They say all residential stoves in the US emit GHG equivalent to 500,000 cars.
There are 276 million cars in the US. So, this problem is about 1/500 of the car problem. If you eliminated all stoves today (eliminate, not replace with induction), you would make an impact equivalent to reducing driving by 0.2%.
Of course it only applies to new construction. If it disincentivizes construction, that's widely considered a feature, not a bug. California is the Land of Unintended Consequences.
Pretty much every argument I have read in this post boils down to "electric is better" but crucially ignores a) the idea that preferences are individual, and b) even accepting something as universally "better" doesn't mean we ought to legislate it across an entire group of people (AKA centrally plan the economy).
One person’s “centrally planned economy” is another person’s “managing negative externalities”
A lot of the “electric is better” posts have an implied “gas stoves are bad for people and the environment so we should get rid of them but it’s fine because electric is better anyway”.
Negative externalities would ideally just be handled through proportional taxation. Then market incentives work it out. Taxes are used to clean up the externalities.
It currently costs $600 to permanently remove one ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. How many percent of the United States' CO2 emissions are subjected to this level of CO2 tax, along with similar import taxes to avoid shifting emissions to locales with no tax?
Using $600 per ton of co2 across a 2000mi commercial flight with 150 passengers emitting 50lbs of co2 per mile, that works out to a tax of $200 per passenger (each way). Would double the price of a typical ticket
Electric pollutes less. Electric induction has a faster response. Electric is more energy efficient. Electric doesn't require a separate line and utility run to the house. Electric boils water faster. Electric produces less greenhouse gasses.
I mean, there's subjectively better ("I prefer to cook with it") but there are objectively better traits too.
Imagine if someone told you you had to marry someone other than your wife, because your wife’s genes are more likely to produce disabled offspring that would place a great burden on the social safety net.
Oh wait, were you trying to say that forced divorce and remarriage is the same thing as "this other type of cooking tool should be used instead of the one you are familiar with"?
I was a professional cook and baker for 4 years. I've worked in several kitchens, and I've got a wide variety of commercial grade cookware in my kitchen including multiple ranges, ovens, torches, and countertop units.
My friend, I cook more and better than most.
Maybe you have no idea what an electric induction unit is? You sure you aren't thinking of the round red coils?
The problem with "just let individuals choose" arguments is that our population seems to be extremely opposed to taxes that counteract externalities. Of course we should let people choose, but when their choice harms others we have to either charge them more or force them into making a different choice. I'd prefer taxes, but bans seem much easier politically.
This relates to a difficult topic, which is: should modern civilization be 100% carbon neutral?
Some things are inherently difficult to make electric, yet we need them to have what we'd call a "modern civilization". Planes are the biggest one: there is a drive to use more trains instead of planes, but should we give that up? It is definitely a step backwards in civilization, as large parts of the world are now impossible to go to and from. Some people admonish flight tourism as hedonistic and say it harms the planet: but should people not be allowed to travel intercontinentally? Is that the world we want?
I believe the investment in carbon capture and greenhouse gases abatement should be increased. Not just because we'll not meet our climate goals and need a way to clean our atmosphere, but because even if we do we still need some things that burn fossil fuels (possibly for hundreds of years).
In that sense, if all of our energy grid was renewable, heavy industries didn't burn coal, and all cars were also electric, would it matter that we have gas stoves and other modern conveniences? Maybe not.
I don't think that this is relevant at all in the context of this discussion - electric cooking methods - particularly induction - are superior to gas in essentially every way, shape or form - barring the production of wok hei, which is why the article stresses that so much, while conveniently leaving out all the massive downsides of gas stoves.
Gas stoves are also generally used by gas companies to get gas lines drawn into buildings, so that they can easily sell gas to the bigger consumer of gas - heating. And indeed, in this aspect too, gas is _vastly_ inferior to modern heating technologies such as heat pumps.
There is no real convenience trade-off when it comes to gas. It's time for it to die, permanently.
Gas is very efficient. If you have the choice of burning gas at a power station (which is how a lot of electricity is generated now a days) and piping it directly into people's homes for the end goal of generating heat, piping wins every time. The inefficiencies of converting gas to electricity and transporting that electricity are significant and well known.
