Which is more economical, to bring half a pan of water to the boil on a gas ring before adding and cooking two 4 minute eggs, or pre-boiling half a pan of water in an electric kettle before putting it in the pan to cook the same eggs?
Hybrid Gas/Electric eggs, or Full Gas eggs?
- Thread starter Chubber
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
The only way to find the answer to this would be to do the experiment using your pan and gas hob, with a means of measuring the gas useage far more accurately than any home gas meter.
So I doubt the average youtuber will be able to answer.
I'm going to totally guess that it makes little difference.
Electric kettles do a good job of transferring electrical energy into the water, and they do it quickly with a lid on, so losses should be relatively small as far as a non insulated container goes.
I think gas is incredibly wasteful for heating water in a pan. So much heat flows around the sides of the pan, up and is wasted in heating the kitchen or pulled through the cooker hood and vented outdoors. It takes longer, so there is more time for heat loss. But as gas is three and a bit times cheaper than electricity, it can be much less efficient without being more expensive.
I suspect that gas all the way is a little cheaper, but not enough to matter, and if you are in a hurry start with the kettle as it's faster.
Our gas hob has a couple of medium burners, a small one and a whopping big burner for use with a domestic size wok. For curiousity we compared the medium size gas burner vs one of those tabletop induction hobs boiling a litre of water. The induction was twice (2.5x ?) as fast as the gas but the induction was also a bit more powerful than our medium burners, not just more efficient at transferring the heat.
Gratuitous photo
You need to match the pan to your burner. 30cm wok ...
So I doubt the average youtuber will be able to answer.
I'm going to totally guess that it makes little difference.
Electric kettles do a good job of transferring electrical energy into the water, and they do it quickly with a lid on, so losses should be relatively small as far as a non insulated container goes.
I think gas is incredibly wasteful for heating water in a pan. So much heat flows around the sides of the pan, up and is wasted in heating the kitchen or pulled through the cooker hood and vented outdoors. It takes longer, so there is more time for heat loss. But as gas is three and a bit times cheaper than electricity, it can be much less efficient without being more expensive.
I suspect that gas all the way is a little cheaper, but not enough to matter, and if you are in a hurry start with the kettle as it's faster.
Our gas hob has a couple of medium burners, a small one and a whopping big burner for use with a domestic size wok. For curiousity we compared the medium size gas burner vs one of those tabletop induction hobs boiling a litre of water. The induction was twice (2.5x ?) as fast as the gas but the induction was also a bit more powerful than our medium burners, not just more efficient at transferring the heat.
Gratuitous photo
You need to match the pan to your burner. 30cm wok ...
Some basic observatons.
It requires a set amount of energy (Joules) to raise the temperature of a volume of water from temp A to boiling at a given pressure.
So to get your half pan of water, (not an Si unit) to boil will require X amount of joules which simplifies your question. All you need is to fill the pan and the kettle with the same volume of water and time how long they take to boil, again just note which boils first is enough. I would say the kettle will win the race, it has less thermal mass than a saucepan and the energy from the element has direct heat transfer into the water compared to the pan which relies on heat transfer from the pan to the water and will incur greater loses.
So if the kettle is more efficient, transfering that water to a pan will reduce the temperature as it now has to heat up the mass of the pan first so energy will be wasted to get it back to boiling.
The solution is why not just cook the eggs in the kettle as it is the more efficient process ?
It requires a set amount of energy (Joules) to raise the temperature of a volume of water from temp A to boiling at a given pressure.
So to get your half pan of water, (not an Si unit) to boil will require X amount of joules which simplifies your question. All you need is to fill the pan and the kettle with the same volume of water and time how long they take to boil, again just note which boils first is enough. I would say the kettle will win the race, it has less thermal mass than a saucepan and the energy from the element has direct heat transfer into the water compared to the pan which relies on heat transfer from the pan to the water and will incur greater loses.
So if the kettle is more efficient, transfering that water to a pan will reduce the temperature as it now has to heat up the mass of the pan first so energy will be wasted to get it back to boiling.
