I do have an AGA traditional 4-oven. Mine's gas and it is on all the time, but it does not waste a "tremendous amount of energy" as cpovey suggests. If you don't cook a lot (i.e., every day), I agree that it probably uses more fuel than a regular oven. But then, if you don't cook a lot, you could turn the AGA down to really low and only turn it up in advance of the times you want to cook. I'm assuming if you only cook a couple times a week or month, you'd know 8 hours in advance that you wanted to cook! However, if you do cook regularly, this myth that the AGHA is wasteful is simply not true. I know this from the fact that my gas bill was not substantially less in the four month period when my kitchen was being redone and the AGA was not hooked up. All other gas usage was the same - furnace, dryer, hot water heater. Also, it does retain heat rather well and I find that the burner does not come on at a high level except when I am doing a LOT of cooking on the rangetop - and by a LOT, I mean when I have stuff on the boiling plate, simmering plate for an extended period of time. This rarely happens, since in the AGA, the bulk of the cooking is done in the ovens anyhow.

Anyhow, because of the perception of high energy usage (and we all know that perception can be more powerful than reality in driving sales/popularity)AGA's recently introduced some options. On the electric AGA there are new electronic controls that will allow you to set a period of time (e.g., the night and/or day when you are at work) when the cooker is turned down so it uses very little energy. I've heard that similar electronic controls are/will be available for the gas models as well and will also be able to be retrofitted on older models. I will not be having one retrofitted sinceI believe any gains in fuel efficiency will be marginal at best.

I won't pretend to have any meaningful input regarding efficiency. What I can state as a fact, however, is that right near me there's a showroom that has a live traditional cooker, and I was surprised at how much heat I felt coming from it even several feet away. Definitely not something I'd want in my house except in the dead of winter.

Generally in climates where heat is required for the living space most of the year, the AGA traditional ranges are not all that wasteful if at all. In climates where Air Conditioning is used most of the year the AGA traditional is a VERY LARGE waste of energy, not just the gas it burns but the heat load added to the AC system. On the order of hundreds of KWHs per month plus the gas use.

Like so many kitchen decisions, it depends.....

madcow and plllog,

I'm sorry, but you are flat wrong or have been completly decieved. The Aga traditional cookers waste a tremendous amount of irreplaceable energy, unless you live North of the Artic circle.

According to the Aga UK web site (linked below), a 4-burner gas Aga uses 75.5 liters/week of gas. That works out to 19.9 gallons of fuel per week. 52 weeks/year equals 1,036 gallons of fuel/year. If propane costs $2.59/gallon, that works out to $2,684/year for gas, just for cooking.

If you live someplace where you need heat 11-12 months of the year, much of that energy can be recouped because the heater will work less. But if you live south of the Northwest Teerritories, you will have open windows or AC several months of the year, and you will just have to get rid of all that heat somehow.

By comparison, my Bluestar uses a little over 3 gallons/month of propane, or about $98/year (based on actual measurements). This number may be somewhat low, because we cook less in the summer than the winter, but even if I double it, it is still 14 times more efficient than the Aga.

So, based on these numbers, Aga traditional cookers waste a tremendous amount of energy and money. Math does not lie.

Here is a link that might be useful: Aga UK web site

Any idea on how much energy the electric version of the traditional cooker uses?

I suspect that AGAs were a traditional heating/cooking method dating from a time and place where people cooked all day for large families and also lived in chilly climates. (England can be chilly even in July.) It was probably not until relatively recently that AGA decided to market its range as a luxury appliance.

I really appreciate the genial tone of these forums, but it is also a little frustrating that important issues like energy usage aren't discussed that much. The renewable energy forum would be seen as the place to discuss such things, but my guess is that people who go there are those who already realize its importance. The average person who's innocently planning a remodel might not be aware of the effect our typical heavy energy-consuming lifestyles is having. Energy usage and its effect on the environment will affect everything from worldwide disease to war, and is THE issue of this century.

I wish it could be brought up more easily in general discussion without raising each other's shackles. I'm not that good at it myself, but I'm trying. It's absolutely not a partisan issue, its effect will be on everyone worldwide.

This is not an anti AGA-user post, btw! It just happened to come up here.:0)

Debbie

Eggandart, I just purchased a dual fuel Legacy. It's not "on" all the time (it's for a rental and I didn't want my clients to have to learn how to use an Aga for their short stays). And it uses electricity and natural gas. Just the same as our Lacanche but not as pretty :oP (Ok I like them both so hush ya'll)

I suspect that AGAs were a traditional heating/cooking method dating from a time and place where people cooked all day for large families and also lived in chilly climates.

Actually, Aga was developed in Sweden (Denmark?) by a scientist who had blinded himself in a lab accident. It was designed to be simple for a blind person in a cold climate to use (no knobs, no flames to look at, no worry about leaving it on unintentionally, most work done in the oven, etc.). Aga used to make a big deal about this in their marketing, but seem to push the history less recently.

And just a note: I am NOT anit-Aga. I like their 6-4 especially. It's just the 'always on' Aga that are an envionmental disaster.

This one is simple: 13 Amps at 117 VAC. 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Forever. It's the equivalent of burning twenty-five 60 Watt light bulbs continously, or 1.52 KWh. To figure your electric cost, just multiply 1.52 times your cost of electricity (and fuel charge in most places) times 24 to find out how much it would cost to run per day. For me at $0.11 it would be $4.01 per day.

cpovey:
Given that my gas bill is just about $120/month including the cost of running my furnace and gas dryer (doing about 15 loads of wash per week), I'm pretty darn sure that I am not spending over $2600/ year for fuel for my AGA. Somehow I don't think PSEG is in the business of charging me for less gas than they are supplying. I don't deny that my AGA likely uses more fuel than your Bluestar, but it is not as wasteful as you make it out to be. Also, having an AGA means I only use my microwave for making popcorn occasionally since all reheating of food happens in my AGA - and microwaves are high energy use appliances. Winter heating bills are lower in my home than many others, summer A/c bills are likely a bit higher, but not really that much since my thermostat is not in/near my kitchen and I don't really give a hoot if the kitchen is hot. Sorry to keep coming back on this one, but I do know what I spend as far as gas consumption goes, and it is nowhere near the figure you came up with.