Additionally, I don't know how anyone who has cooked on gas and electric can claim electric is superior. I will grant that a very good electric (ie, induction) _might_ be superior to a very bad gas, but I have used a lot of examples of each and I would choose gas every time (and to demonstrate I am not ideological about this, I always prefer electric ovens over gas).
Heat pumps are also a vastly overrated technology which only work for very well insulated houses with an HVAC system which keeps the rooms ventilated artificially.
I am big on electrification - I'm a Tesla shareholder - but the carbon benefits of electric heating over gas are minute. The Green agenda should avoid battles where the perceived detriment to people's quality of life vastly exceeds the provable environmental benefit.
Burning gas on a stove to heat food is about 40% efficient. Induction is about 85% efficient. Modern CCGT is about 60% efficient. So converting the energy contained in natural gas into electricity in a large CCGT plant and then cooking with the electricity is more efficient than piping the gas to a home and burning it there.
More importantly for me is that, you don't pollute your breathing air with the byproducts of combusting gas indoors in your home - particular nitrous oxides and fine particulates.
A study by Natural Resources Canada found that cold climate air source heat pumps (CC-ASHPs) work in Canadian winters, based on testing in Ottawa (Ontario) in late December 2012 to early January 2013 using a ducted CC-ASHP. (The report does not explicitly state whether backup heat sources should be considered for temperatures below −30 °C. The record low for Ottawa is −36 °C.) The CC-ASHP provided 60% energy savings compared to natural gas (in energy units).[10] When considering energy efficiency in electricity generation however, more energy would be used with the CC-ASHP, relative to natural gas heating, in provinces or territories (Alberta, Nova Scotia, and the Northwest Territories) where coal-fired generation was the predominant method of electricity generation. (The energy savings in Saskatchewan were marginal. Other provinces use primarily hydroelectric and/or nuclear generation.) Despite the significant energy savings relative to gas in provinces not relying primarily on coal, the higher cost of electricity relative to natural gas (using 2012 retail prices in Ottawa, Ontario) made natural gas the less expensive energy source.
> Additionally, I don't know how anyone who has cooked on gas and electric can claim electric is superior
In addition to all the other responses you've received disputing technical aspects of your post, I'd just like to comment on this one. I've used both extensively (coil, solid resistive, halogen, and infrared for electric, and both bottled and piped for gas), and I far prefer an induction or even a coil stove over gas for everything except for wok. For example, I currently live in a place with a gas stove, and if I want to boil water quickly, I will put 1.7 litres in an electric kettle and 0.3 in a large pot on an appropriately sized burner. By the time the 1500W kettle boils, the water in the pot on the gas stove is ~80°C.
> Heat pumps are also a vastly overrated technology which only work for very well insulated houses with an HVAC system which keeps the rooms ventilated artificially
I live in a Japanese apartment (=absolutely terribly insulated, single pane glass, drafty as hell) and our minisplits work way better than any resistive heating we've tried. The only other heaters we use are radiant heaters to heat your body quickly if you don't need to heat the rest of the room.
I don't see how "method that heats air using less energy" can be worse than "method that heard air using more energy". Both are just heating air.
> If you have the choice of burning gas at a power station (which is how a lot of electricity is generated now a days) and piping it directly into people's homes for the end goal of generating heat, piping wins every time.
That’s factually wrong.
> I will grant that a very good electric (ie, induction)
This sentence doesn’t make sense. Resistive and induction cooktops have nothing in common. One is not a good version of the other. It’s a completely different experience. The fact that you don’t seem aware of this seriously hinders your comment.
> Heat pumps are also a vastly overrated technology which only work for very well insulated houses with an HVAC system which keeps the rooms ventilated artificially.
Well that's weird. I live in 1875 adobe house with no HVAC system other than my wall-mounted minisplits. The house is poorly insulated (adobe has high thermal mass but is a very poor insulator, plus lots of leaky windows and roof construction details). The heat pumps kept us warm during this last winter's 5F overnights.
I think most of your counterpoints have been entirely disproven by other posters, but I'll chip in a few more points
>Gas is very efficient. If you have the choice of burning gas at a power station (which is how a lot of electricity is generated now a days) and piping it directly into people's homes for the end goal of generating heat, piping wins every time. The inefficiencies of converting gas to electricity and transporting that electricity are significant and well nown.
