Electric Induction Stove?

[guido]

My SO is researching decarbonizing the homestead. One of the items she is suggesting is going from gas to an electronic induction stove.

Has anyone been down this read? How are they to cook on? Most examples I see are of boiling pasta water not a controlled simmer or braise. For those, I'm really fond of the control and precision of gas, but greengirl does make a point from a low footprint point of view...

Thoughts?

[caleb]

I'm on gas, so can't offer firsthand experience. The reviews I've read mention that they're pretty uneven, and people are using extremely heavy disc-bottomed cookware to compensate. You might end up buying new cookware as well.

From an environmental standpoint, I wouldn't assume that building a new stove, shipping it, installing it, and disposing of the old stove will necessarily have a lower carbon footprint than using your existing gas appliance as long as it lasts, even if your electric for the induction unit comes from 100% renewable sources.

[j44ke]

I have only used mediocre versions which leads me to believe that to get real results and good controls, you need to spend some money to get a top quality unit with precision temp controls. Otherwise they sort of operate on an on-off basis, and you are learning how to cook fast but not necessarily well. Before I figured out why our Borsch range sucked and fixed it, we were looking at a some models at the $3000 price point. They seemed very nice, but then again they ought to be at that price. Also figure in the price of at least a few new pots since some of the non-induction stuff is hit or miss. You cannot assume stainless steel is going to work automatically, because not all stainless is constructed in a way that suits induction.

But I am with Caleb. If you already have a functioning range or cooktop, use it until it turns to powder. That's typically the most ecologically sound approach.

edit: There are some pro-quality accessory induction units - the kind a chef would use at the table or on the side to add a burner. Take a look at those. You might be able to pick up a decent one and use it for the guinea pig to see if you like it.

[rwsaunders]

In terms of green, I wonder if your electric utility provider generates or buys power from a coal fired plant? In terms of efficiency, I think that good induction cooktops paired with good cooking utensils are supposed to be very energy efficient, more so than their gas counterparts. I’m in the gas world though as that is what we are used to.

[Calgary_George]

Check your local electric code, as you may need to upgrade the circuit feeding the range. Thicker wire may be required.

[deano]

I think you will be disappointed in electric induction if you are on gas now. I have had both. I highly recommend steering clear. Never even/reliable cook temp or times. Gas is the way, imo.

[thollandpe]

In terms of green, I wonder if your electric utility provider generates or buys power from a coal fired plant? In terms of efficiency, I think that good induction cooktops paired with good cooking utensils are supposed to be very energy efficient, more so than their gas counterparts. I'm in the gas world though as that is what we are used to.

The New England grid is one of the cleanest in the US, #4 of 26, most of its generation is from natural gas plants. Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) Questions and Answers | Energy and the Environment | US EPA

From an environmental standpoint, I wouldn't assume that building a new stove, shipping it, installing it, and disposing of the old stove will necessarily have a lower carbon footprint than using your existing gas appliance as long as it lasts, even if your electric for the induction unit comes from 100% renewable sources.

Why do we ask that only energy-efficient things offset their embodied carbon? These questions aren't asked when people opt for granite countertops, go for heated leather seats, add a third garage bay, or install remote car starters.

Having participated in embodied carbon analyses for entire buildings, studies for rebuild vs. renovate, they most often favor renovation. But for something like an appliance, which has a fairly low mass but serves primarily to use energy, my hunch is that the analysis will favor the more efficient unit. Especially if it's used often and lasts a long time.



Here's a sample graph of a building, showing that its operational energy use will surpass its embodied energy in a few years.

TH

[11.4]

I have a commercial gas stove with abysmal simmering ability and bought this induction cooktop to fill that gap:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...8Z0FPLG4&psc=1

It's been very useful. Simmer is quite good. Because it's flameless I can set it low and leave it and not worry about a flame sputtering out as on the gas stove. Easy to clean. Instant response. I'm setting up a guest suite and will have a countertop refrigerator, small sink, and one of these so the suite is reasonably self-sufficient (and guests don't go messing with my pans) and it suffices quite nicely.

