What efficiency (in terms of energy transfer to the intended material vs to the environment) is observed with gas? IIRC, gas achieves maybe 35-50% efficiency (depending on the surface area and material of the pan) compared with ~80% for electric resistance heating and >90% for induction.
Adam Ragusea did a water boiling comparison and the gas stove was dumping so much energy into the air around the pot that his thermometer melted [0]. I just don't see how any pan geometry could extract much of the energy from the quickly rising hot gas produced by combustion.
The claim on the site is that the heat exchanger base boosts efficiency up to 60%.
You still of course do have the problem that home rangehoods usually aren't powerful enough to create enough air-flow to properly deal with the NOx and SOx produced by burning gas, which turns out to be a big health risk...
Most home range hoods are too powerful. Go to any site that calculates commercial range hood requirements, enter in your parameters, and then try to find a nice range hood that matches. Those 700 cfm or 1000 cfm beasts the appliance stores sell are entirely inappropriate.
There may well be a problem with a poorly designed range hood and exhaust that inevitably isn’t captured. And people might not like using the hoods all the time.
Comparing gas with electrical efficiency is not representing realistic end-to-end efficiencies wrt. co2 as long as the vas majority of electricity is generated from primary energy. Power plants tend to have efficiencies lower 50%.
The gas end-to-end "efficiency" will not improve drastically ever, while for an electrical stove it is tied to energy production.
Arguing with end-to-end efficiencies and power plants is misleading, as I can power my induction stove from my solar panels
Might still be better as efficiency goes up with temperature and industrial generators can achieve much higher temperatures that what you can at home, and also include some clean sources of energy into the mix.
There used to be (still is?) a sort of vertical chute/collar available to put around camp pots. Think mountaineering applications. The idea was that they would capture heat energy escaping off the bottom of the pot that would rise/disperse into the environment, and channel it close to the side of the pot where it would heat the vessel as it rose. Think of wrapping a section of corrugated cardboard around the outside wall of a pot. Now a birds-eye view down the cardboard should reveal the energy capturing channels that will allow the sides of your pot to heat the pot contents. Adjust your material and tune the sizing and you’ve got a camping gadget.
This is maybe useful for boiling water but not so great for cooking. You want your pot to have a relatively uniform temperature, and gas burns very hot. This means that, especially if the walls of the pan are thin, any part of the wall that has good thermal contact with combustion products and poor contact with food will get extremely hot, with various unfortunate consequences. Also the handles will get hot.
I have a gas stove in my studio apartment. I still use an electric kettle to get water boiling before dumping it into a preheated pan to cook noodles/whatever. Highly recommend this approach if you are stuck with gas.
> Highly recommend this approach if you are stuck with gas.
My partner, who cooks more, bemoans that our new apartment has electric. Grew up using gas and claims that it’s better for cooking. I prefer not to intentionally dump gas into our house and welcome the minor benefit of energy efficiency.
Funny how different people see the world (and technology).
Watch this video about how the idea that gas was better for cooking was a marketing ploy with no basis in reality and how they used lobbyist to force has connections into building codes
"no basis in reality". Do you cook? Gas is functionally superior than traditional electric resistance cooking. That's not some evil lobby, that's practical experience. You can instantly control the temperature without juggling multiple burners at different heats. That makes it better. I'd take gas over electric (resistive
or halogen) all the time - and I've lived with both.
Induction is on par with gas in controllability - and although there are some downsides, the upsides (so easy to clean!) Make it worth it (imo). I'm not saying that because big induction paid me to either.
Gas burners put out 3x-4x the power of an electric burner and have much lower thermal mass, so the acceleration in thermal power is much higher and the absolute thermal power is higher.
A large electric burner is 2400-3600 watts, a large gas burner can be 8-16 kw. I think induction could get better power delivery than gas with time.
You can get skillful with electric, you just have to see 30 seconds into the future and anticipate the thermal lag and overshoot when adjusting burner power.