This is only true for an energy mix using 100% gas, which is dumb, outdated and rapidly vanishing. Given the very small efficiency difference in gas -> stove to gas -> electricity -> induction, as soon as you have merely a few percentages of renewables, gas becomes the clear loser. The more of the grid we move to renewables, the more gas loses out, and the trend towards renewables is undeniable merely on the economics of it.
That's only covering the cooking-case. Heat pumps are several times more efficient than gas heating down to very low temperatures, I'm really not sure how you can be so wrong on the facts for that point.
>Additionally, I don't know how anyone who has cooked on gas and electric can claim electric is superior. I will grant that a very good electric (ie, induction) _might be superior to a very bad gas, but have used a lot of examples of each and would choose gas every time (and to demonstrate am not ideological about this, always prefer electric ovens over gas).
Whatever small preference people at large have for gas cooking is dwarfed entirely by the list pf drawbacks it has, and that's not even involving the environmental aspects - completely wrecking your indoor air quality is enough of a reason to disregard gas cooking as a technology entirely. Having to risk gas leaks is another aspect that is bafflingly dumb.
>Heat pumps are also a vastly overrated technology which only work for very well insulated houses with an HVAC system which keeps the rooms ventilated artificially.
You very clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
>l am big on electrification - I'm a Tesla shareholder. but the carbon benefits of electric heating over gas are minute. The Green agenda should avoid battles where the perceived detriment to people's quality of life vastly exceeds the provable environmental benefit.
'The Green agenda' - jesus christ.
Any imagined quality-of-life difference between gas cooking and induction is trivial nonsense.
Civilization can and must be climate gas neutral. Can be accomplished through massive build-out of geological-time CO2 sequestering, financed with global taxes on greenhouse gas emissions and international agreements to the same effect.
End-state will still have lots of economic processes that require releasing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, even new or novel ones. But these will be offset by the sequestering paid by their taxation.
Taxes will shift greenhouse gas emissions to no-emission alternatives where that's practical and desirable, probably meaning most of them in the end.
I am convinced that fundamental changes are required in the economy for us to solve climate change. I recently watched a video about carbon offsets by growing trees and it is basically fraud.
You know, using terra preta for soil improvement would generate basically infinite demand bio char which can then be sequestered into the soil.
If you wanted to get carbon out of the atmosphere this would not only sequester carbon, it would also improve the soil and reduce the need for synthetics in conventional farming.
There is no way this will happen. If we had the right economic system we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
Why would this disincentivize construction? If anything, building a home without gas infrastructure should be cheaper. Lower building costs. One less utility meter to be installed. Reduced "impact" charges. Assuming it doesn't lead to a decrease in new home demand vs older homes with gas, this should be a boon to the construction industry.
I've yet to live in an apartment/house that actually had a gas stove.
No one I know made gas a criterion when house/apartment hunting. They use whatever the place has. When leaving a place with a gas stove, none of them cared if the new place would be electric or gas.
On the flip side, I know quite a few people that exclude places with gas stoves when hunting for housing, because they're used to electric and are worried about fires (never mind if their worry is reasonable or not).
So I've definitely met more people who insist on electric than on gas.
Gas and (real) rangetop extraction are definitely things that I consider, but I do love to cook. An inductive stove-top would be fine, but a resistive one would be a huge negative for me.
I would prefer gas over regular electric for kitchen stove and range. I like having a gas water heater, although I understand there are more expensive electric units that end up being more efficient, and that is appealing. I would like to have a gas clothes dryer vs. electric, but don't have the option.
Regular electric ranges typically do not perform as well for cooking. They can be better for cleaning and aesthetics, e.g. smooth top ranges are attractive and easy to clean, but most everyone I've ever talked to who actually likes to cook prefers gas ranges because they can get hotter and are better at temperature control. I don't know if I've ever talked to someone who cares about electric vs. gas ovens though, and I am not sure that either would necessarily have a performance advantage over the other.
Induction ranges are a very appealing subset of electric, but tend to require beefier circuits than most people have running to their kitchen; I've pointed out in other conversations that older houses in the US often don't have the panel capacity to retrofit without also replacing the panel. Induction is also not compatible with aluminum, copper, or glass cookware, which may comprise the majority of cookware in the US (just a guess).