And, as far as math not lying, statistics are math, no? Ever heard the saying: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'

I thought I'd give my opinion on this topic. First, while I like cpovey's story about a blind scientist, to me it makes sense to think in terms of wood or coal burning stoves. I used to have a Jotul wood burning stove (made in Norway) that we used for heat but also cooked on it's top. It had no oven. But it was very efficient, and much prized oven American made wood stoves. I imagine that cooking stoves/ovens were also not as tight or efficient as what was being made in Sweden or Norway. Hence the heavy,well sealed, cast-iron AGA's!

Even standing pilots if set too high can use a lot of gas and create a fair amount of heat..thus in California, I shut the pilot light off to the furnace and relight it in the late fall. Heck my folks did that in Pennsylvania when growing up. I don't know how much the AGA uses, but it must have a thermostat, so if it's colder or used more for cooking it's going to use more gas that if it's just left alone and turned down. Maybe they aren't coming out and reading the gas meters! Just kidding, really...

madcow,

The prices I quoted are for propane where I live, Unfortunately for me, propane and gas are both expensive here. You are obviously on NG, which is less expensive than propane. But the figures I used for energy consumption are supplied by Aga: 19.9 gallons of fuel per week.

Yes, I know the saying, and math and statistics are not the same. 19.9 gallons of fuel per week is not a stat, it is a measurement, one supplied by Aga.

having an AGA means I only use my microwave for making popcorn occasionally since all reheating of food happens in my AGA - and microwaves are high energy use appliances.

Totally incorrect. Most MW's do use around 1500 watts of power, but only for a few minutes. They use essentially zero when off ( just a little for the timer/clock). MW's are in fact 'encouraged' by the environmental movement, as they are very energy efficient. The all-electric Aga uses 1500 watts of power continously, and it is hardly a low-power device.

Lastly, do your health a favor, and quit making MW popcorn. Make it in a wok or sauce pot on your hot burner. Chemicals (diacetyl) in MW popcorn have recently been shown to potentially be bad for you. See link.

Here is a link that might be useful: Diacetyl

Ok. As one who does not own a traditional Aga cooker, I was trying to stay out of this discussion. I figure if I don't have direct experience with the product, I have little credible authority to bring to the table. However, I'm also now feeling a bit moved to lend a tad of support to my friend, Madcow, who seems to be taking it on the chin all by herself here ! That development seems especially odd where, if I am reading this thread correctly, the only poster to actually own and consistently use a traditional Aga cooker in this discussion is Madcow!

To be upfront and honest, I also have to admit that I chose to purchase a Six-Four because I had neither the pocketbook nor the inclination to experiment with a traditional Aga cooker. Questions of both fuel usage and Aga traditional cooking technique were, on top of purchase price, enough to deter me. However, as a subscriber to the AgaLovers Group on Yahoo, I have discovered a wealth of information on this issue of energy consumption and the Aga cooker. And, while there, as here, the opinions are sharply divided, I find the discussions more credible because the majority of the participants are owners of Agas, especially traditional Aga cookers.

The following are 2 posts from the AgaLovers Group. While they don't fully answer the central issue raised by Eggandart in this discussion, they somewhat support Madcow's claim of experience while also adding some interesting commentary on the true user cost of the unit:
**************
Post #1 :

Lots on the list today!

I think it sounds like a big issue is that running an AGA on propane is substantially more expensive than running it on natural gas.

What some of you seem to be paying for propane to run your AGA for a year is almost what I'm paying for my whole natural gas bill (which also includes the cost of my furnace and hot water heater) in New England
(which is not one of America's warmer spots). Under those
conditions I would agree that the AGA is a stiff investment. Even under my circumstances, I consider it a luxury, but since it'll outlast me, and since when you add up the cost of the AGA and all 5 cars I've bought for
myself since I started driving 25 years ago, it's still less than the cost of the one BMW 5 series my friend bought for himself last year, I'm still feeling like it's not that expensive an item, relatively speaking.

Post #2

found that our salesperson (also at Domain) underestimated, shall we say, the amount of propane the stove uses. We have found that if we keep our three-oven running at full power 24/7, we go through about 70 gal. in six weeks. At $3+ a gallon, its not cheap. However, we generally turn ours down a couple of notches at night, or even further when the weatherÂs warm and weÂre not going to be cooking on it for a few days. I find that it will come back up to full temp in about three hours, and you can use the roasting oven to heat stuff up without bringing it back up to temp.

That said, the oven pretty much takes care of heating our 26x26 kitchen/dining room area in the winter, unless it gets down into the low 20s, then the room heat kicks on. So it does save us on heating oil, although I couldnÂt tell you how much really. And in the summer, when we only crank it up now and then, and keep it pretty far down the rest of the time, we can get through the whole season on one tank of gas.
And, of course, all that aside, you just canÂt beat the Aga for amazing cooking results, flexibility, looks, ease of use, longevity, and so forth.
*************

If you want to hear more of this, like from the poster who describes the Aga cooker's fuel consumption as "egregious and unconscionable", well, I guess you'll have to subscribe to the AgaLovers Group! :)

HTH (if even only a bit)

Post one discusses no figures, so it can be ignored, mathmatically that is..

