Spendypants induction range vs. regular gas range

[PDXTabs]

caleb,

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/ehp.122-a27
https://www.treehugger.com/green-architecture/piles-peer-reviewed-research-show-how-bad-cooking-gas-your-health.html
https://www.popsci.com/conference-carbon-dioxide-tired-office-work/

But part of my point in is that by my amateur judgement we haven't really studied indoor air quality enough to know how much a gas range really effects us. Also, when I had a gas range in my kitchen island I didn't usually use the vent fan (behind, not above it), because I didn't like how it sounded. So there is also my behavior to contend with.

[Acastus]

I will always choose gas over electric if I have a choice. An induction range is definitely better than standard electric coils. It heats up faster (not as fast as gas), and it is easy to clean. I like that when you are not cooking, it doubles as extra counter space. You need to use very flat bottomed pans - no dents, rounded bottoms, or lip like my kettle had. Cast iron is also not recommended because it can get too hot.

[Wintergreen78]

More links to research on indoor air quality impacts from cooking. I didn’t read through all of these, but they seemed worth sharing: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/indoor-air-pollution-cooking

The main focus of these is proper ventilation. Cooking can produce particulates no matter which source of heat you use, but an electric stove would not be a source on nitrogen dioxide. 

[EngagedToFIRE]

I will always choose gas over electric if I have a choice. An induction range is definitely better than standard electric coils. It heats up faster (not as fast as gas), and it is easy to clean. I like that when you are not cooking, it doubles as extra counter space. You need to use very flat bottomed pans - no dents, rounded bottoms, or lip like my kettle had. Cast iron is also not recommended because it can get too hot.

Induction is substantially faster than typical household gas ranges to heat up a pan.  We went through this same thing, induction is simply amazing.  I would never go back to regular electric or gas at this point, and I used to be a big fan of gas (owned a restaurant as well with commercial gas burners).

[EngagedToFIRE]

Are you sure it is more Luxe?  I have a gas cook top and my parents have an induction cook top.  I hate the induction cook top.

My experience: It is kind of cleaner, in that stuff doesn't fall below a grate and get ignored, but when stuff boils over onto the cook top and can be a pain in the butt to clean.  It turns on faster, but as you adjust the temp down it doesn't react as fast, so sometimes food gets burned.  I also find getting the right temperature more difficult.

If you find it to be more luxe, I won't talk you out of it, but as someone who uses both the first thing I would do in a new house is put in a gas stove if it didn't have one.  Hope that helps and doesn't sounds judgmental.

Are you sure it's induction?  Boilovers on the induction cooktop are incredibly easy to clean, unlike a typical electric range.  Since the heat is in the pan and not on the range, you just lift the pan and wipe it down easily.  And you can do this without turning the stove off or worry about burning yourself.  The stove is only somewhat warm/hot from the heat of the pan.  But you can definitely wipe it down as your cooking easily.  That's one of the huge benefits of induction, it's so damn easy to clean since nothing burns on to the surface.  Compared to gas where you have to remove the grates, ugh.  If you use it more, getting the right temperature is easy.  That's one of the main benefits of induction also, it's extremely precise in temperature with near instantaneous changes.  Once you cook more with it, you learn the temps and it's super consistent.

OP, go with induction.  Everything about it is better.  Easier to clean, safer, no gas lines, more precise, hotter/faster, more control.  If you have kids... no gas worries, no extremely hot surfaces either.  So much safer.  If you like to cook and use the stove, it's worth every penny.  And since you are mustachian, you probably cook at home a lot - don't underestimate how the easy cleaning will change your life.  This is one luxury that is a no brainer.

[BuildingFrugalHabits]

We really like our induction.  It's very responsive and heats up super fast.  I smile every time I use it.  Easier to clean, more environmentally friendly (our runs on solar), and I think it's safer than gas (ours shuts off automatically after a few seconds with no pot on it).

[AccidentialMustache]

2-3 induction burners (less than $100 each)

You probably realize this, but its worth mentioning:

* Those stand-alone induction burners are louder in operation than the stove
* Those induction burners are substantially lower wattage than the stove (unless they're going into a 220/240 outlet)
* Our induction burner isn't as good at temperature control as the stove (its low isn't as low)
* Our induction burner has a much smaller effective heating radius than the stove

YMMV, of course. But if you're getting cheap induction burners, you're likely getting what you pay for.

[TomTX]

Let’s see if I can reason this off the top of my head.

