Introduction

In recent years, the food service industry has seen a strong push towards electrification of kitchens. Concerns around carbon emissions, indoor air quality, running costs, safety, and regulatory change are motivating many operators to consider swapping gas for electric or induction-based systems. However, gas has long been the backbone of commercial cooking; offering rapid response, high heat, and reliable performance that many chefs swear by.

So, is gas still a viable option for commercial kitchens? If so, under what conditions? And at what point does electrification become not just a moral or environmental imperative, but a logical business decision?

Advantages of Gas that Still Hold

There remain several strengths to gas in commercial kitchens:

1. Immediate Heat & Responsiveness Gas burners heat instantly, providing flame control and rapid adjustment. For high-heat cooking (e.g. searing, wok work, flambé), gas still has a performance edge.
2. High Peak Output Commercial kitchens often need to run many burners, ovens and fryers simultaneously. Gas systems are often more capable of delivering very high heat for large volumes during service peaks, without stressing electrical systems.
3. Infrastructure in Place Many older or already-established kitchens are built around gas infrastructure. The layout, ventilation, and supply lines are already catered to gas. In these cases, retaining gas (or upgrading to more efficient gas appliances) can avoid large capital and retrofit costs.
4. Relative Running Cost (in some contexts) In many locations, gas remains cheaper per unit of heat compared with electricity, especially where electricity is supplied at premium rates. This can mean that even though electric equipment might have lower maintenance or be more efficient, the operational cost of gas still compares favourably.

The Rising Case for Electrification

On the other side, the logic pushing towards electrification is strong and is growing stronger.

1. Energy Efficiency & Emissions Electric/induction cooking is significantly more efficient than gas in transferring energy to food. Gas systems lose heat to the surroundings, ventilation losses etc. When electricity is generated from low-carbon or renewable sources, the emissions associated with electric cooking are much lower. CLASP (leading global authority on efficient appliances’ role in fighting climate change and improving people’s lives)  reports that across Europe (and in the UK) electric hobs tend to have lower total cost of ownership over a lifespan once health and environmental costs are included.
2. Health & Indoor Air Quality Gas cooking emits nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), carbon monoxide, and other combustion byproducts which degrade air quality and can have harmful effects on respiratory health. Chefs and kitchen staff, who are exposed for long periods, are especially at risk. Electric cooking (especially induction) avoids combustion at the point of use. This means fewer pollutants in the kitchen environment.
3. Policy & Regulatory Pressure Many governments and regulatory bodies are encouraging, or even mandating, reductions in gas use, and pushing for electric or renewable solutions. Carbon targets, clean air initiatives, building/emissions regulations; these trends are likely to increase pressure on commercial kitchens. There may also be increasing costs of gas supply, infrastructure, emissions taxation, or requirements for ventilation, safety or interlocking systems that favour electric alternatives.
4. Stability & Predictability of Costs Electricity prices are volatile, but in many jurisdictions they are more stable (or hedged) than gas, particularly if renewable/supply-side improvements continue. Maintenance costs for electric/induction systems tend to be lower (less cleaning of burners, fewer flame-failure or combustion issues, fewer repairs), and lifetime costs may undercut gas when one takes into account total costs (fuel + labour + maintenance + regulatory compliance).

The Real-World Constraints: Why Gas Isn’t Dead Yet

Despite the case for electrification, translating logic to reality has obstacles:

1. High Upfront Capital Costs Switching from gas to electric often require not just replacing cooking equipment but upgrading electrical supply (wiring, capacity, distribution boards), possibly increasing ventilation or modifying infrastructure. For many smaller or legacy sites, this investment can be prohibitive.
2. Electrical Load & Infrastructure Limitations Kitchens demanding multiple high-power appliances (e.g. large ovens, kettles, fryers) may overwhelm existing electrical systems. Ensuring sufficient supply, resilience, and safety may mean significant retrofit.
3. Operational and Performance Nuances Some cooking techniques (char, flame-grilling, wok tossing, flambé) are still easier or preferred on gas by many chefs. Also, electric/induction has different heating profiles and may require different equipment (cookware compatible with induction) and retraining staff.
4. Energy Cost Variation & Location Dependence The relative price of electricity vs. gas varies greatly by region and over time. In places where electricity is expensive and/or generated from fossil fuels, the environmental benefit may be less clear. Also, grid capacity, renewable share, and carbon intensity of electricity supply are all key variables.
5. Regulatory & Transition Costs Sometimes, even if you want to switch, planning permissions, safety and building regulations, landlord negotiations and energy agreements can cause delay or cost. Also, there may be sunk costs in gas contracts or supply infrastructure that make immediate change less economically feasible.

When Gas Might Still be the Right Choice

Given the trade‑offs, there are still many circumstances where gas remains logical, at least for now. Some situations include:

• Large‑scale, high‑output kitchens, especially in older buildings with limited electrical capacity and where adding electrical infrastructure would be very expensive or disruptive.
• Specialised cooking techniques where chefs demand flame for flavour, browning, wok work or certain char/grill effects.
• Transitional setups: hybrid kitchens where some appliances are electrified (e.g. ovens, ovens for bake, induction for hobs) but heavy‑fryers, grills or very high heat burners remain gas until technology or cost catches up.
• Regions with cheap gas, expensive electricity, or where grid decarbonisation is slow. In such cases, the economics of sticking with gas for longer may still make sense, provided safety, emissions and health mitigations are maintained.

Making Electrification Practical: Key Considerations & Strategies

If a commercial kitchen is serious about electrification, here are some levers that should be considered:

1. Conduct a Full Lifecycle/Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) Analysis Include purchase cost, installation/retrofit, energy/fuel costs, maintenance, regulatory compliance, health costs (air quality, ventilation), and possible carbon pricing.
2. Evaluate Electrical Capacity & Infrastructure Early Survey building electrical capacity. Anticipate whether upgrades will be needed, and budget for them. Think about power spikes, load balancing, resilience.
3. Choose Efficient Electric Technologies (Induction, etc.) Induction is typically more efficient among electric heating options, and responds quickly. Using high‑quality insulation, recovery systems, well‑designed ventilation to minimise losses.
4. Plan Staff Training & Process Change Cooking with induction or electric means different timing, feel, perhaps slightly different cookware. Proper training helps maintain dish quality and efficiency in service.
5. Phased Transition / Hybrid Approach Rather than switching everything at once, move in phases. Begin with appliances where electrification returns are highest, or where gas is less critical. Retain gas only for use‑cases where it adds real value, until electric alternatives sufficiently mature.
6. Engage with Incentives, Rebates & Policy In many places, government grants or incentives are or will be available for reducing emissions, energy efficiency or installing electric/renewable systems. Take advantage of these to amortise costs. Also monitor regulation: some locales may soon phase out gas or impose stricter emissions or ventilation requirements, so future costs need to be anticipated.

Conclusion

At Grey Simmonds Ltd, we believe gas still has a role in many commercial kitchens but that role is increasingly constrained. For new builds, or major refits, the balance of technical, environmental, health and regulatory logic is tipping heavily towards electrification. For many existing kitchens, a hybrid or gradual transition approach may offer the best path: retain gas where it delivers clear value today, but begin electrifying where cost, infrastructure, and performance can align.

In short: gas is still viable in certain contexts, but it is no longer the “default safe choice” it once was. Kitchens that want to future‑proof themselves financially, regulatorily, and reputationally should be seriously considering electrification now. Grey Simmonds Ltd is ready to help clients evaluate their options, plan for transitions, and understand where gas may still make sense, and when it’s time to switch.