Post 2 posts similar figures to what I calculated. They claim 70 gallons/6 weeks, or about 12 gallons a week. This is about 40% better than Aga claims, but that is with turning it down at night and up in the morning (so they can cook at night).

At $3.00+ per gallon (I used $2.59 per gallon) this still works out to $1820 per year for cooking fuel. I contend that these figures are very close to what I originally calculated.

Please clarify this for me. I understand that traditional AGA cookers have several ovens and each oven maintains a specific temperature that is distinct from the temperatures of the other ovens. Therefore, if one needs to, say, lower the temperature on a roast, then one has to move the roast itself from a high temperature oven to a low temperature oven. Is this correct?

kitchendetective, you have that essentially right - although it's a stretch to say the oven temperatures are maintained "at a specific temperature". Nothing is controlled by thermostat in a traditional AGA, there is a control for how high the flame is and the average temperature of the whole unit goes up and down with the flame setting. One of the extra challenges you get in cooking in/on an AGA is that you never really know exactly what you have for temperatures in the ovens, also they vary from time to time: the more you've been cooking on top of the AGA, the more you've had oven doors open, the cooler the whole thing gets. In my experience, temperature was also quite uneven within the ovens - warmer in back, toward the top, towards the flame, cooler toward the door and side of the oven. Baked goods require much rotation in order to be successful. Bottom line, the traditional AGA's ovens are tiny and don't work very well, they waste natural resouces and warm the planet as well as your kitchen (think hair dryer on "high", 24/7/365) and for this you pay a premium. But, hey, the colors are nice and your cat will be very happy in the winter.

O.K. I don't own one, but I read the American and British websites. I thought the traditional AGA does have a thermostat. There was a great question and answer "Ask the Cooking Doctor" section with about 40 questions I thought was interesting.

Ah, here's a quote from the American site.

"An Aga is always ready to cook instantly and there are no switches and dials because the Aga looks after itself. Thermostatic control maintains consistent temperatures while high levels of insulation within the outer casing and beneath the Hotplate covers ensure that every Aga uses fuel economically. The Aga releases a unique source of gentle, friendly warmth into your kitchen."

I also noted that on the British website (that cpovey linked to above) they are introducing a computer controlled electric model that you can set the times during the day to bring the range back up to heat.. (This is still the traditional style AGA, just fueled by electricity).

Statistical math calcs aside, the point of my earlier post was that I think one's mileage may vary on an Aga cooker with respect to fuel consumption. Degree of fuel usage has much to do with what type of fuel you are using, where you live (climate), how frequently you use ovens to cook, etc.

Nothing MarkW has claimed to be his direct experience with a traditional Aga cooker squares with anything I have ever read or heard from others who own and/or consistently use one. For sure, the heat in an Aga cooker is thermostatically controlled! And, the very fact of its cast iron construction is what makes for its ability to cook by way of radiant heat. Such a method allows for the heat to be evenly distributed throughout the oven casing and on all sides. Further, the ovens are not tiny; the Aga cooker roasting oven is capable of handling a 28 lb turkey! Finally, the Aga cooker has been around for 85 years. I hardly think that if it were as lousy a cooking unit as MarkW claims that it could have lasted this long, and have such a loyal fan base among those who own it.

Again, if you want to learn about what traditional Aga cooker owners have to say about this range, I strongly recommend the AgaLovers group on Yahoo. In the meantime, check out the link below for an additional informative source on the traditional Aga cooker.

OK, so I exaggerated a tad when I said the AGA has no thermostat. What I should have said is that the *ovens* are not thermostatically controlled. What is controlled in the oven is the temperature somewhere in the hunk of iron that is an AGA, something that takes hours or days to change. My basic point - that you never know what temperature you're going to get and that it varies depending on what else has been going on - is still true. I'm not the only one: check out the first bit of the article in one of the English daily newspapers at the link.

I did indeed cook on one of these things for three years during a stay in England. I have to laugh when I read how spacious the ovens are. We were fortunate to be able to measure the oven openings (about 13") before moving and so knew to leave the roasting pans, cookie sheets and pizza stone at home - no way would they fit. The only 28 pound turkey that would fit in one of those ovens would be a very long, narrow one! The "radiant heat" pitch is complete nonsense; most of what cooks food is hot air, not "radiant heat" and the hot air within an AGA varies dramatically within in the oven, as I described before.

In a twisted way, I have to give the AGA credit for improving my cooking. If you want good results from an AGA for anything other than stews, you learn to cook things until they're done. With the oven temperatures only vaguely known, timers are pretty much useless. The oven temperature is so uneven that you have to be available to rotate while baking. So there's a certain antique charm about it but there shouldn't be many willing to pay the premium or consume the excess energy for such "charm".

It's true that the AGA has been on sale for about 85 years and that's probably the problem: it has more in common with the always-on wood stove, the cooking technology of the 19th century, than it does with a convection oven, the cooking technology of the present.

Mark, as I suggested earlier on, this is really not my fight as I don't own an Aga traditional cooker and I'm not intending to buy one. I suppose I got into the fray at first because it seemed odd that the only people who had negative comments about the Aga cooker are owners of other high end ranges. Meanwhile, the one poster who can claim ownership of the Aga cooker on this thread is quite pleased with it.

Then, when you entered the discussion, I thought the tone of what had been a lively debate changed to being a tad combative. Honestly, I had never heard the Aga traditional range so vigorously trashed as a cooking machine. (To the contrary, while I've heard much debate about the fuel usage issue by Aga cooker owners themselves, I've never heard anything but praise for its cooking results.) Still, I think it's possible to fairly criticize a product that you don't own without insulting those who do with unnecessarily disparaging remarks. I've certainly never heard the benefits of the Aga cooker reduced to having a nice color or the ability to make a cat happy in cold weather!