As for carbon-free clean power, natural gas pretty much comes out of the ground and straight to you. Natural gas is created in fairly bounteous amounts so, unlike, petroleum reserves, it doesn't take a hundred thousand years to create and isn't subject to depletion at the same rate. It's also very efficient as far as energy production, pollution, and so on. Carbon dioxide and water. The electricity either comes from a natural carbon source (power plant) or likely comes from a meaningful distance, which means high line losses, long rights of way required for power lines, the very un-ecological mining and purification of electrical-grade copper, and so on and so on. Using a stove isn't typically high up on the wasteful list -- compared to idling for an hour while waiting for the kids, driving two hundred miles to a race, inefficient home insulation, certain industrial processes, and so on. Just my $0.02.

[thollandpe]

As for carbon-free clean power, natural gas pretty much comes out of the ground and straight to you. Natural gas is created in fairly bounteous amounts so, unlike, petroleum reserves, it doesn't take a hundred thousand years to create and isn't subject to depletion at the same rate. It's also very efficient as far as energy production, pollution, and so on. Carbon dioxide and water. The electricity either comes from a natural carbon source (power plant) or likely comes from a meaningful distance, which means high line losses, long rights of way required for power lines, the very un-ecological mining and purification of electrical-grade copper, and so on and so on.

I was with you until this. A shitload of methane is lost in production, and a whole bunch is lost as leakage in distribution. These losses are huge, and the emissions factor for natural gas may be doubled. That will put it close to oil as a fuel.

While the electricity generation sector is woefully inefficient, like 33%, most of that is inside the plant itself, energy wasted as heat. This conversion loss is often mischaracterized as line loss, but line losses are low (single digits maybe, don’t have a source at hand). And these distribution losses can be reduced with small distributed systems like cogen and solar.

Using a stove isn't typically high up on the wasteful list -- compared to idling for an hour while waiting for the kids, driving two hundred miles to a race, inefficient home insulation, certain industrial processes, and so on. Just my $0.02.

Amen, brother. Forest from the trees, or however that’s supposed to go.

[thollandpe]

Here’s a chart on energy flow in the electric sector, Google Image Result for https://www.oilandgaslawyerblog.com/files/2017/05/EIA-Electricity-flow-diagram-2017.jpg

Line losses are “T & D”, transmission and distribution, less than 3%. While 1.01 quads is a serious amount, there’s a whale of opportunity on that chart.

62% of the input energy, more than coal and natural gas combined, is “conversion losses”. Energy wasted as heat. Tap that and you’re onto something.

[11.4]

I was with you until this. A shitload of methane is lost in production, and a whole bunch is lost as leakage in distribution. These losses are huge, and the emissions factor for natural gas may be doubled. That will put it close to oil as a fuel.

While the electricity generation sector is woefully inefficient, like 33%, most of that is inside the plant itself, energy wasted as heat. This conversion loss is often mischaracterized as line loss, but line losses are low (single digits maybe, don’t have a source at hand). And these distribution losses can be reduced with small distributed systems like cogen and solar.

Yes, and no. Those figures combine a mix of different data and obfuscate a bit what is really efficient or not. If you're doing a 115 kV run, that's correct, but small percentages are still huge numbers in 115 kV power grids. The power companies also manipulate those numbers a bit, plus the efficiencies on regional networks and locally are lower. Definitely the generation component is the least efficient, which still goes to my point that you can be more effective carbon-wise by sticking to natural gas. And above all if your power comes from a carbon-burning plant rather than from wind or hydro. If it comes from nuclear, remember the huge heat loss going on and the environmental cost of that.

As for methane with natural gas, the two gases come out of the ground together and methane leaks in huge quantities anyway. Additional methane isn't produced as a result of burning natural gas. It's merely a matter of separating it so our natural gas appliances don't stink and the methane filters through the ground in huge quantities anyway.