▲ 107 ▼ Most Americans want to electrify their homes — if they can keep their gas stoves (grist.org) submitted 2 years ago by RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works to c/climate@slrpnk.net 147 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 32 points 2 years ago (5 children) When people think of electric stoves, they think of resistance not induction. If people had more experience with induction, I'm sure they'd be less resistant to the change. permalink fedilink source hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] 0xtero@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago* (1 child) But this is America, they still use checks... They're so controlled by their corporations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Give me a digital transaction without fees and I'll give up checks. They cost less to accept. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lulz, fees on digital transactions, is it the 90s again? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) When I accept digital payments for my professional work there is always a fee no less than 1% and sometimes as high as 3.75%. Is your experience different? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ECB@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think they're making fun of the US for still having fees. Here in europe bank transfers are generally free. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Point scored for Europe. I wish that was the case here. I use a service that will do ACH transactions (account to account) for about 1% but many people only want to pay with cards and that means 2.75% or more. Banks suck. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah so over here you would lose more from clients not doing business with you because your prefer checks than what it would cost to pay the fees, but I thought you meant transaction fees for the person paying, not for the business. Debit is much less expensive than credit too so some businesses just don't accept credit (but it's getting rare). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Mostly I do accept the digital payments. Very few, particularly since the pandemic, pay with checks. But it hurts a bit when its accounting time to pay those big fees. Its just profiteering because they can do it as a group of monopolists. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) induction is nice, and the old school induction are fine if all you do is casual cooking. there's no reason to give big gas more dependence permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago Old school resistance you mean permalink fedilink source parent [–] FailBait@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Just picked new appliances for our house. I wanted to look at induction but the ones that were within budget had some questionable reliability in the reviews. However we made sure we have the beefy outlet so we can upgrade as the price comes down. I miss cooking with gas but new electric stoves and some good pans are not that bad. It’ll hold us over until upgrade time… I hope. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago I tried induction using a plugin electric one burner mini appliance. Its not even the whole real thing and its a great experience. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) In my experience both have their upside and downside. I only ever use my resistance stove to braising or stewing, anything that require simmering for long hour, as it provide a consistent heat throughout the cooking process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Are you saying induction doesn't provide consistent heat for long periods? Because resistance is the one that doesn't (at high temp anyway) with the element being turned on and off again and again... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Induction directly heat the cookware so the heat really only coming from the cookware itself, if the cookware isn't thick enough it will conduct the heat away quickly, or if i turn it on high it will quickly burn the bottom of whatever i'm cooking. It still have to cycle on and off to control the heat though. Electric stove on the other hand heat the metal coil/ceramic surface so the heat can conduct into the cookware. This way i can have a surface that is consistenly around that temperature, making it easier to control the heat if i want it low enough to simmer but not boil. In my experience, it's easier to get my food burn with induction because of the direct heating of the cookware. Maybe yours have those fancy-mancy setting to prevent that, but i don't have that sort of setting unfortunately. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) I think it's more about experience with it, you can't cook like you would with a resistance stove... We just made 10L of spaghetti sauce and it was on our induction stove for 6 hours without burning... You just have to get used to adjustments being pretty much instantaneous. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 2 points 2 years ago Honestly, maybe it's my stove. Its a cheaper one as budget is tight. Ohh well, at least i found a balance with it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 0xtero@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago* (1 child) But this is America, they still use checks... They're so controlled by their corporations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Give me a digital transaction without fees and I'll give up checks. They cost less to accept. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lulz, fees on digital transactions, is it the 90s again? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) When I accept digital payments for my professional work there is always a fee no less than 1% and sometimes as high as 3.75%. Is your experience different? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ECB@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think they're making fun of the US for still having fees. Here in europe bank transfers are generally free. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Point scored for Europe. I wish that was the case here. I use a service that will do ACH transactions (account to account) for about 1% but many people only want to pay with cards and that means 2.75% or more. Banks suck. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah so over here you would lose more from clients not doing business with you because your prefer checks than what it would cost to pay the fees, but I thought you meant transaction fees for the person paying, not for the business. Debit is much less expensive than credit too so some businesses just don't accept credit (but it's getting rare). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Mostly I do accept the digital payments. Very few, particularly since the pandemic, pay with checks. But it hurts a bit when its accounting time to pay those big fees. Its just profiteering because they can do it as a group of monopolists. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Give me a digital transaction without fees and I'll give up checks. They cost less to accept. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lulz, fees on digital transactions, is it the 90s again? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) When I accept digital payments for my professional work there is always a fee no less than 1% and sometimes as high as 3.75%. Is your experience different? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ECB@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think they're making fun of the US for still having fees. Here in europe bank transfers are generally free. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Point scored for Europe. I wish that was the case here. I use a service that will do ACH transactions (account to account) for about 1% but many people only want to pay with cards and that means 2.75% or more. Banks suck. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah so over here you would lose more from clients not doing business with you because your prefer checks than what it would cost to pay the fees, but I thought you meant transaction fees for the person paying, not for the business. Debit is much less expensive than credit too so some businesses just don't accept credit (but it's getting rare). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Mostly I do accept the digital payments. Very few, particularly since the pandemic, pay with checks. But it hurts a bit when its accounting time to pay those big fees. Its just profiteering because they can do it as a group of monopolists. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lulz, fees on digital transactions, is it the 90s again? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) When I accept digital payments for my professional work there is always a fee no less than 1% and sometimes as high as 3.75%. Is your experience different? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ECB@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think they're making fun of the US for still having fees. Here in europe bank transfers are generally free. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Point scored for Europe. I wish that was the case here. I use a service that will do ACH transactions (account to account) for about 1% but many people only want to pay with cards and that means 2.75% or more. Banks suck. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah so over here you would lose more from clients not doing business with you because your prefer checks than what it would cost to pay the fees, but I thought you meant transaction fees for the person paying, not for the business. Debit is much less expensive than credit too so some businesses just don't accept credit (but it's getting rare). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Mostly I do accept the digital payments. Very few, particularly since the pandemic, pay with checks. But it hurts a bit when its accounting time to pay those big fees. Its just profiteering because they can do it as a group of monopolists. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) When I accept digital payments for my professional work there is always a fee no less than 1% and sometimes as high as 3.75%. Is your experience different? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ECB@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think they're making fun of the US for still having fees. Here in europe bank transfers are generally free. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Point scored for Europe. I wish that was the case here. I use a service that will do ACH transactions (account to account) for about 1% but many people only want to pay with cards and that means 2.75% or more. Banks suck. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah so over here you would lose more from clients not doing business with you because your prefer checks than what it would cost to pay the fees, but I thought you meant transaction fees for the person paying, not for the business. Debit is much less expensive than credit too so some businesses just don't accept credit (but it's getting rare). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Mostly I do accept the digital payments. Very few, particularly since the pandemic, pay with checks. But it hurts a bit when its accounting time to pay those big fees. Its just profiteering because they can do it as a group of monopolists. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ECB@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think they're making fun of the US for still having fees. Here in europe bank transfers are generally free. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Point scored for Europe. I wish that was the case here. I use a service that will do ACH transactions (account to account) for about 1% but many people only want to pay with cards and that means 2.75% or more. Banks suck. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Point scored for Europe. I wish that was the case here. I use a service that will do ACH transactions (account to account) for about 1% but many people only want to pay with cards and that means 2.75% or more. Banks suck. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah so over here you would lose more from clients not doing business with you because your prefer checks than what it would cost to pay the fees, but I thought you meant transaction fees for the person paying, not for the business. Debit is much less expensive than credit too so some businesses just don't accept credit (but it's getting rare). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Mostly I do accept the digital payments. Very few, particularly since the pandemic, pay with checks. But it hurts a bit when its accounting time to pay those big fees. Its just profiteering because they can do it as a group of monopolists. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Mostly I do accept the digital payments. Very few, particularly since the pandemic, pay with checks. But it hurts a bit when its accounting time to pay those big fees. Its just profiteering because they can do it as a group of monopolists. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) induction is nice, and the old school induction are fine if all you do is casual cooking. there's no reason to give big gas more dependence permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago Old school resistance you mean permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago Old school resistance you mean permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FailBait@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Just picked new appliances for our house. I wanted to look at induction but the ones that were within budget had some questionable reliability in the reviews. However we made sure we have the beefy outlet so we can upgrade as the price comes down. I miss cooking with gas but new electric stoves and some good pans are not that bad. It’ll hold us over until upgrade time… I hope. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago I tried induction using a plugin electric one burner mini appliance. Its not even the whole real thing and its a great experience. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) In my experience both have their upside and downside. I only ever use my resistance stove to braising or stewing, anything that require simmering for long hour, as it provide a consistent heat throughout the cooking process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Are you saying induction doesn't provide consistent heat for long periods? Because resistance is the one that doesn't (at high temp anyway) with the element being turned on and off again and again... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Induction directly heat the cookware so the heat really only coming from the cookware itself, if the cookware isn't thick enough it will conduct the heat away quickly, or if i turn it on high it will quickly burn the bottom of whatever i'm cooking. It still have to cycle on and off to control the heat though. Electric stove on the other hand heat the metal coil/ceramic surface so the heat can conduct into the cookware. This way i can have a surface that is consistenly around that temperature, making it easier to control the heat if i want it low enough to simmer but not boil. In my experience, it's easier to get my food burn with induction because of the direct heating of the cookware. Maybe yours have those fancy-mancy setting to prevent that, but i don't have that sort of setting unfortunately. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) I think it's more about experience with it, you can't cook like you would with a resistance stove... We just made 10L of spaghetti sauce and it was on our induction stove for 6 hours without burning... You just have to get used to adjustments being pretty much instantaneous. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 2 points 2 years ago Honestly, maybe it's my stove. Its a cheaper one as budget is tight. Ohh well, at least i found a balance with it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Are you saying induction doesn't provide consistent heat for long periods? Because resistance is the one that doesn't (at high temp anyway) with the element being turned on and off again and again... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Induction directly heat the cookware so the heat really only coming from the cookware itself, if the cookware isn't thick enough it will conduct the heat away quickly, or if i turn it on high it will quickly burn the bottom of whatever i'm cooking. It still have to cycle on and off to control the heat though. Electric stove on the other hand heat the metal coil/ceramic surface so the heat can conduct into the cookware. This way i can have a surface that is consistenly around that temperature, making it easier to control the heat if i want it low enough to simmer but not boil. In my experience, it's easier to get my food burn with induction because of the direct heating of the cookware. Maybe yours have those fancy-mancy setting to prevent that, but i don't have that sort of setting unfortunately. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) I think it's more about experience with it, you can't cook like you would with a resistance stove... We just made 10L of spaghetti sauce and it was on our induction stove for 6 hours without burning... You just have to get used to adjustments being pretty much instantaneous. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 2 points 2 years ago Honestly, maybe it's my stove. Its a cheaper one as budget is tight. Ohh well, at least i found a balance with it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Induction directly heat the cookware so the heat really only coming from the cookware itself, if the cookware isn't thick enough it will conduct the heat away quickly, or if i turn it on high it will quickly burn the bottom of whatever i'm cooking. It still have to cycle on and off to control the heat though. Electric stove on the other hand heat the metal coil/ceramic surface so the heat can conduct into the cookware. This way i can have a surface that is consistenly around that temperature, making it easier to control the heat if i want it low enough to simmer but not boil. In my experience, it's easier to get my food burn with induction because of the direct heating of the cookware. Maybe yours have those fancy-mancy setting to prevent that, but i don't have that sort of setting unfortunately. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) I think it's more about experience with it, you can't cook like you would with a resistance stove... We just made 10L of spaghetti sauce and it was on our induction stove for 6 hours without burning... You just have to get used to adjustments being pretty much instantaneous. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 2 points 2 years ago Honestly, maybe it's my stove. Its a cheaper one as budget is tight. Ohh well, at least i found a balance with it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) I think it's more about experience with it, you can't cook like you would with a resistance stove... We just made 10L of spaghetti sauce and it was on our induction stove for 6 hours without burning... You just have to get used to adjustments being pretty much instantaneous. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 2 points 2 years ago Honestly, maybe it's my stove. Its a cheaper one as budget is tight. Ohh well, at least i found a balance with it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 2 points 2 years ago Honestly, maybe it's my stove. Its a cheaper one as budget is tight. Ohh well, at least i found a balance with it. permalink fedilink source parent