I would still advise anyone who is interested in and/or considering purchase of an Aga traditional range to do considerable homework and talk to people who own them. One person's happy experience or another's disastrous encounter does not tell the whole story.

As for me, that's it. I'm out of here.

Well, maybe the ovens don't hold standard bakeware, but with the pans that are sized specifically for the AGA and hang on the AGA's side rails (eliminating the need for a rack), you can actually use the entire cavity, so, yes, a large turkey does fit. I did Thanksgiving dinner for 26 people here two years ago and, my bird(s)(only 26 lb) fit just fine thank you.
I'm actually quite a good cook (no empirical evidence, just what people tell me and the fact that people rarely turn down my dinner invitations)and love to entertain and frequently cook several course meals, soup to dessert for several people in my AGA on the day/evening they are to be served. And, no, I don't baby my food, because the AGA is actually quite forgiving - when you really learn how to use one, you learn not to expect exact cooking times, but you also learn that dinner won't be ruined if you're enjoying a particularly good discussion over a cocktail and find yourself delayed by an hour or more. I tend to be an intuitive cook and rarely follow recipes exactly, so perhaps that's why an AGA suits me. Who knows....Fact is, I don't particularly care. I have grown to love my AGA (I did not the first month or two I owned it, and I did not expect to ever) and now I would not be without it. I passed up a La Cornue Chateau to keep my 4-oven because I love it so. I don't find it egregious in its consumption of fuel, I love the fact that it is built to last and will likely be around long after I am and that there's nothing to go wrong with it, really.

A note on baking, I've never been more than adequate at it, but my AGA does turn out yummy gougeres, profiteroles and a wonderfully moist Victorian sponge. And killer pecan pies and cheesecakes - DH's specialty.

'Nuff said. Not trying to sell the things. Just happen to love mine and would never be without. It has nothing to do with the "charm" or the sex appeal or power. It just works for me. Take it for what it's worth, just one person's opinion and experience.

Marthavila - nice to see you, my friend. What did you decide to do about the 6-4?

Martha hit the nail right on the head in her post. I'm sure you don't get the same gas mileage in your car as someone who owns the exact same car, I think we can all agree on that. The same holds true for an Aga Cooker, it's all in how you use it, and once you truly understand how versatile these units are you will find that they can do the job of many other appliances. To set the record straight - Aga Cookers are indeed thermostatically controlled, single burner units, that "radiate" heat via a series of internal plates. Under normal operating conditions, heat is transfered via these plates to each oven. Being that these ovens are cast iron, the heat transfered ensures that every cubic inch of an Aga oven is usable space, so I'm not sure what the "pitch" is, where there are clearly no direct elements or fans involved. Cooking in an Aga is not so much about temperature so much as it is about rack position and time. Each oven has a baseline temp across the mid point of the oven with the top portion of the oven being hotter and the bottom of the oven being cooler and based on whether you raise or lower a rack dictates whether you raise or lower the temperature. As far as the turkey issue goes while I have personally never done a 28# bird in our 4 oven but I have done numerous 25# birds with no trouble whatsoever. For someone that is considering an Aga for their own home I would recommend two things: 1. attend at least one demo at a dealers showroom and don't be afraid to ask for a private demo if your still not sure, as this is no small investment. 2. Look for the book "The Complete Book Of Aga Know-How" by Richard Maggs. This book is exactly what the title says, covering every aspect of using and maintaining an Aga. I found mine on the internet and it has been a great resource.

We have had an Aga cooker for 10 years - the traditional model with 4 ovens (broiling,baking,simmering, warming) and the two hot plates on top. The most important item about the Aga is that it cooks EVERYTHING much better that ANY other cooking device. Last year we were looking for a new home. The first question in every home we looked at is does the kitchen have a space for an Aga? If not, let's move to the next home, that's how much we like the Aga.

Yes, the Aga is always on and most cooking is done in the ovens, not on the cooktop. With the Aga you don't set the temperature, you find the temperature and sometimes move something from one oven to another.

Relative to heat: We live in Charlotte, NC where it gets hot in the summer. The Aga does generate a little heat. We made the air conditioning ducts larger near the Aga. We also turn off the Aga for 3 months in the summer. Our kitchen also has a Jenn-Air cooktop, convection oven and microwave that sit idle until the summer when we turn off the Aga, not because of the cost of natural gas, but because of the challenge in our home to air condition the area around the Aga.

Relative to cost. We originally operated our Aga on propane then switched to natural gas when it became available. Don't remember how much we were spending on propane, but natural gas is much cheaper. Comments in this forum about the price of gas in liters or gallons, are totally irrevelent to anyone who has natural gas. Our natural gas company measures and sells gas by BTU, not by liter/gallon. With the Aga a flame similiar to the old pilot light on a gas water heater or gas furnace does stay on all the time. Net - cost of Aga operation on natural gas is small increase over the gas water heater & gas furnace. If you have to go propane, if you cook, the additional cost will not be a big deal because you will have better cooking device. If you don't cook and you are not a movie star, then don't buy an Aga.

Environmental impact: One can only hope that the folks questioning the environmental impact of the Aga are also speaking up on the value of nuclear power. Nuclear power plants create zero greenhouse gases. France gets 70-80% of their electricity from nuclear. The US gets 10-15% of our electricity from nuclear.

This is long, but markw and cpovey are way off base on some of their comments. If you cook and have the space and can afford the upscale price, then there is nothing remotely comparable to an Aga.

Hi, Chefbecky, did you just register today to comment on AGA and carbon footprints?

All the folks I know who are concerned with our environment, don't think Nuclear power is a very good idea at all. It has certain "deleterious effects" as Dr.Helen Caldicott liked to say.... We'd all be cooked in invisible radiant heat then.

