[Stoves] Insulated pots -- retained heat cooking

[Harmon Seaver]

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> Dear Edward
> 
>> It would seem a crock pot of such design
>> with embedded electrical element could
>> with potentially surprisingly low energy
>> rate of usage achieve boiling points and
>> automatically switch on or off as desired
>> and maintain temperatures as desired for
>> prolonged cooking effect.
> 
> Well that is a very good description of an efficient cooker.  An electric
> kettle, a coal stove for space heating and an electric frying pan with a
> cover on are all really efficient.  Water heaters are very good.
> 
> Something that is worth considering is how the electricity is produced.  If
> the efficiency of the power generation is 35% from coal, the transmission
> efficiency is 75%, and the distribution efficiency 90%, you can see that the
> nest improvement is to use local heat sources for heat applications - like
> cooking.
> 
> I have been wondering about the total pollution from a really modern coal
> plant compared with the total pollution from a well made small stove - for
> cooking.
> 
> If you use an electric stove with an efficiency of 50%, only 12% of the
> coal's heat reaches the water in the pot.  No better than an open fire.  For
> space heating, a local fire is far better than an electric heater!  Perhaps
> it is 7 times more efficient.
> 

   But there is a bit more to desirable cooking than just straight
energy efficiency. The electric cooking range is an abomination for real
cooks. The gas range -- whether natural gas or propane -- is so very
much better (in terms of cooking good food) but neither can compare to
cooking on an old wood cookstove. And the difference is fairly simply
explained -- it's all a matter of heat control, of which the electric
stove has very little, the gas stove almost infinite, but confined to a
very small area, and the old wood range with its large top with
fantastically varied temperature ranges depending upon where you put the
pot or pan.
   And yes, I realize, that this may or may not apply to 3rd world
conditions, but it still needs consideration. An electric range fed by a
local nuke plant might well be cheap to operate, but (with the exception
of perhaps the later versions of the AGA cooking range) no real cook
would be happy with it. And how many can afford an AGA anyway? $10,000
for a stove? And, as we all have seen over and over, even cooks in the
3rd world will reject the "efficient" stove if it won't cook food the
way they like it.
   And both my wife and myself most heartily agree -- first off, the
stove must cook well -- we cook with a wood range because it cooks the
best, not because it is the cheapest to operate. And it's not the most
convenient, but the food comes out the best, given dry wood and a good
cook. Frankly, neither of us would use an electric stove even if it and
the power were free. Well, maybe an AGA, but ... even then, I'd very
quickly convert the AGA to gas, if possible.


-- 
Harmon Seaver