The topic of gas stoves ignited a heated debate last year when a Biden appointee suggested they could be banned because they posed a risk to human health.

But a ban isn’t in the works — and this week the administration will finalize a scaled-back plan to make new stoves less energy-intensive.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      4·
      10 months ago

      I can’t find anything regarding a <10 year lifespan, and of the various stoves I’ve had, I only replaced one and that was by choice (I wanted an induction stove, which is kind of amazing!)

      If you can source the stat, I’ll allow it, otherwise I’ll have to remove it as misinformation.

        • distantsounds@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          10 months ago

          Cooking on an electric range is miserable. Does the impact of pollutants and carbon offset even cover the cost of replacement given the current efficiency?

          I’m all for reduction of pollutants and lessing our carbon footprint, but is this seems like a culture war topic to deflect from actual areas in society were a meaningful impact could be made.

          • Salad_Fries@lemmy.world
            4·
            10 months ago

            ““Does the impact of pollutants and carbon offset even cover the cost of replacement given the current efficiency?””

            Gas stoves emit a variety of harmful air pollutants… The articles linked below indicate that these pollutants create a myriad of health issues that are particularly evident in children… The studies cited in the article indicate that exposure comparable to cooking with gas increased respiratory illness in children by 20%…

            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-health-risks-of-gas-stoves-explained/

            Assuming a new stove costs $900, lasts 10 years, and you make $20/hr, missing just 6 days of work in that 10 year span from respiratory illness would cost more than getting a new stove. Considering that the NO2 quantity produced by gas stoves can cause a 20% increase in respiratory illness in children, I’d argue that switching is a no-brainer from a purely cost aspect, especially if you have children… Missing work to deal with a sick kid is a nightmare.

            If youre living alone & working from home, its likely that just factoring time lost to illness likely wouldn’t cover the cost of replacement, but that is just 1 factor out of many…

            • distantsounds@lemmy.worldEnglish
              3·
              10 months ago

              Wow, thank you for this. I still have not been impressed with how they are to cook with, but this does make it very enticing to make the switch. I’ve had both a coil & enamel top at different apts and hated both (coil better imo). I might have to find a way to demo a newer model somehow

            • distantsounds@lemmy.worldEnglish
              3·
              10 months ago

              Some folks microwave everything. Here we argue about fancy food, and they are already living the solarpunk dream.

      • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        53·
        10 months ago

        I also find that claim really odd. Electric stoves are pretty much unbreakable, at least the simple ones are.

        • thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world
          1·
          10 months ago

          It’s hard to find a simple coil top stove. Most now have computerized controls, those computers don’t last longer than 10 years before the capacitors in them wear out. Cost of repair is the the cost of a new stove.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      42·
      10 months ago

      The lifetime numbers you give are complete fiction from what I can tell; only way you end up with that is if the home appliance is getting used all day, every day, as if it were installed in a restaurant.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
          12·
          10 months ago

          Cooking every day doesn’t mean “running all burners on the stove 10 hours per day”

          There’s a difference between using a stove all day, every day, and cooking meals for one family on it.

          • distantsounds@lemmy.worldEnglish
            21·
            10 months ago

            Doesn’t that beg the question…why aren’t l we forcing this upon restaurants and fast food where it will make the greatest impact?

            • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
              11·
              10 months ago

              You’re conflating two things:

              1. Most stoves are installed at home, and designed for ordinary at-home use
              2. A standard for the efficiency of new stoves manufactured 2028 and later

              That’s just sealioning.

  • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
    31·
    10 months ago

    For the folks getting the thumbnail from MILFtrip.com because of “awesome kbin image caching bug”. NO, that is not how the DoE is poised. That position is not of modest efficiency. And I highly doubt that would save consumers money on energy bills.

    There are zero ways that anything with a MILF is “less energy-intensive”.

  • dragonist@kbin.social
    31·
    10 months ago

    Wow my uh, preview image is rather explicit. I don’t even surf pork on Lemmy, the hell?

  • LocoOhNo@lemmus.orgEnglish
    1·
    10 months ago

    A few years ago, my electric bill jumped from about $100/month to over $350. I called the local utilities commission and they told me that they could come out and do a “survey” of my appliances but if their guy determined that the bill was my fault, I’d have to pay $100 as a “service call.”

    The guy essentially walked into my house and just pointed at every appliance and said what it was, told me that my refrigerator was the culprit, then handed me a bill for $100.

    This utilities commission is still adding $20 a month to people’s electric bill for a “solar research” charge and they’ve not made a single investment into solar in the 20 years that they started adding that fee. They still burn diesel to generate power.

    Edit: My point is, electricity could certainly be less of an expense, but because it’s treated as a commodity instead of a necessity, power companies know they can price gauge.

    • HWK_290@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      10 months ago

      So what you’re saying is that your big turd needs a big flush… Fueled by a big stove?

      God help us

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        61·
        10 months ago

        People complaining about low-flow toilets have never used a modern low-flow toilet. Ours has two flush buttons, a big one and a small one. I’m sure you can guess which situation you use each one for. It works quite well. In fact, our old toilet, which was not low flow, used to clog all the time. I think I’ve had to unclog this one once and we’ve had it 4 or 5 years now.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          1·
          10 months ago

          It’s really down to what timeframe you’re looking at. I do want to get a new toilet exactly because my “low flow” toilet from 25+ years ago doesn’t flush as well as a modern one . Meanwhile the real water hogs from 50+ years ago could flush a sailboat.

          I think water saving toilets went in generations like: 5+ gal—>3.5 gal—>1.6 gal—>1.2 gal

          I’m at the 1.6 gallon flush generation, but modern ones about 1.2 gallon or better were where the technology actually improved

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        22·
        10 months ago

        No… Or, really I have no idea what you’re saying. I was just making a joke about low-flow shower heads.