Things that have withstood the test of time

rick_chasey

rolf_f said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Now, speaking of ways to heat things - I am very snobby about any hob that isn't gas, but I now see gas is being phased out long term, which is a shame.

Not even long term. 10 years, maybe. Soon they'll be the equivalent of driving a diesel.

Just replaced gas hob with induction. Anything where you want to lift the pan a bit is a bit irritating (but only in a "somebody moved my cheese" sense) but otherwise it is a big improvement over the gas and a lot cleaner. Vaguely surprised that, given Rick's antipathy towards stone age methods of house heating, he is still in the stone age with food heating!

I have found in terms of cooking it's sub-optimal. It's fine, but gas is better to cook with.

It's a shame as I think cooking on gas is actually very low on wastage and overall gas usage so the benefit you get is minimal but i guess if you're a pan manufacturer you're loving life for the next decade as I'll have to replace virtually all of my pans.

Don't really understand the "cleaner" bit but i'll take your word for it.

briantrumpet

rolf_f said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Now, speaking of ways to heat things - I am very snobby about any hob that isn't gas, but I now see gas is being phased out long term, which is a shame.

Not even long term. 10 years, maybe. Soon they'll be the equivalent of driving a diesel.

Just replaced gas hob with induction. Anything where you want to lift the pan a bit is a bit irritating (but only in a "somebody moved my cheese" sense) but otherwise it is a big improvement over the gas and a lot cleaner. Vaguely surprised that, given Rick's antipathy towards stone age methods of house heating, he is still in the stone age with food heating!

Was it town gas in the stone age?

Tashman

rick_chasey said:

rolf_f said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Now, speaking of ways to heat things - I am very snobby about any hob that isn't gas, but I now see gas is being phased out long term, which is a shame.

Not even long term. 10 years, maybe. Soon they'll be the equivalent of driving a diesel.

Just replaced gas hob with induction. Anything where you want to lift the pan a bit is a bit irritating (but only in a "somebody moved my cheese" sense) but otherwise it is a big improvement over the gas and a lot cleaner. Vaguely surprised that, given Rick's antipathy towards stone age methods of house heating, he is still in the stone age with food heating!

I have found in terms of cooking it's sub-optimal. It's fine, but gas is better to cook with.

It's a shame as I think cooking on gas is actually very low on wastage and overall gas usage so the benefit you get is minimal but i guess if you're a pan manufacturer you're loving life for the next decade as I'll have to replace virtually all of my pans.

Don't really understand the "cleaner" bit but i'll take your word for it.

We've also just jumped from gas to induction and missing the instant reaction of turning a knob to control the gas.
I guess it's just getting used to the induction but it seems in maintaining it's clean lines you lose a little in ability to react quickly when something boils over etc.

ddraver

I was amazed when I used a really god induction hob. My experiences with ones a bit less sophisticated (and I suspect significantly less expensive) arent so good though

bompington

ddraver said:

I was amazed when I used a really god induction hob.

Simply divine.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

rolf_f said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Now, speaking of ways to heat things - I am very snobby about any hob that isn't gas, but I now see gas is being phased out long term, which is a shame.

Not even long term. 10 years, maybe. Soon they'll be the equivalent of driving a diesel.

Just replaced gas hob with induction. Anything where you want to lift the pan a bit is a bit irritating (but only in a "somebody moved my cheese" sense) but otherwise it is a big improvement over the gas and a lot cleaner. Vaguely surprised that, given Rick's antipathy towards stone age methods of house heating, he is still in the stone age with food heating!

I have found in terms of cooking it's sub-optimal. It's fine, but gas is better to cook with.

It's a shame as I think cooking on gas is actually very low on wastage and overall gas usage so the benefit you get is minimal but i guess if you're a pan manufacturer you're loving life for the next decade as I'll have to replace virtually all of my pans.

Don't really understand the "cleaner" bit but i'll take your word for it.

Burning stuff for space heating and cooking needs to stop if we want to meet our obligations on carbon emissions.

rick_chasey

Well yes, induction will be fine if the electricity power station is not burning stuff for the electricity, agreed.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

Well yes, induction will be fine if the electricity power station is not burning stuff for the electricity, agreed.

Get with the program. The elephant is not to be discussed.

New power stations being nuclear is a tad inconvenient to policy.

rick_chasey

I am of the view the anti-nuclear campaign has been a massive disaster for humanity and hugely costly to the world.

mrb123

Tashman said:

rick_chasey said:

rolf_f said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Now, speaking of ways to heat things - I am very snobby about any hob that isn't gas, but I now see gas is being phased out long term, which is a shame.

Not even long term. 10 years, maybe. Soon they'll be the equivalent of driving a diesel.