Newt Gingrich is for it, maybe he'll do for the planet what he did to America with his new book "A Contract with the Earth"... maybe AGA will make a special model that runs on the spent fuel of a reactor just for him and his ilk.

cast iron construction is what makes for its ability to cook by way of radiant heat

Ah yes, more Aga 'marketing'.

Ask any engineer or physicist: There are only three ways to conduct heat: radiation (or radiant), convection, and conduction, period.

Conduction is what hapens when two objects touch one another. A pot on a electric burner gets (most of) it's heat through conduction.

The pasta in the water in a pot gets hot by convection from the water getting hot. Convection is heat carried by a fluid. (Air, by the way, is a 'fluid' in the thermodynamic definition.)

Radiant heat is heat carried by electromagnetic radiantion, in cooking generally some form infrared radiation. When you stand in the sun, you are receiving radiant heat. Step into the shade, and you are still warm (from convection) but cooler than in the sun.

Now, the key to this is that these are the ONLY way to move heat. Therefore, all ovens (except microwave) cook primarily by radiant heat (with a small contribution by convection). In all ovens, the walls get hot. This heat then radiates out to the food, thus heating the food. Thus, Aga ovens are no different thant regular ovens in how they heat food.

Don't remember how much we were spending on propane, but natural gas is much cheaper.
Generally very true, and bad news for us stuck on propane!

Comments in this forum about the price of gas in liters or gallons, are totally irrevelent to anyone who has natural gas. Our natural gas company measures and sells gas by BTU, not by liter/gallon.

But BTU's can be converted to volume measurements in this case. One gallon of propane contains 91,600 BTU of energy. Similar conversion exist for NG (approximately 100,000 BTU/gallon)

We made the air conditioning ducts larger near the Aga. We also turn off the Aga for 3 months in the summer. Our kitchen also has a Jenn-Air cooktop, convection oven and microwave ...

The 'answer' according to Aga on their web site on how to deal with the heat an Aga makes in hot areas-turn it off in the summer and use another appliance! I'll let the reader figure out what percentage of homes have the money and room for two complete sets of cooking equipment.

The most important item about the Aga is that it cooks EVERYTHING much better that ANY other cooking device.
If this were true, then why don't Michelin three-star restaurants cook on Aga's?

And just to reiterate: I am NOT anti-Aga. I think the 6-4 is a great piece of equipment-I considered getting one for a while. I am just very much against the 'always-on' Agas, their profligate use of energy, and the marketing BS that Aga uses to sell it.

alexr,

Yes, I just registered to comment on the Aga. We are remodeling the kitchen in a very small condo and was looking for appliance ideas. We love the Aga and would highly recommend it to anyone who cooks, has kitchen wall space, and access to natural gas. The Aga just cooks better and is more forgiving in cooking than any other cooking device.

We are concerned about the environment also. During the remodeling our home we installed high energy efficient doors, windows, roof, hot water heater, gas furnace and our cars get 30 mpg. But the thought that having a natural gas pilot light that is constantly burning on the Aga is causing an environmental disaster is nonsense.

We would agree with Posts 1 & 2 by marthavila above. The Aga does have some challenges.
It is very heavy cast iron and should be installed across floor joists or with strenghen floor joists
It will use more propane than the Aga marketing rep states, so natural gas is much preferred.
Additional air conditioning may be desirable with the Aga marketing rep will deny.
However, even with these challenges, we agree with the comment in marthavila's comment "you just cant beat the Aga for amazing cooking results, flexibility, looks, ease of use, longevity, and so forth."

If we're getting into the clean energy debate, nuclear may have "deleterious effects", but so does every other kind of energy. Nuclear is the cleanest energy source that can adequately meet the needs of our technology-mad society. I have to agree with chefbecky, the US is way behind the eightball on this one.

cpovey - I fail to see why the fact that there are only three ways to transfer heat negates the fact that the AGA is uniquely able to cook using radiant heat because of it's solid cast iron construction. It is a fact that opening the oven door to put food in and putting food in causes substantially less of a temperature drop in an AGA oven because of its construction than it does in any other oven, and, because all walls of the AGA are radiating heat at approximately the same temperature, food cooks from all sides fairly (not completely) evenly - more so than in any oven which relies on top and/or bottom elements. Clearly you are completely opposed to the traditional AGA and unable to see any redeeming qualities in it - a somewhat dogmatic position, I think, but one you are entitled to hold. While I love my AGA, I do admit it has flaws (what doesn't), but they are flaws I am willing to overlook because, as a range, it works better for me than anything else I have ever used. That's just my experience. There are others like me and plenty of naysayers too. The AGA, more than any cooking appliance I know of, appears to polarize opinion. I contend there are two kinds of people in this world - those who love the AGA cooker (and, by this I mean the traditional cooker) and those who hate it.

By the way, please take this in the spirit it was intended - tongue firmly in cheek.

I saw this thread and just wanted to put in my two cents. As an Aga Cook Specialist, I am not on to foment any more disagreement about the cooker, just to let you know my experience cooking on it 8 hours a day. When I was first hired, I thought, no way. This is a pretty piece for the wealthy. As a past magazine food critic, I had a decent idea about how things should taste, and how to prepare them. The idea that temperatures would never be hand adjusted seemed ludicrous. After a little practice, I realized how very intuitive cooking can be. The 450 degree oven ranges from 425-475 depending on where in the oven you place the food, the 350 degree ranges from 325 to 375 and so on. I have never, ever, cooked this well before. I am a true believer and will purchase one for home use when I can afford. The ovens can definitely take a 25-26 lb. turkey.

