Almost every day, I use three different types of range: gas, induction, and radiant electric. Of the three, gas would be the hardest to give up. My most-used pieces of cookware are small aluminum pots that are not magnetic (and thus not induction capable), and even if they were, too small to work on my induction cooktop, which doesn't recognize any magnetic base of less than about six inches in diameter.
I use the induction cooktop for slow cooking, boiling, and pressure cooking. Everything else gets put on gas if I have room. Nothing beats gas for output and control.
I could certainly do just fine on radiant or, god forbid, coils. But the gas and induction together are a huge luxury that I feel grateful for every time I use them.
One under-appreciated advantage of a gas range is how evenly it heats pans of lesser quality. Because so much of the heating on gas is accomplished by the flow of hot "exhaust" gas across the entire bottom of the pan, a thinner and less thermally conductive pan will still heat much more evenly than it would on an electric coil or induction hob.
EDIT:
I'm definitely on board the energy efficiency bandwagon. I have a four kilowatt solar array on my house, and I drive a twenty five year old Honda minivan because of the mileage and low upkeep.
If I thought gas cooking was a low hanging fruit on the efficiency tree, I might be more willing to give up the luxury of it. But from what I've seen it's not. It's rather like the highest gas-powered fruit on the tree.
I couldn't give up induction now and I have used gas plenty. FWIW, my induction handles 4-11" and I had no pans that were not induction-compatible, but that might depend on where you live I guess.
> Nothing beats gas for output
Yeah, maybe if you have a huge wok burner? my induction boils water substantially quicker than any gas stove I have used.
Yeah, that statement was confusing I guess. Same as you, my induction hob boils water in a suitable pot faster than my largest gas hob.
The largest gas hob I've ever used is 20,000 BTU/hr. It will heat up a saucier faster and more evenly than any electric or induction hob could hope to, but that's partly due to the pan's narrow base, and to the way I use it. It doesn't often sit on a hob for very long.
Have you tried using steel adapter plates to use the aluminium cookware on induction? The only thing I miss is not being able to use a Moka pot (there are induction versions, but they are usually 4+ servings - I find the single serving versions produce better coffee).
Here in Europe induction is everywhere, so maybe finding good cookware is easier than the US. Last year I got a 8cm (3") pot for boiling milk and beans from the supermarket for €15 that works perfectly on induction.
I use a plate adapter from Bialetti to do Moka pot on my induction range, it was a bit pricey at 20€ but it looks good and does the job.
I also ended up buying the Bialetti induction Moka but for a place that turned out to actually have the evil Ceran electric top… still worked obviously. It’s expensive but AFAICT the only one that’s induction friendly and also has the standard Bialetti interior shape, which I find much easier to clean. Also it’s gorgeous.
However, I do get a pretty serious caffeine high off the larger dose.
And yet, a copper pan will not heat on an induction cooktop.
For almost all induction cooktops, cookware must be made of a magnetic ferrous material in order to be compatible. This is why induction-compatible aluminum pans have a disc of magnetic steel impact-bonded to the base.
Do you really like radiant better than electric coils? To me it takes too long to heat up, has poor temperature control, and hurts you if a pan isn't fully covering the burner. It seems like it's made for people optimizing for their stove to be "easy to clean". What am I missing?
But for new houses it doesn’t make sense to spend thousands to install something that will needs to start being phased out. A heat pump water heater and home heating but still installing gas lines for cooking is probably not super economic.
The efficiency of gas is more than the btu of gas to equivalent electric. Gas produces pollutants that must be removed from the house. The higher exhaust rate will remove more conditioned air than an equivalent electric would.
Well, its seems unexplainable, but did you found the gas food tastes much better than other medium? In china and many asian countries, they do believe this thing.
LOL, I wouldn't say I need anything. I can make hollandaise in a tin can. I'm just giving my perspective as a long-time user of these very different tools.
We're talking about something that accounts for less than half a percent of total natural gas use right now. This will have no measurable effect on CO2 emissions.
Right? All the can't "give up heating my beans" sarcasm makes you wonder if we've all become so bought in to our candidates that we just accept our politicians BS blindly. Does anyone fact check anything?
As ylermenezes mentioned cooking accounts for less than half a percent of total natural gas. So, no, we don't need to start somewhere. We need to start where it makes a difference.
