Besides not being aesthetically pleasing, what’s the downside of strictly using countertop induction cooktops, both commercial and household varieties, as my burners? If I go for the individual cooktops, I could easily replace them individually if they break or if technology or features improve, plus I can put them away for when I need more countertop space. I do use my current built in cooktop as “counter space” during gatherings, but I’m always leery of doing this for safety reasons.

Edit: There’s a wonderful community being built here. Thank you all for you responses and for the great thinking points. While I’m not entirely sure of which direction I’ll go as far as countertop vs built-in, I’m definitely sure I’ll be using induction.

  • ethman42@lemmy.world
    1018·
    1 year ago

    Stop using fossil fuels to cook. Go for induction. Yes, you may need to get new pots and pans. It will be worth it in the end. I cannot wait to move to my own place so I can get away from this gas burning relic in my kitchen

      • nobodyspecial@kbin.social
        15·
        1 year ago

        Thermodynamics question: do you think it is more or less efficient to burn coal or natural gas, use that heat to boil water to turn a turbine, generate enough of a surplus to avoid brownouts and blackouts, transmit that power over long distance, radiating energy the entire way and losing more at every transformer power station eventually using energy to boil a pot of water…

        Or to burn gas to boil a pot of water directly.

        I own stock of energy producers and transporters in my 401k, so I’m extremely glad those in power get this question wrong. But I also know that wrongness has a cost.

        And before you say “solar” please realize capacity does not equal production. Germany is on the forefront of renewable energy, and generates 10.4% of power from solar compared to 20.1% from lignite, the dirtiest possible coal. Hard coal, natural gas and lignite add up to 11.3 + 13.3 + 20.1 = 44.6%. United states has solar at 3.93% of our energy mix, with 37.82% generated from natural gas.

        • TheChurn@kbin.social
          5·
          1 year ago

          Energy efficiency is only part of the equation. Combustion inside the home also worsens air quality and has the small risk of gas leaks.

          It is also possible to reduce the carbon footprint of an electric range (either coils or induction) by changing the energy mix feeding it. It is not possible to due that with a gas range.

        • TitanLaGrange@lemmy.world
          5·
          1 year ago

          A substantial proportion of the heat from burning gas on a stovetop in the usual manner does not heat the content of the pot, so the difference in thermal efficiency between electric and direct gas heating may not be as large as you might expect. This factor could probably be improved with different stove designs though (cheap burners do a worse job of putting the heat where it does the most work).

          Additionally, gas ranges impact indoor air quality a lot more than electric stovetops, and gas delivery to homes leaks into the atmosphere a fair amount of gas with high greenhouse potential (I work for a gas pipeline company on leak tracking software) so there are other tradeoffs that one should consider beyond just thermal efficiency.

          I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all answer here, both are good options for different situations.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      52·
      1 year ago

      No one is cooking enough for their fossil fuel emissions to affect the world in any way. Throwing something out and buying everything new has a cost as well. Plus for cooking, it’s hard to beat a cast iron pan.