OT, but important-
Funny thing Madcow, just a couple days ago I was having a little 'backyard' conversation about these "deleterious effects" with Ned Birdsall, and he told me just how dirty nuclear energy is, but what does he know, after all, his interest is in fusion and Plasma physics and he is a Professor Emeritus at U.C. Berkeley.http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Faculty/Homepages/birdsall.html

Should I believe him or you???? This is important because it's coming back into the public discussion, with Bush and his buddies. (and Newt)
Perhaps you might care to read something from the opposing side? Or are you already an expert? The link below has another link to a chapter in Dr. Caldicott's book- (the blurb)

" Among the myths that have been spread over the years about nuclear-powered electricity are that it does not cause global warming or pollution (i.e., that it is "clean and green"), that it is inexpensive, and that it is safe. But the facts belie the barrage of nuclear industry propaganda:

* Nuclear power contributes to global warming
* The real costs of nuclear power are prohibitive (and taxpayers pick up most of them)
* Theres not enough uranium in the world to sustain long-term nuclear power
* Potential for a catastrophic accident or terrorist attack far outweighs any benefits."

I believe the AGA is a good cooker, and I didn't start this thread to get anyone riled up. I am concerned with energy issues, tho. We've mostly been fed BS on energy policy from day one, because the huge companies in the business want to make sure they've got the market cornered. And the government has almost always bowed down to huge interest groups and catered to their wants, rather than the needs of the citizens as a whole. There are obviously some very tough issues in the country today, and I have strong feelings about many of them, as many of us do. I just hope that we can try not to talk about them offensively, and to react defensively. The stakes are too high. Most important is that we read, listen to all sides, to decipher the truth. Remember that neither the government nor the companies and their interest groups have a good track record of telling the truth. What they do have is literally billions of dollars to spend influencing our opinions, and they are very successful! Most people only have a vague idea about what's going on, and have their facts muddled. In the end, I'm very pessimistic, because I haven't found that people change their ideas based on reasonable information. For example, in 1980 and 1984, practically everyone in my town voted for Pres. Bush and wouldn't tolerate any anti-Bush discussion, even to the point of calling it unpatriotic. (Isn't open discussion and dissent exactly what democracy is all about?) Now everyone's quiet about him and he's become unpopular even among people who voted for him. Yet he's hardly changed his administration's agenda, and has done what he said he was going to do. The main thing that HAS changed is that the media has turned from showing him in a positive light to showing the negatives. Now that people are seeing unfavorable media coverage, they all seem to be changing their minds. The information was there all along, people just weren't seeing it. They believed the most superficial feed the media gave us. (I'm not anti-media, either, you just have to look for the motive behind things or, as they say, follow the money.)

AGA users probably aren't even using more energy than most people. Air conditioning and car driving are much bigger energy problems, and much more common. We all use too much energy every day. Unfortunately, the best information out there tells us that we are contributing to an environmental change that will have huge effects on us all.

One one hand, I hate to sound so serious. But on the other, ignoring the facts won't get us anywhere either. This topic needs to be thought about and talked about.

That's funny... in 1980 and 1984 I voted for Reagan. Well, actually my father did as I was too young. Bush was just a by-product at the time. I didn't realize Bush's popularity has gone down so much. His son, on the other hand....

alexr - believe whom you want. I do. Ned Birdsall is not the ONLY expert in the field or the only professor (emeritus or still actively employed) who has weighed in on the debate. There are several(at many fine institutions ranging from Princeton to Stanford), and some are anti-nuclear and others pro-nuclear. I'm not going to name names - a simple google search should get you there. There is much to be said for doing your own research and engaging both viewpoints and then making up your own mind. I've read extensively on the subject - both sides. And, the one irrefutable conclusion I've come to is that there's plenty of ammunition to support either side. However, I have yet to hear of nuclear energy generating greenhouse gases. If dirty = generating radioactive waste that needs to be properly contained (the key being properly contained) then, by that definition, certainly nuclear energy is dirty. To me an important differentiator is that the waste can be properly managed and contained, unlike greenhouse gases which cannot be contained. Also, I am not likely to breathe it or experience negative effects from it unless there's an accident, unlike the stuff that comes out of coalmines and the emissions from carbon-based fuels. Yes, there's a risk, but one with much lower probability than a mine collapse (in which several people die every year) or the certainty of breathing the aforementioned emissions.
As for sustainability, there are various theories on that - even one, albeit a bit extreme, that states that using breeder reactors there's enough uranium for billions of years. Also, thorium can be used in reactors too.

I post this largely to point out that there is another side to this debate that should not be ignored. While you are great at calling others (in this case, me) out on our positions, and do so entertainingly, with great use of sarcasm (...what does he know, after all, his interest is in fusion and Plasma physics and he is a Professor Emeritus at U.C.) and making it personal (Should I believe him or you????), thus implying that my position is not credible or well thought out whereas yours is supported by the "experts", you provide evidence only of having researched your side. That's fine and I would leave well enough alone, except for the fact that you chose to pick on my credibility, when all I presented was an opinion. You had no way of knowing if it was informed or not, but you were really quick to assume that it was not. By the way, I'm really not interested in debating this issue with you so will recede into the ether now. Engaging debate requires respectful discourse not an assumption of stupidity, which you chose to make.

I provided evidence only on my side? That's not quite true at all madcow, in fact I mentioned Newt's new book on the subject if you want to believe it. He's been interviewed lately even on NPR..The big money is starting it's drumbeat for nuclear power. I suggest again that if you're interested, read Dr. Helen Caldicott's recent book (2006) "Nuclear Power is Not the Answer".

And I never mentioned the better alternatives, conservation(what cpovey is suggesting), solar, wind, geothermal and so forth.