60% of US electricity is generated from fossil fuels (1). 40% of that is from Natural Gas. 20% from Coal which produces almost twice the carbon as Natural Gas.
And (2) says 60% of that energy is lost in conversion. So, converting from natural gas to electricity would actually increase carbon emissions in many parts of the US.
So, where should we start? I'm not an expert, but just this quick analysis says decreasing the amount of fossil fuels used for US generation would be a much better choice.
Sure we're about to go bankrupt, but it would really be inconvenient to give up my Starbuck's latte every morning. Don't you know how bland regular coffee is? And my Starbuck's only accounts for less than half a percent of my wasteful spending.
I don't think that's a very good analogy. A consistent latte habit can easily cost a few thousand dollars per year, which is likely to be a significant portion of discretionary spending for anyone under threat of personal bankruptcy.
In contrast, less than 3% of residential gas usage goes to cooking, according to TFA.
Now, if you were to assert that poor people shouldn't even buy Starbucks once a week, that might be a more apt analogy, although I would question the effectiveness of that advice.
Like I said earlier, I drive a 1995 Honda minivan, because the mileage and low upkeep probably constitute the greatest environmental impact I can make at my income level.
What, if I may ask, are you do doing to minimize your impact?
It's not just cooking, it's residential and business natural gas use period, as stated in TFA ("phasing out natural-gas hookups to homes and businesses to reduce carbon emissions.")
It sucks, but it is something that has to be done if we are going to avoid catastrophe, unless someone invents really effective carbon capture.
My personal habits are irrelevant, but I'm in a deregulated energy state and pay extra for 100% renewable/carbon-offset power, and I don't have a natural gas hookup.
Right, the article is just playing up the most inflammatory aspect of gas bans.
But IMO, a better way forward would be to raise taxes on residential gas delivery such that home heating with gas becomes cost prohibitive. The extremely low cost of gas incentivizes profligate, wasteful consumption, sort of like the unmetered delivery of water in places like Sacramento, where the marginal cost of water delivery is very low, and the externalized cost of eventual resource depletion is not accounted for.
>but it is something that has to be done if we are going to avoid catastrophe
What sources of pollution are we allowed to keep? What is your criteria for an acceptable amount of human impact on the environment? If you also have information for acceptable levels of cobalt, nickel, and copper mining, and landfill usage (per capita per year, in cubic meters, I guess), that would be useful. Because every time I see any climate change story, I'm told that I absolutely have to give something up to save humanity, and I'm beginning to feel like no level of existence will be acceptable.
I'm very eco conscious in my day to day life, more than most of the people in my social group. But I also realize we can't just eliminate every trace of our lives.
I'm not talking about pollution, I'm talking about CO2 emissions.
The answer is that, long term, we have to balance out and only keep the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that the planet + carbon capture can absorb. It's going to be a very small number per capita.
As I said, it sucks. But it is the only way to prevent serious climate change long-term.
I don't think you're making the point you think you're making. Using a Starbucks coffee to represent CO2 from gas ranges, your total monthly expenditures are $100M, $80M+ of which is going to a few big categories like cars.
The reason you're going bankrupt is because you've convinced yourself the $5 coffee is the solution.
If you want a small change that makes a real difference take the bus one day a week.
I use the induction cooktop for slow cooking, boiling, and pressure cooking. Everything else gets put on gas if I have room. Nothing beats gas for output and control.
I could certainly do just fine on radiant or, god forbid, coils. But the gas and induction together are a huge luxury that I feel grateful for every time I use them.
One under-appreciated advantage of a gas range is how evenly it heats pans of lesser quality. Because so much of the heating on gas is accomplished by the flow of hot "exhaust" gas across the entire bottom of the pan, a thinner and less thermally conductive pan will still heat much more evenly than it would on an electric coil or induction hob.
EDIT:
I'm definitely on board the energy efficiency bandwagon. I have a four kilowatt solar array on my house, and I drive a twenty five year old Honda minivan because of the mileage and low upkeep.
If I thought gas cooking was a low hanging fruit on the efficiency tree, I might be more willing to give up the luxury of it. But from what I've seen it's not. It's rather like the highest gas-powered fruit on the tree.