I would agree that most people don't care about this, and will use whatever they have.
> I've ever talked to someone who cares about electric vs. gas ovens though, and I am not sure that either would necessarily have a performance advantage over the other.
Actually lots of people care about gas versus electric ovens. If you look at high end ranges, “dual-fuel” is the product category name which is gas stove with electric oven.
One reason why chefs prefer electric ovens, or rather why gas ovens are not preferable is that gas contains humidity. That additional moisture is desirable at times, but not always. On the very high end, an electric oven with a steam reservoir allows the chef to control the humidity. For instance, you can bake bread with steam for a soft rise and finish with no humidity for a crunchy crust. I’ve never seen a steam oven fueled by gas, but I haven’t sought one out. If this has peaked anyone’s interest Anova makes a countertop steam oven that’s great - previously this was only available on commercial equipment and the fanciest home ovens.
> I like having a gas water heater, although I understand there are more expensive electric units that end up being more efficient, and that is appealing.
Oh for sure - for heating the house and water, I prefer gas. At least where I live it's more cost effective than electric. In fact, my electric bill in my 1 bedroom apartment (all heating was electric) was just a tad lower than my gas + electric when I moved into a much bigger house.
And of course, gas fireplaces. Once you get used to it, you can't imagine life without it. Electric heaters are horrible in comparison.
My comment was really just about cooking as that is what the parent was referring to.
> I prefer gas. At least where I live it's more cost effective than electric. In fact, my electric bill in my 1 bedroom apartment (all heating was electric) was just a tad lower than my gas + electric when I moved into a much bigger house.
Doesn't this prove the opposite of your point that gas is more cost-effective than electricity? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but the last sentence seems to illustrate that electricity is more cost-efficient.
> Induction ranges are a very appealing subset of electric, but tend to require beefier circuits than most people have running to their kitchen;
Resistive electric ranges almost always require a 240V circuit, and unless you go for a high-end (high output) induction unit, the most that might be required is a new breaker in the panel.
I've only lived in apartments that have had had gas ranges or connections in Philly, Tokyo, and Chicago.
The biggest annoyance after my latest move was that every single apartment had flat top electric ranges so I didn't even have option of preferring apartments with gas ranges.
What about induction? The choice isn't gas vs electric anymore. Induction cooktops are night and day different from the old glowing rings style electric cooktops (which are terrible, agreed.)
I personally insist on gas for cooking currently. I also insist on having multiple power sources in a house I buy. And that's helped with the wind storms that knock electric offline every year here in the PNW.
I like cooking with gas, I've had electric and induction as well.
My preference for electric (although not a dealbreaker, my condo has a gas stove) is solely because they're so much easier to clean. Having an entirely flat stovetop is very relaxing.
> Having an entirely flat stovetop is very relaxing.
That sounds like an induction stovetop (which is electric). Those are nice and becoming more common, but they cost more. The majority of electric stove top ranges are like this:
If people prefer gas that much then existing homes will be more highly valued. That does not change the equation for everyone that's already priced out of existing properties.
Considering the extreme shortage of housing inventory in our most prosperous cities I doubt gas hookups kill any projects.
And we seem to be throwing away the best opportunity that we've ever had to reduce driving quite significantly - by giving up on WFH and forcing people to commute again.
The issue wasn't cutting down trees. We've had notions of managed forests fro thousands of years. The problem was that we were now Clear Cutting an entire forest to a barren flatland. Those wouldn't return to forest for years if ever and represented huge habitat loss the local flora and fauna.
Actually, most of the interest I see is in the indoor air quality impact rather than in the global environmental impact.
Gas stoves emitting particulates wasn't a big deal back when houses were drafty as hell. However, now that everything is sealed up for insulation, indoor air quality is a much bigger deal.
And gas stoves are terrible for indoor air quality.
The thing is - when you get rid of gas stoves you can get rid of almost all other gas appliances. That’s literally the only thing keeping gas in most homes in the USA and continued in new construction.
When you add in gas water heaters, heating, etc. then gas becomes a more significant contributor to GHG. Whereas switching all of those with heatpumps and induction cuts off the gas lobby from fucking with everyone.
