted, the water bottle example doesn't require a fuel source for continued use.
    - amluto 4y ago
      Most of these laws are for new construction.
wolverine876 4y ago
> This is mostly because the considerable majority of the heat from the flame goes around the pot without heating it. (A pot on a grate is a terrible heat exchanger.) I always wonder: Why aren't pots insulated? Just putting the lid on allows me to cut the flame ~~ 80%.
- Kirby64 4y ago
  You want pots to conduct heat, not contain it. The closest comparison is cast iron which has a large mass, so heat ebbs and flows from it slowly (and, is more consistent). Insulation would mean you have an even harder time transferring heat to the pot, so it's not only worthless, it's actively bad.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    > Insulation would mean you have an even harder time transferring heat to the pot Obviously, insulate the sides and top.
- amluto 4y ago
  You don’t want insulation — you want a heat exchanger. This product is actually quite effective: https://turbopot.com/ https://turbopot.com/

GoldenRacer 4y ago

I was trying to figure out how much CO2 burning natural gas creates to get a grasp of how big of an issue this is. I found a source claiming 116.65 pounds of CO2 per million BTU produced by burning natural gas. Even if we assume chefs have a really hot burner cooking at 20,000 BTU per hour, that's 2.3 pounds CO2 per hour. Add on a little more for the methane released (some sources say 1/3) if you want. Let's just round up to 3 pounds CO2 equivalent/hour cooking for what is likely an overestimation. If anyone has better estimates or sees an error in my math, I'd be happy to hear. Meanwhile producing a pound of beef causes 22 pounds of CO2 equivalent emissions. So, if you order a 16 oz steak that was cooked for 15 minutes on a gas stove, the stove was responsible for <3.5% of the emissions. So yeah, seems like a feel good measure that doesn't actually make much of a difference. But maybe that's the point? https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php

wolverine876 4y ago
The impact of something else doesn't change the impact of what you do. If someone hands you a $1 million check, you don't say 'this is nothing compared to a $1 billion check; I'm not going to cash it'. If you create an open source project, you don't say 'it's not Linux, so I'm going to abandon it'. It's an absurd rhetorical argument. Just cut the GHG where you can. This relative impact argument is the latest FUD, IMHO. It's incredible to see whoever come up with one reason after another to resist action on climate change, and then see everyone repeat it. Meanwhile, the world is warming up.
- GoldenRacer 4y ago
  > Just cut the GHG where you can. I 100% agree and wasn't trying to discourage anyone from cutting where they can. I just think it's important to actually cut where you can and not make insignificant changes, pat yourself on the back, and call it a day. Imagine you had an employee that spent 7 hours a day browsing reddit 15 minutes a day smoking cigarettes and 45 minutes actually working. You approach them about wasting time and they respond "You know what boss, you're right. I'll cut out my smoke breaks." You'd be correct to tell them the 15 minutes of smoke breaks aren't the problem, the 7 hours on reddit is the problem! In the context of my above comment, if you really wanted to cut your CO2 production, you'd stop eating beef. Producing a pound of beans results in around 1 pound of CO2 emissions. When people start eating those instead of steak to cut their emissions, I'll start taking their desire to get rid of gas stoves seriously. Meanwhile, the world is warming up.

russdill 4y ago

LA is working towards a 100% carbon-neutral power grid by 2035.