I like that it's more efficient. Gas kicked a LOT of heat into the kitchen.
I like that it didn't scorch the side of the saucepans.
Ultimately I switched to avoid burning fossil fuels. Every bit counts.
If a typical home cook was buying a stove for their house, I'd recommend induction without thinking twice, especially if they have kids or can't have a hood that vents outside. Even without considering environmental concerns, I'd choose induction for restaurant pastry work— the precision and consistency are really great. It's also nice to not have all of the heat from 30 90k BTU burners all the time in a small room, too.
But for most uses, having a flame you can see, hear, and feel affords much more expressive heat control than digital displays and pan temperature alone. Most pan work is about feel rather than "heating something at x temperature for y time." Also, being able to pick the pan up a few inches to jostle the contents while still getting nearly the same heat transfer is really important for high heat sautées. It's also much much more expensive to get an induction burner that doesn't have a tiny hot spot in the middle of the pan— even with a relatively small burner, the gas flame still spreads out more, which is critical for things like searing large cuts of meat properly. In many ways, gas is a better tool from a functional perspective, environmental issues aside.
My dad is a retired mechanical engineer— he was the chief engineer at a fairly large company for years, and he knows a lot about heat transfer. He won't even entertain the idea that induction stoves are inferior to gas stoves in any way. He's probably also used a stove about two dozen times in his life and standing in front of one he vibes like someone learning to drive. It's the equivalent of his arguing I should use a compass, French curve and drafting templates when figure drawing. Induction being more precise and efficient on paper doesn't make it better in all use cases, and some use cases are really important to some people. Ultimately, the emissions and efficiency make induction the way to go, and I've only seen glib countetarguments against that. But the people telling others— even ones with vastly more experience cooking— they're wrong for preferring gas as a cooking tool are saying more about their own understanding of cooking than the other person's.
* natural gas (42%)
* nuclear power (29%)
* coal (12%)
* solar energy (10%)
* hydroelectric power (5%)
* and wind (1%)
Switching out billions of stoves, cars … to electric counterparts is going to take a long time. The thousands of power plants are much easier to convert.