Best way to get gas lobby to stop winning? Get rid of gas stoves. Climate Town has a good video on this subject. https://youtu.be/hX2aZUav-54
I love the "invasive species" analogy, but it's just colorful BS.
> This follows two decades in which Walmart’s super-charged growth left small-town retail in shambles. By building massive, oversized supercenters in larger towns, Walmart found it could attract customers from a wide radius. Smaller towns in the vicinity often suffered the brunt of its impact as their Main Street retailers weakened and, in many cases, closed.
> Today the dollar chains are capitalizing on these conditions, much like an invasive species advancing on a compromised ecosystem.
Shouldn't it be harder to open a dollar store now that there's both an independent grocer and a Walmart? Who knows? Without facts, it's just whatever narrative supports the author's worldview.
I do believe in food deserts. But the simpler explanation is that fresh produce is more expensive than processed food, and stores specializing in expensive things don't do well in poor areas.
Fresh food isn’t just more expensive, but it’s also harder to handle and stock. Processed food comes in neat packaging that can be unit priced, and kept frozen or shelf-stable for long period of time.
Remember those guys last year who would drive around buying up all the masks, selling them online for 10x? You don't know why everybody hated them? This is why:
The original seller has a reputation to protect and doesn't want to be seen as taking advantage. Maybe it's a musician who would rather sell to kids who are willing to wait in line than to whoever has the most money. Maybe a pharmacy selling masks in 2020. The arbitrage opportunity is for somebody with no reputation or scruples, who chooses to see themselves as just an Angel of the Free Market. To everyone else, he's a jerk.
I like to call this line of thinking "capitalist determinism". Basically, if there is money to be made, it must be made. Letting any other concern interfere with this extracting of value is silly, or unnatural - even immoral.
People talk about it in these detached terms, call it laws of economics and say that it is something that happens naturally. But of course, when one remembers that these so-called laws of economics describes interactions between people, and that you always can choose what kind of influence you want to have on the world.
Those are the ugliest monitors I've ever seen. I thought all monitors were basically boring rectangles. No, apparently there are monitors with weird designs on them and shrouds.
> “It was more happenstance than actual foresight that those companies would end up getting worse,” said Keith Gangl, portfolio manager for Gradient Investments
Sounds like sour grapes to me. I imagine this is the line this guy is feeding all his investors when they ask why they're paying him 1% and getting beat by the S&P.
I decided about two years ago try to make a lot of pizza and see how good I could get. I live in a small apartment with a gas oven. When I started, I would make them on a regular baking pan with the oven set to 400°. They were terrible, but it was fun. At some point, my wife jammed a rectangular grilling stone (from Amazon) into our broiler. That made more of a difference than anything. If your broiler is in the main compartment of your oven, then it's a lot easier: get a stone and put it on the highest rack.
The next big leap forward was reading Jeff Varasano and learning the basics of hydration. Turns out I was in the 45-50% range. I just needed to get that into the 62% or 65% range or whatever he says. It's counterintuitive because it's so hard to knead at that hydration, but it cooks beautifully.
I've started doing a long, cold rise like he recommends. I don't know how much difference it makes. I can't really taste a difference. But I do appreciate the goal of avoiding big bubbles.
I'd love to play with different yeasts next, but I keep killing my starters. Jeff has some good thoughts on starters. I like his recommendation to buy a known starter rather than relying on whatever is in your environment. I like the focus on predictability and reproducibility. But I think most people do wild yeast with good results. I think the Tartine book is also a good resource for the starter (and for a lot of things).
The best successes I've had for making a starter (I've done 3 or 4 by this point) is with rye flour. Once it gets going I switch out the flours gradually and it's been good. If you haven't used rye before, might be worth a shot.
A cordite stone will work well against the broiler. But as with any stone, you're going to want to hit it up slowly to reduce breakage. I'd recommend at least 40m heat up to whatever your oven's top temp is (probably 550), then switching to broiler after that point.
I was also thrown off by the "the HN mobile web app" and thought it was official. I came to the comments to say, "could you please set the viewport on the regular website and save me the need for an app?", which I still want to say, but not to a third-party developer.
But really, that looks great. Love the attention to detail! I like mobile web approaches a lot. And getting that native look and feel seems to be a big reason (sometimes unspoken) why clients don't want to use the browser. Nice to see some effort put into breaking down that barrier.