Gas burners may be higher total power, but the heat transfer is surely pretty poor. Induction delivers something like 90% of the power into the pan. Boiling water (which is just an exercise in energy transfer) is much quicker on induction than gas.
In my experience living with an AEG induction stove with a peak single burner power output of 3.7kW - apart from I never did any cooking (apart from boiling water) which needed that level of power for more than a few tens of seconds. The gas stove in my current house felt underpowered in comparison.
I cook, and while I acknowledge there are benefits to gas, I can escape the feeling that what a lot of people end up comparing are crappy electric stoves from when they lived in cheap apartments vs higher end gas stoves that they/another homeowner bought for themselves.
My preference for gas has a lot to do with the fact that my pans, unless they're exceptionally heavy, never sit stably on the conventional coil-type electric stove burners. So the pan isn't level and doesn't heat evenly. Gas range grates don't tend to have that problem.
I've never owned an induction cooktop but I'd imagine the flat surface wouldn't have that problem (assuming the pans aren't warped).
This is the case for every range, gas or electric. Every time I've moved I'd had to "recalibrate" my expectations and use of the stove to account for different temperatures and quirks.
Induction is much better than gas about 90% of the time. Because the heat can be set much lower than a flame’s temperature, and because heat transfer happens through the whole bottom surface of the pan, it’s much better to keep a low-ish temperature for any length of time, which opens a lot of possibilities. For high heat, the larger contact area makes it much quicker to heat up evenly the whole pan. It pairs very nicely with a cast iron pan as well.
And that’s just from a practical, cooking point of view, without mentioning all the health benefits.
It was not our choice when we got an induction cooktop the first time, but now it would be.
Get a (high power) portable induction hob. If you have an outlet that can supply a 1.8-3kW one, it's better than gas unless you're using a wok or simar.
It's not really "better" it's simply easier keep a constant heat. Most electrical cooking stuff works on intermittent on-and-off cycles. An electric oven power up, then start cycling it's internal resistences let's say 10" powerd 5" off, then again 10" powerd etc. Some users here show me in a video an induction plate who use "mini-coils" who seems rotating constantly nearly nullifying such cycle effects on food cooking, but most other electric gears choose a "simpler" approach for their OEM.
Personally I'm all electric since around 8/10 years or so, I've made a habit and not a professional cook (while remaining a professional eater) but I understand those who dislike the initial impact...
Beside that: most actual tech is developed in crappy ways, most product explicitly made not to last and not to ensure evolution with plugged-in recycling but simply ensure a constant buy of new gears who are just crappy like the ones they substitute. Now most people might not realize that as well as a techie but anyone feel that. So...
If you can afford it, a high end induction stove might be an upgrade you both enjoy without needing gas. Higher end ones have more precision and consistency and easier controls.
I cook a lot. I enjoy cooking with gas and I appreciate it’s benefits, but I avoid/minimize it because it is so plainly inefficient and frankly more hazardous than a modern electric or induction burner.
I generally heat half the water in the pot, and half in the electric kettle (adjust proportions depending on the relative power of your appliances)
Quickest way to heat up the required amount of water
Assuming you have a four-burner stove, you could split your water five-way, and use four pots and your electric tea kettle.
If you want to push, you could improve the efficiency even more. That would require a capital investment into additional stoves and/or electric kettles. You'd probably need something like kubernetes for orchestration as well.
Buying cookware that works better on gas but is specifically incompatible with induction cooking seems a bit like rigging your Ram to roll coal, at this point in time.
How's that? Most people who have serviceable gas ranges are not going to rip them out and replace them with induction any time soon.
Someone who wants to go electric badly enough to spend thousands of dollars installing a high-current power outlet is not likely to balk at the cost of new pans.
Adam Ragusea did a water boiling comparison and the gas stove was dumping so much energy into the air around the pot that his thermometer melted [0]. I just don't see how any pan geometry could extract much of the energy from the quickly rising hot gas produced by combustion.
[0] https://youtu.be/Xn1LUo5ra_A?t=249