To make electricity you usually start with burning some sort of fossil fuel. Might be methane on the west coast or coal on the east coast. That heats water to steam to drive turbines which make electricity which is transported across a grid and to your house. You then reverse the process and turn electricity into heat by jamming a bunch of electrons through some sort of filament with high resistance. Each step along the way will have losses.

With methane you pump that stuff to your house and then light it to turn fossil fuel into heat.

I’m missing all sorts of second order considerations, but as a first order you have far fewer steps in your quest to get heat.

All sorts of super important second order considerations.

Lets follow the chain, starting with natural gas.

1) Pipe to home, burn directly: 34% efficient transfer of heat to food. Final: 34% efficient.

2) Burn in combined cycle NG plant: 65% efficient. Induction heating: 74% efficient transfer of heat to food. 0.74*0.65*100 = 48% efficient.

Induction is more efficient when done properly.

I'm neglecting transmission losses on the electric side, and pumping costs/losses on the natural gas side. Should be close enough to each other to ignore - electric losses are more per mile, but NG is on average transported much further.

Of course, that ignores those of us on 100% renewables power plans.

A secondary effect to consider is the indoor air quality in the house: Gas stoves emit a fair amount of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate pollution. Not good to breathe.

Another secondary effect is the waste heat: With the direct gas stove method, that waste heat ends up in your house. If you're in a climate where cooling (AC) dominates (like I do) - that's an extra cost.

If course, I'm talking about induction heating - i don't know why you keep posting these strawman comparisons (at least 3) against electric resistance stoves. That wasn't what OP posted about. It's not the same thing at all. Nobody here is in favor of electric resistance stoves. Electric induction is a totally different beast.

[TomTX]

Ever seen a real chef in a real restaurant cooking with an induction range?

Yeah, me neither.

Yes, I have. Sure, there's the cultural history of liking gas, but many chefs who have tried induction really like it - not for everything, but yes for a lot of things.

[Wintergreen78]

Let’s see if I can reason this off the top of my head.

To make electricity you usually start with burning some sort of fossil fuel. Might be methane on the west coast or coal on the east coast. That heats water to steam to drive turbines which make electricity which is transported across a grid and to your house. You then reverse the process and turn electricity into heat by jamming a bunch of electrons through some sort of filament with high resistance. Each step along the way will have losses.

With methane you pump that stuff to your house and then light it to turn fossil fuel into heat.

I’m missing all sorts of second order considerations, but as a first order you have far fewer steps in your quest to get heat.

All sorts of super important second order considerations.

Lets follow the chain, starting with natural gas.

1) Pipe to home, burn directly: 34% efficient transfer of heat to food. Final: 34% efficient.

2) Burn in combined cycle NG plant: 65% efficient. Induction heating: 74% efficient transfer of heat to food. 0.74*0.65*100 = 48% efficient.

Induction is more efficient when done properly.

I'm neglecting transmission losses on the electric side, and pumping costs/losses on the natural gas side. Should be close enough to each other to ignore - electric losses are more per mile, but NG is on average transported much further.

Of course, that ignores those of us on 100% renewables power plans.

A secondary effect to consider is the indoor air quality in the house: Gas stoves emit a fair amount of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate pollution. Not good to breathe.

Another secondary effect is the waste heat: With the direct gas stove method, that waste heat ends up in your house. If you're in a climate where cooling (AC) dominates (like I do) - that's an extra cost.

If course, I'm talking about induction heating - i don't know why you keep posting these strawman comparisons (at least 3) against electric resistance stoves. That wasn't what OP posted about. It's not the same thing at all. Nobody here is in favor of electric resistance stoves. Electric induction is a totally different beast.

Plus, some researchers are beginning to suspect that much the natural gas leak rate during transportation and storage is higher than we previously thought. If that is true, then the climate change impact of using natural gas could be much higher. This is still pretty preliminary, but it is worth considering. I expect more news and research will come out about this over the next several years.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/the-u-s-natural-gas-industry-is-leaking-way-more-methane-than-previously-thought

Oh, also: the EIA has a really cool site where you can see the grid mix for electricity in your state:
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-4

[TomTX]

EIA is nice, but because Texas is ~90% an independently operated grid, I get stuff MUCH faster via the ERCOT website.

http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/172484/ERCOT_Quick_Facts_4.9.19.pdf

And if you want to dive into the nitty-gritty details about current/upcoming generation:

http://mis.ercot.com/misdownload/servlets/mirDownload?mimic_duns=&doclookupId=663997787

That doc is updated monthly a few days into the month, current as of the end of the prior month. Probably July 3 will see the end-of-June update.