Just replaced gas hob with induction. Anything where you want to lift the pan a bit is a bit irritating (but only in a "somebody moved my cheese" sense) but otherwise it is a big improvement over the gas and a lot cleaner. Vaguely surprised that, given Rick's antipathy towards stone age methods of house heating, he is still in the stone age with food heating!

I have found in terms of cooking it's sub-optimal. It's fine, but gas is better to cook with.

It's a shame as I think cooking on gas is actually very low on wastage and overall gas usage so the benefit you get is minimal but i guess if you're a pan manufacturer you're loving life for the next decade as I'll have to replace virtually all of my pans.

Don't really understand the "cleaner" bit but i'll take your word for it.

We've also just jumped from gas to induction and missing the instant reaction of turning a knob to control the gas.
I guess it's just getting used to the induction but it seems in maintaining it's clean lines you lose a little in ability to react quickly when something boils over etc.

Try lifting the pan rather than turning down the hob...

morstar

rick_chasey said:

I am of the view the anti-nuclear campaign has been a massive disaster for humanity and hugely costly to the world.

I’d much rather have nuclear than shale gas but conversely, there have been two nuclear disasters in my lifetime. It is right that nuclear is heavily scrutinised.

bompington

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

I am of the view the anti-nuclear campaign has been a massive disaster for humanity and hugely costly to the world.

I’d much rather have nuclear than shale gas but conversely, there have been two nuclear disasters in my lifetime. It is right that nuclear is heavily scrutinised.

rick_chasey

I think people forget how existential carbon emissions are and nuclear (power) really isn't.

mrb123

I seem to remember reading that there were zero deaths attributed to the Fukushima disaster. The over all figure for Chernobyl was also a lot less than I had assumed it would be.

pblakeney

bompington said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

I am of the view the anti-nuclear campaign has been a massive disaster for humanity and hugely costly to the world.

I’d much rather have nuclear than shale gas but conversely, there have been two nuclear disasters in my lifetime. It is right that nuclear is heavily scrutinised.

Doesn't that conveniently ignore the waste and decommissioning issue?

Jezyboy

rick_chasey said:

I think people forget how existential carbon emissions are and nuclear (power) really isn't.

Co2 gets dispersed and becomes a problem slowly.

Chernobyl made a relatively small part of the globe compelely inhabitable.

bompington

pblakeney said:

bompington said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

I am of the view the anti-nuclear campaign has been a massive disaster for humanity and hugely costly to the world.

I’d much rather have nuclear than shale gas but conversely, there have been two nuclear disasters in my lifetime. It is right that nuclear is heavily scrutinised.

Doesn't that conveniently ignore the waste and decommissioning issue?

Why, how many people have died from nuclear waste and decommissioning?

morstar

Delete

pblakeney

bompington said:

pblakeney said:

bompington said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

I am of the view the anti-nuclear campaign has been a massive disaster for humanity and hugely costly to the world.

I’d much rather have nuclear than shale gas but conversely, there have been two nuclear disasters in my lifetime. It is right that nuclear is heavily scrutinised.

Doesn't that conveniently ignore the waste and decommissioning issue?

Why, how many people have died from nuclear waste and decommissioning?

The discussion started off being environmental.

rolf_f

mrb123 said:

Tashman said:

rick_chasey said:

rolf_f said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Now, speaking of ways to heat things - I am very snobby about any hob that isn't gas, but I now see gas is being phased out long term, which is a shame.

Not even long term. 10 years, maybe. Soon they'll be the equivalent of driving a diesel.

Just replaced gas hob with induction. Anything where you want to lift the pan a bit is a bit irritating (but only in a "somebody moved my cheese" sense) but otherwise it is a big improvement over the gas and a lot cleaner. Vaguely surprised that, given Rick's antipathy towards stone age methods of house heating, he is still in the stone age with food heating!

I have found in terms of cooking it's sub-optimal. It's fine, but gas is better to cook with.

It's a shame as I think cooking on gas is actually very low on wastage and overall gas usage so the benefit you get is minimal but i guess if you're a pan manufacturer you're loving life for the next decade as I'll have to replace virtually all of my pans.

Don't really understand the "cleaner" bit but i'll take your word for it.

We've also just jumped from gas to induction and missing the instant reaction of turning a knob to control the gas.
I guess it's just getting used to the induction but it seems in maintaining it's clean lines you lose a little in ability to react quickly when something boils over etc.

Try lifting the pan rather than turning down the hob...

This. Everything cools really quickly as soon as it's not being actively heated ie in physical contact with an active hob. I make coffee in a pan and find that I need to keep a little heat going in while it stews or it ends up too cool by the time it is ready.

Clean - just really easy to keep clean when you are incompetent like me. Pans don't blacken, it switches off if you leave stuff on too long. Main irritation is slow finger dapping to change power. I haven't yet found a way to switch one hob off whilst the other stays on without scrolling the power down to zero.

