45 ms·
The claim: reduces CO₂e emissions by up to 80%* The asterisk: water boiling phase excluded When I boil pasta, I use full heat to get the water boiling, drop i
by unpythonic 4y ago
The claim: reduces CO₂e emissions by up to 80%*
The asterisk: water boiling phase excluded
When I boil pasta, I use full heat to get the water boiling, drop in the pasta, then let it come back up to a boil, then drop the temperature as low as possible to keep a slow boil going--about medium-low.
Guesstimating that the boil takes about as long as the time to cook the pasta, I'd say that the pasta cooking portion only takes up about 1/3 of the energy of the total (cold pot to cooked pasta).
The 80% savings only covers the pasta cooking phase, so overall, it's only saving 4/15 or 27% (roughly). If you use a lot more water, then that initial boil time further reduces your savings.
- jansan 4y agoGuesstimating that the boil takes about as long as the time to cook the pasta, You need an new stove. Edit: or a new pot
- wcarron 4y agoBringing 5+ quarts of water to a boil takes a lot of energy. Hell, it takes my jetboil 90s-120s to boil low-temp water in like...1 quart quantities. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a large pot of water takes 8-10 minutes to bring to a rolling boil.
- CrazyStat 4y agoYou don't need to cook pasta in a lot of water. Just enough to cover the pasta is fine.
- Cupertino95014 4y agoRight. And in fact, it's better that way. There's more starch in the water, which makes it more useful when you add some to the sauce in your sauce pan. What, you don't finish your pasta by heating it with the sauce??? Hang your head in shame.
- VectorLock 4y agoOr just cook your pasta in the sauce.
- froh 4y agono. they shamelessly pan fry pasta. (and rinse them briefly with fresh water to get rid of the starch and stop the cooking for bite. also works just perfect with a low amount of water)
- denton-scratch 4y agoMore than a gallon? That's a big batch of spaghetti - it stands to reason that if you're feeding a great multitude, there's going to be a cost in cooking fuel.
- seized 4y agoOr he is stuck with an electric coil stove that he can't replace. Those suck.
- jiggawatts 4y agoA better way to save energy is to use an electric kettle to get the water up to boiling. This is about three times as energy-efficient as a gas hob. Combined with passive cooking it could save real money… Technology Connections on YouTube has a good video about how electric kettles are the superior way to boil water: https://youtu.be/_yMMTVVJI4c https://youtu.be/_yMMTVVJI4c
- jp0d 4y agoThis is not just efficient but also saves a lot of time. I do this with rice/pasta or anything that requires boiling. Also, using a pressure cooker can save a lot of time/energy with foods like legumes/meats etc.
- grvdrm 4y ago+1 for pressure cooker. I use mine twice a week or so. For just about anything since there are so many recipes online. And less clean up!
- AaronFriel 4y agoAlec, of the Technology Connections YouTube channel, shows it's not just energy saving, but faster and cleaner. Even with US outlet power limits a kettle will boil a volume of water much more quickly than a gas stovetop, and my indoor CO2 sensor won't spike by hundreds to a thousand PPM of CO2. While the time savings is modest, if you have an electric kettle it's a no brainer to prefer that over gas. Though induction stovetops can be faster yet, and just as clean.
- ghayes 4y agoThe claim is weird, though. If they said “just add to boiling water and turn off immediately” then they would claim it’s 100% more efficient*. If you turn off your water right before it’s boiling and cook your pasta, then Barilla is an energy generator*.
- selcuka 4y agoActually reverse cycle air conditioners are said to have a heating efficiency of over 100%, but what they really do is to move the heat from one point to another. It's all about definitions; if you define the system as your room, it will be more than 100% efficient. If your system is the universe, then it's always 100%. By the same logic, yes, your hypothetical statement can be rephrased as "if you already have boiling water, cooking pasta doesn't require any energy".
- hn_throwaway_99 4y agoBut the whole point is that Barilla's definition is ludicrous. The only definition that really makes sense is how much energy did it take to get the pasta from the box to my plate, and Barilla is excluding the vast majority of that energy in their 80% number for the sole purpose of inflating it to make it look better.
- selcuka 4y agoBarilla's definition is ludicrous, and I'm playing the Devil's advocate. > The only definition that really makes sense is how much energy did it take to get the pasta from the box to my plate Including the energy required (and the carbon footprint) to manufacture the pasta in the first place, yes? Or no?
- harg 4y agono, because we're only comparing the energy required to cook the pasta; not the whole lifecycle.
- simondotau 4y ago
- p1necone 4y agoThis is a bizarre thing to put in the fine print. They're literally just excluding most of the cooking process from their calculation and I can't see any reason why other than to artificially inflate the efficiency stat.
- pkulak 4y agoAlso probably assuming gas. Induction would take another 90% off.
- nephanth 4y agoActually since they're using percentage, it doesn't matter
- x0x0 4y agoYou can also use a lot less water than is standard: just enough to cover the noodles. Kenji Lopez-Alt has written about this a bunch [1]. Noodles cooked that way were indistinguishable in his testing. He's also discussed it on his cooking youtube channel, which I recommend to anyone. For example, a 3-ingredient macaroni and cheese [2] in which he discusses the noodles at 0:40-ish. [1] https://www.seriouseats.com/how-to-cook-pasta-salt-water-boiling-tips-the-food-lab https://www.seriouseats.com/how-to-cook-pasta-salt-water-boi... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWge-2jT9ZQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWge-2jT9ZQ
- wbeckler 4y agoKenji's 3-ingredient mac and cheese is a masterpiece. It's become the go-to meal for my kids. It also has to be the peak in energy efficiency for pasta. The idea is that by minimizing the water you can maximize the starchiness of the water, which creates a great emulsifier for the cheese sauce, along with evaporated milk. The combo is truly creamy mac and cheese, with no grittiness or separation of oils. It tastes great, it's faster than Kraft, it's energy efficient, it's easy to learn (literally 3 ingredients plus water). It also has easy-to remember-units (6 oz pasta, 6 oz cheese, 6 fl oz evap milk). The evap milk amount perfectly divides the USA standard 12 fl oz evap milk can. Kenji has tweaked the ergonomics of scratch mac and cheese light years ahead of where it was.
- SamBam 4y agoWe use the recipe all the time too, but I can't understand it being given in 6oz proportions. None of the ingredients, except maybe some cheeses, come in 6oz sizes standard. I do a 16oz box of pasta, 12 oz can of evaporated milk, and 16oz bag of shredded cheese. I put the milk and cheese in while there's a bit more water still in the pan, and have never missed the extra bit of evaporated milk.
- nephanth 4y agoAnd you even get pasta water way more concentrated in starch, which is useful if you're using it to make a sauce
- ekianjo 4y agoThe claim smelled bullshit from the get go. Boiling water takes much longer than cooking the pasta.
- quickthrower2 4y agoThe asterisk always means bullshit.
- ephbit 4y ago> When I boil pasta, I use full heat to get the water boiling, drop in the pasta, then let it come back up to a boil, then drop the temperature as low as possible to keep a slow boil going--about medium-low. Do you put a lid on the pot? If not, you're running a reboiler. If you were to do that in a region of the earth and season of the year where you have to heat your place you'd probably be wasting double. Because the additional moisture from evaporation has to be removed from your place later through ventilation. It always baffles me how many people don't care/know just how much less energy they could use to achieve the exact same result, just by putting a lid on.
- sirnicolaz 4y agoYou can actually really turn off the stove after the water starts boiling again. As long as you of course keep the lit on. That's how I have been doing it for a while, no dramatic difference in the end result (and yeah I am Italian, so I tend to complain about the details in food related matters).