Texas added* 348MW of new wind power in May 2019. The development pipeline has 36GW of wind and 59(!)GW of solar projects registered with ERCOT. This compares to a current installed base of 22GW of wind, just under 2GW of solar. Lots of these projects won't actually happen, of course.

*Under "project commissioning update" look at the "Synchronization Approved" projects.

[ysette9]

Let’s see if I can reason this off the top of my head.

To make electricity you usually start with burning some sort of fossil fuel. Might be methane on the west coast or coal on the east coast. That heats water to steam to drive turbines which make electricity which is transported across a grid and to your house. You then reverse the process and turn electricity into heat by jamming a bunch of electrons through some sort of filament with high resistance. Each step along the way will have losses.

With methane you pump that stuff to your house and then light it to turn fossil fuel into heat.

I’m missing all sorts of second order considerations, but as a first order you have far fewer steps in your quest to get heat.

All sorts of super important second order considerations.

Lets follow the chain, starting with natural gas.

1) Pipe to home, burn directly: 34% efficient transfer of heat to food. Final: 34% efficient.

2) Burn in combined cycle NG plant: 65% efficient. Induction heating: 74% efficient transfer of heat to food. 0.74*0.65*100 = 48% efficient.

Induction is more efficient when done properly.

I'm neglecting transmission losses on the electric side, and pumping costs/losses on the natural gas side. Should be close enough to each other to ignore - electric losses are more per mile, but NG is on average transported much further.

Of course, that ignores those of us on 100% renewables power plans.

A secondary effect to consider is the indoor air quality in the house: Gas stoves emit a fair amount of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate pollution. Not good to breathe.

Another secondary effect is the waste heat: With the direct gas stove method, that waste heat ends up in your house. If you're in a climate where cooling (AC) dominates (like I do) - that's an extra cost.

If course, I'm talking about induction heating - i don't know why you keep posting these strawman comparisons (at least 3) against electric resistance stoves. That wasn't what OP posted about. It's not the same thing at all. Nobody here is in favor of electric resistance stoves. Electric induction is a totally different beast.

Probably because someone up thread started talking about “electric” so I took it at his/ her word and replied about electric. You are right that induction is a totally different beast, and better than electric and gas.

[BigMoneyJim]

Get a single-burner plug-in induction cooktop and try it out for yourself.

I went with gas for the built-in, but I often use the plug-in single induction instead. I would have had to upgrade the wiring, too, along with the high expense of the range itself, but this way I can use regular pans if I like or pull out the induction if I don't want the extra heat while cooking.

I'm sure the 240v induction ranges are more powerful, but my 120v induction boils water as fast as the microwave.

I saw someone here mention the plug-ins being noisier, and the online reviews mention the noise. This really puzzles me; yeah they make some noises sometimes, but it's no louder than pots, pans, and utensils clinking, so I'm really curious why people bring it up.

[billy]

Ever seen a real chef in a real restaurant cooking with an induction range?

Yeah, me neither.

Yeah I have work a few corporate cafeterias, all gas stoves. I think it was last year on Choose FI podcast, one of the hosts bought a induction stove and was very problematic, he later found there a known issue of higher failure rate.

[Carless]

As a completely different issue, when I switched to a glass top I discovered that most of my pans weren't quite perfectly flat.  Not an issue on a gas or electric coil stove, but on glass they tended to spin a bit.  Had to get a different frying pan.

[EngagedToFIRE]

Ever seen a real chef in a real restaurant cooking with an induction range?

Yeah, me neither.

Yeah I have work a few corporate cafeterias, all gas stoves. I think it was last year on Choose FI podcast, one of the hosts bought a induction stove and was very problematic, he later found there a known issue of higher failure rate.

Restaurants/chefs also have commercial gas ranges that can put out much higher BTU's than a home unit.  Unless someone is putting in a large commercial hood system, then you aren't going to be cooking with anywhere near the same type of heat as a restaurant.  For a home unit, induction makes WAY more sense, even if just for cleaning alone.  That said, chefs are absolutely using induction.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/78mvqa/why-londons-top-chefs-are-all-cooking-on-99-induction-hobs

http://sponsored.bostonglobe.com/frigidaire/induction/

Induction is a no brainer when buying a new unit for a residence.

[billy]

Sponsored content :)