Also, the hob was designed by the same person who designed Hotblack Desiato's stunt ship. Black touch sensor icons on black glass. There's a time of day when daylight is reducing but the lights aren't on yet when I cannot see where the buttons are at all.

I was in college at a tutorial making the case for nuclear. Next week Chernobyl happened.

rolf_f

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

I am of the view the anti-nuclear campaign has been a massive disaster for humanity and hugely costly to the world.

I’d much rather have nuclear than shale gas but conversely, there have been two nuclear disasters in my lifetime. It is right that nuclear is heavily scrutinised.

What is your objection to shale gas (beyond that America has really made it look bad by being woefully incompetent at its implementation and regulation as you'd expect)?

elbowloh

There is no argument re. nuclear and carbon and other emissions.

But, it does solve one problem whilst bringing another, that doesn't at the moment have a solution - the long-term management of waste.

I personally think that nuclear has to be part of the mix if we're going to hit climate change targets but we mustn't dismiss the risks.

bompington

rolf_f said:

mrb123 said:

Tashman said:

rick_chasey said:

rolf_f said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Now, speaking of ways to heat things - I am very snobby about any hob that isn't gas, but I now see gas is being phased out long term, which is a shame.

Not even long term. 10 years, maybe. Soon they'll be the equivalent of driving a diesel.

Just replaced gas hob with induction. Anything where you want to lift the pan a bit is a bit irritating (but only in a "somebody moved my cheese" sense) but otherwise it is a big improvement over the gas and a lot cleaner. Vaguely surprised that, given Rick's antipathy towards stone age methods of house heating, he is still in the stone age with food heating!

I have found in terms of cooking it's sub-optimal. It's fine, but gas is better to cook with.

It's a shame as I think cooking on gas is actually very low on wastage and overall gas usage so the benefit you get is minimal but i guess if you're a pan manufacturer you're loving life for the next decade as I'll have to replace virtually all of my pans.

Don't really understand the "cleaner" bit but i'll take your word for it.

We've also just jumped from gas to induction and missing the instant reaction of turning a knob to control the gas.
I guess it's just getting used to the induction but it seems in maintaining it's clean lines you lose a little in ability to react quickly when something boils over etc.

Try lifting the pan rather than turning down the hob...

I was in college at a tutorial making the case for nuclear. Next week Chernobyl happened.

I would say that Chernobyl is a pretty good case for nuclear: that one incident accounted for nearly all the casualties that nuclear power has had in its 80-odd years, and yet its average casualty rate per unit of power generated is less than one thousandth that of coal.

Not to mention that the reason for the disaster had a lot more to do with Soviet practices than intrinsic issues with nuclear power.

kingstongraham

What death toll is attributed to Chernobyl in those calculations?

Jezyboy

elbowloh said:

There is no argument re. nuclear and carbon and other emissions.

But, it does solve one problem whilst bringing another, that doesn't at the moment have a solution - the long-term management of waste.

I personally think that nuclear has to be part of the mix if we're going to hit climate change targets but we mustn't dismiss the risks.

I think the amount of waste is pretty small, and pretty well contained. It's certainly come a long way since the first experiments!

Coal doesn't just make carbon, there's all the particulates, NOx and SOx. Perhaps if coal plants kept them people would worry about the long term storage, instead they get away with just spewing them into the atmosphere!

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Well yes, induction will be fine if the electricity power station is not burning stuff for the electricity, agreed.

Once central heating is not running off gas, will people bother with a supply just for the hob? The power stations will of course need to continue to shift away from burning stuff, too. Domestic consumption is significant, though.

bompington

kingstongraham said:

What death toll is attributed to Chernobyl in those calculations?

If you used Greenpeace's wildly exaggerated figure, it's only about 4 times safer than coal.

rolf_f

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Well yes, induction will be fine if the electricity power station is not burning stuff for the electricity, agreed.

Once central heating is not running off gas, will people bother with a supply just for the hob? The power stations will of course need to continue to shift away from burning stuff, too. Domestic consumption is significant, though.

Hydrogen. Maybe (got to shove something through the enormously valuable gas pipe infrastructure).

rjsterry

rolf_f said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Well yes, induction will be fine if the electricity power station is not burning stuff for the electricity, agreed.

Once central heating is not running off gas, will people bother with a supply just for the hob? The power stations will of course need to continue to shift away from burning stuff, too. Domestic consumption is significant, though.

Hydrogen. Maybe (got to shove something through the enormously valuable gas pipe infrastructure).

I think there might be some issues running hydrogen through a standard gas hob.

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/domestic-hydrogen-appliances/

ddraver

it would reduce cooking time...