The solution is why not just cook the eggs in the kettle as it is the more efficient process ?
A bit like for rice but quicker
TBH does it really matter ? especially when you switch on the 1500w router and use it for 2 hours.
Surely you don't run your gas hobs full tilt on every pan?The only way to find the answer to this would be to do the experiment using your pan and gas hob, with a means of measuring the gas useage far more accurately than any home gas meter.
So I doubt the average youtuber will be able to answer.
I'm going to totally guess that it makes little difference.
Electric kettles do a good job of transferring electrical energy into the water, and they do it quickly with a lid on, so losses should be relatively small as far as a non insulated container goes.
I think gas is incredibly wasteful for heating water in a pan. So much heat flows around the sides of the pan, up and is wasted in heating the kitchen or pulled through the cooker hood and vented outdoors. It takes longer, so there is more time for heat loss. But as gas is three and a bit times cheaper than electricity, it can be much less efficient without being more expensive.
I suspect that gas all the way is a little cheaper, but not enough to matter, and if you are in a hurry start with the kettle as it's faster.
Our gas hob has a couple of medium burners, a small one and a whopping big burner for use with a domestic size wok. For curiousity we compared the medium size gas burner vs one of those tabletop induction hobs boiling a litre of water. The induction was twice (2.5x ?) as fast as the gas but the induction was also a bit more powerful than our medium burners, not just more efficient at transferring the heat.
Gratuitous photo
View attachment 187758
No help at all but an induction hob is even quicker than a kettle!
My wife thinks the gas job has two settings on and off, if the pan’s too hot she moves it to the side
. Honestly I have tried to educate!
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
I've not yet met a woman who understood TRVs - they're always on or off.
No, but even turned to minimum the one in the photo is too big for our smaller pans. And turned down, you really have no idea what the rating / gas consumption might be.
I still remember the old jingle " cook, cook, cookability, that's the beauty of gas".My wife thinks the gas job has two settings on and off, if the pan’s too hot she moves it to the side
The whole point being that you could turn it down and the reduction in heat was pretty much instant, unlike the old coil element electric rings.
See if you can find the old ads on the web and show her
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
Assuming they're both consuming the same amount of electricity, I wonder if this is true? If it is, I'd be intrigued to know why.
We do have an induction hob, an electric kettle and a smart meter, so theoretically I could experiment, but it would involve turning off all the fridges etc., so I don't think I'll bother.
As an aside, our electric kettle seems to convert a sizeable proportion of the electricity into sound, rather than heat(yes, I know it all ends up as heat, but not in a helpful, boil the water way).
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
Probably depends on how tightly the lid fits, as water under pressure will take longer to boil, albeit at a higher temperature, but I'm being pedantic.
I'll guess (again) two reasons.
Bottom of your pan (probably) has a bigger diameter and quite a lot more surface area to transfer the heat than the heated area (base or element) of your kettle. Potentially double.
If that's true, a tall narrow milk pan ought to be slow compared to a wide shallow one.
Induction creates heat directly in the metal of the pan so it doesn't have to move far to reach water. Kettles make the heat in a resistive element so it has to pass through the ceramic insulation around the element before getting to the stainless steel sheath and then the water. It may take several seconds for the heat to first conduct from the inside to the outside, making the kettle slow off the mark.
I had no idea induction was so fast before I got one of those tefal single ring tabletop things to learn what they were like to use. It comes out in summer when our solar makes electricity cheap.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
Firstly, I can't see the transfer the heat more quickly argument - if both devices are drawing the same power, then where is the untransferred heat/energy going?
Secondly, induction hobs also are an example of resistive heating, aren't they? Just that it takes place in the pan base, as opposed to the hob.
Secondly, induction hobs also are an example of resistive heating, aren't they? Just that it takes place in the pan base, as opposed to the hob.
Excellent counter arguments. Can't fault them. Measurements are needed, but not right now
highwood122
Established Member
if it bother you, eat em raw, that must be more economical
Similar threads