Madcow, it's more than the 'waste' that you mention. It the mining of the ore, the 'release' during generation, the transportation, the transferable genetic defects of those involved, the disasterous effects of earthquakes, storms, war, and just lousy maintenance let alone accidents at or on the reactors, and keeping it out of the hands of terrorist to name just a few. And yes, the waste. But you know all that, I presume and must think it's O.K. for your children and your children's children. Bully for you.

You're right, fenworth! I meant 2000 and 2004 for GWB.

Madcow writes: "However, I have yet to hear of nuclear energy generating greenhouse gases."

Here are some excerpts from Dr. Helen Caldicott that I hope will dis-imbue madcow and others about the "greenness" of nuclear power.

"Nuclear power is not "clean and green," as the industry claims, because large amounts of traditional fossil fuels are required to mine and refine the uranium needed to run nuclear power reactors, to construct the massive concrete reactor buildings, and to transport and store the toxic radioactive waste created by the nuclear process. Burning of this fossil fuel emits significant quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2)�"the primary "greenhouse gas"�"into the atmosphere. In addition, large amounts of the now-banned chlorofluorocarbon gas (CFC) are emitted during the enrichment of uranium. CFC gas is not only 10,000 to 20,000 times more efficient as an atmospheric heat trapper ("greenhouse gas") than CO2, but it is a classic "pollutant" and a potent destroyer of the ozone layer.

While currently the creation of nuclear electricity produces only one-third the amount of CO2 emitted from a similar-sized, conventional gas generator, this is a transitory statistic. Over several decades, as the concentration of available uranium ore declines, more fossil fuels will be required to extract the ore from less concentrated ore veins. Within ten to twenty years, nuclear reactors will produce no net energy because of the massive amounts of fossil fuel that will be necessary to mine and to enrich the remaining poor grades of uranium. (The nuclear power industry contends that large quantities of uranium can be obtained by reprocessing radioactive spent fuel. However, this process is extremely expensive, medically dangerous for nuclear workers, and releases large amounts of radioactive material into the air and water; it is therefore not a pragmatic consideration.) By extension, the operation of nuclear power plants will then produce exactly the same amounts of greenhouse gases and air pollution as standard power plants.

Meanwhile, every billion dollars spent on the supremely misguided attempt to revivify the nuclear industry is a theft from the production of cheap renewable electricity. Think what these billions could do if invested in the development of wind power, solar power, cogeneration, geothermal energy, biomass, and tidal and wave power, let alone basic energy conservation, which itself could save the United States 20% of the electricity it currently consumes."

alexr,
Can you carry on a two sided converstation.
Your comment "maybe AGA will make a special model that runs on the spent fuel of a reactor just for him and his ilk." isn't funny - it is stupid and insulting.

Our country has an energy problem. Unfortunately everyone wants to play politics with energy policy. I believe both sides are right and both sides are wrong. In order to become energy independent of the middle east oil, we need it all. There is not a silver bullet. We need conservation and cars that get better mileage. Why do all the cars that get good mileage come from Japan. Your ideas "wind power, solar power, cogeneration, geothermal energy, biomass, and tidal and wave power, let alone basic energy conservation" are all good, but unlikely to be enough to become energy independent. We also need drilling for oil off shore and in Alaska. Personally, I believe that our best investment would be in figuring out how to burn coal and not polute - we have lots of coal. Your list of ideas all have limitations.

Take wind power for example - take a drive from LA to Palm Springs and look at the windmill farms along the way. Most of the windmills will not be working. Windmills are mechanical, break down, and need a lot of maintenance. Senator Kennedy doesn't like the looks of windmills and will not allow a windmill to be built where he can see it, but it is great if it is in someone elses backyard. There are already several cities in the US that have passed laws prohibiting the building of windmills becaue windmill turbines make to much unpleasant noise. In spite of these challenges, wind power is a niche power solution that has some value (probably limited).

Today, Bloomberg TV covered a news conference where the head of the Russian nuclear program announced that Russia was going to begin commerical production of fast neutron breeder reactors and would build a plant in India. The fast breeder reactor uses non-enriched uranium so there is no threat that is is turned into nuclear bombs and there is no waste to be handled. France, Japan and the US are behind Russia in this technology.

Many of your statements are one sided and need a reality check. You state "medically dangerous for nuclear workers" How many coal miners have died from black lung disease? How much money is being spent this year treating black lung disease. So far, nuclear has not had the medical problems that coal has had. You state "Meanwhile, every billion dollars spent on the supremely misguided attempt to revivify the nuclear industry is a theft from the production of cheap renewable electricity." Who is spending billions - US govt, Exxon, Duke Power, - no one that I can see except Russia.

Politicians (Gore, Edwards, Kennedy) who talk about being concerned about the environment use more energy on one flight of their private airplanes than we use in a year of the "always on" Aga cooker. Are private airplanes an environmental disaster also. You are emotional about nuclear, how about private airplanes and SUVs, should they be banned or just nuclear and Agas.

Again, there is no silver bullet. We need to be open to discussions of all energy options.

Also, our experience with the Aga is that the Aga is unsurpassed as a cooking device. Love it

Should I choose to, alex, I could post just as many times and with just as many references on the other side of the issue. But, as I said before, you are not interested in an open debate - your mocking tone makes that clear. If you're looking to win people over to your worldview, the way to do it is with intelligent, respectful arguments, not badgering.

And, back to the original subject of the thread. Like chefbecky's, my experience with the AGA has been that it is a very forgiving appliance that works better than anything else for my intuitive style of cooking. You may not agree, but that is still my experience.

But the thought that having a natural gas pilot light that is constantly burning on the Aga is causing an environmental disaster is nonsense.

chefbecky, it is not a pilot light that is burning. The burner on a traditional always-on Aga outputs a minimum of 3,000 BTU's, and if it senses a drop in temperature, adjusts up to 15,000 BTU's-all definetly above pilot light consumption.

This is why it's a environmental problem.

Chefbecky and madcow, to each his/her own. If you think coal is bad, I find it incredulous that you would embrace nuclear.

Other than the comment about Newt Gingrich's stove, (sorry if you don't like my sense of humor-but the man is advocating something I think he should be willing to live with)..and I don't think I've written anything negative about AGA ranges. I did not bring up the cute smart comments about Nuclear Power- seems that you folks can carelessly dish it out, but cannot take any honest reply.

Anyway, the OTHER QUOTES were from Dr. Helen Caldicott and not mine.
How the heck do you know what medical problems nuclear power has released upon the earth?

Dr. Helen Caldicott is a physician, she was a pediatric doctor at Harvard Medical School, when she started Physicians for Social Responsibility..
She also started "International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War" that won the NOBEL Peace Prize in 1985.

She has been nominated as an individual for a Nobel Prize many times, including being nominated by Linus Pauling. Read the book.

I hear reality calling...

Everything is a trade off. Perhaps with an Aga you're consuming more fuel than other cooking appliances, but think of all the food packaging (the big gainer in landfills), pizza delivery gas, and other transportation and food-processing waste that are saved by people who cook fresh at home enough to want to keep an Aga running all day. VVVBG :D

IMHO, this conversation has gotten way OT! It has also gotten unnecessarily snarly and rude in the process. Let's remember the reason why we are here. As the header states, this is a forum for "sharing experiences about buying and repairing appliances." While I'm quite capable (as are others) in getting down and dirty in discussing the politics of our times, I specifically did not join this forum for those types of discussions and I resent the degree of conversational hijacking that is going on in this thread.

There's no doubt that fuel consumption is an appropriate topic for discussion when talking about appliances in general. But let's stop cornering the Aga cooker as the sole energy-dependent product in the universe to have an environmental impact. As Eggandart49, (the poster who began the thread) has stated:

"AGA users probably aren't even using more energy than most people. Air conditioning and car driving are much bigger energy problems, and much more common. We all use too much energy every day."

Is it possible to accept that conclusion and get on with it?
Can the traditional Aga range lovers be free to brag about the virtues of their cookers in much the same way that Bluestar and Wolf owners proudly brag about theirs? Can the ardent advocates for a clean and green environment, join forces with environmental action groups, lobby lawmakers, bring court actions, post stories to the corporate media and start our own environmental action blogs, etc?

Bottom line, can we please not turn GW into a personal PC platform where we end up in malicious mudslinging fights with each other? Or, put another another way, can we at least pause to consider how we are treating our differences in this online community and adopt a bit of netiquette in expressing ourselves?

BTW, Madcow, yes! I decided to go with the Aga Six Four (DF). Can't wait for it to arrive!

I just figured out that driving a 15 mpg car 11,475 miles in a year and having a four-oven Aga on for a year take the same amount of energy. So I say buy an Aga, trade your SUV for a motorcycle and call it even. LOL!

Chefbecky, you asked who is spending billions (on nuclear subsidies)? We are. (13 billion in 2005) It's mentioned in this link.

At the risk of returning to something at least mildly cooking related, cpovey, while you're right about the physics of how food gets cooked and I think I generally agree with you conclusions about the classic AGA, you had it wrong when you wrote

"Therefore, all ovens (except microwave) cook primarily by radiant heat (with a small contribution by convection). In all ovens, the walls get hot. This heat then radiates out to the food, thus heating the food. Thus, Aga ovens are no different than regular ovens in how they heat food."

In fact, the predominant way food gets cooked in an oven is by conduction, not radiation: food gets hot by the transfer of heat energy from the hot air in the oven. In a normal oven, the element or flame heats the air, the air heats the walls of then oven, which are then exactly the same temperature as the air and nowhere near hot enough to emit significant infrared radiation. Having the walls warm really mean nothing to cooking except as stores of heat, they help get the air back up to temperature faster when the door is opened. Generally speaking, something has to glow (at least in the infrared part of the radiomagnetic spectrum) before radiation becomes a signficant factor in cooking, as in the case of a broiler. A convection oven cooks somewhat faster because the moving air improves conduction into the food.

In this respect, an AGA *is* somewhat different: rather than the air heating the metal, the metal heats the air and the oven walls are often warmer than the air. It's still nowhere near warm enough to contribute significantly to cooking, though, and to the extent it does it's a problem because the oven walls closer to the flame (towards the center of the AGA, in other words) are much hotter than those further from the flame (the side, back and especially the doors). It's one of the reasons why an AGA is so difficult for baking.

Markw,

Can you comment, from a Physics point of view, on the relative efficiency of shorter ovens, like in the French ranges, and taller ovens, like a standard American? Contrasted with an Aga? Right now I'm very confused.

Thanks!

JC

Time to return to cooking appliance discussions.

Marthavila, congrats on your Aga Six Four (DF). You will love it.

I didn't read all of the posts- so if the question was already answered I am soory. I am just too tired/hurting tonite to look at all of them.

So said, I was pretty shocked at how much they use- yes the website says how much, but never having a gas appliance before, it didn't sink in.

Does the AGA Companion use this concept also- what about dual fuel- that is the model I am interesed in.

thank you

Hey Marthavila, I see that you went with an AGA 6-4 in 2007 and I am wondering what your verdict is on that model? I am wavering between the 6-4 and legacy. I prefer that cast iron face and slightly higher btu of the 6-4, but concerned since it has been discontinued. Not as thrilled with the construction quality of the legacy, but liking the price. Do you have a review now that you are a 6-4 veteran?