The Energy-Saving Benefits of Pressure Cookers

Unlock Your Kitchen’s Secret Power Plant: The Energy-Saving Magic of Pressure Cookers

A 2025 Journal of Thermal Engineering study found that a modern electric pressure cooker operates near 95% efficiency, while modifying a stovetop cooker to avoid steam venting pushes usable efficiency from roughly 30% to more than 90%, slashing wasted heat and cook time in the process. In parallel, field experiments show pressure-cooker-based workflows can cut cooking energy use by 30% to 75%, depending on dish and setup, underscoring why this old-meets-new technology is reentering the spotlight as power prices bite and climate targets harden.

Here’s the thing: the energy story around pressure cookers is colliding with a broader wave of countertop-electric marketing, from air fryers to multi-cookers, and the claims can be fuzzy at best and salesy at worst. Consumers and families care because lower kitchen kWh means lower monthly bills, investors care because Instant Brands (maker of Instant Pot) sits at the center of a sticky, high-retention product category, and utilities care because efficient electrification of cooking helps reduce peak demand and household emissions when paired with cleaner grids.

The data

• A controlled experiment comparing venting and non-venting pressure-cooking modes measured energy-efficiency gains of 196% to 200% when steam was retained, with the electric pressure cooker clocking ~95% overall efficiency and the insulated, automated stovetop variant hitting ~93% while using less input energy.

• A separate experimental program that finished cooking in an insulated pressure cooker reported energy savings ranging from 30% to 75% across common dishes like cowpeas, rice, couscous, and pasta, relative to finishing on a conventional gas hob, highlighting the real-world scope of reductions.

• In practical, bill-facing terms, cooking a pot roast in a standard electric oven for three-plus hours can consume around 6 kWh, whereas an Instant Pot recipe for the same meal may use roughly 1–2 kWh depending on unit size, showcasing an appliance-level delta households can bank.

Step-by-step guides

1) Choose the right cooker

Selecting the right pressure cooker is the first lever for real energy savings, because the design determines both efficiency and how much steam energy escapes versus being put to work cooking food. Electric pressure cookers (EPCs) integrate insulation and automatic control that cut power when the target pressure is reached, which is one reason they test near 95% efficient in lab conditions. Stovetop pressure cookers can match much of that if two conditions are met: better insulation and zero or near-zero steam release during the cook phase so that latent heat is not literally blown into the kitchen.

Unit size also matters, both for batch economics and wattage draw across a cycle, which for popular Instant Brands models ranges roughly from 700 to 1200 watts with cumulative cycle energy often measured in the hundreds of watt-hours rather than kilowatt-hours. For singles or couples, a 3–6 quart class keeps preheat volumes reasonable, while larger families can step to 6–8 quarts without overpaying in idle losses, particularly if batch cooking is the goal. The practical test is simple: choose a unit that minimizes headspace for the most frequent meal sizes while leaving enough room for safe pressure and recipe flexibility, because underfilled or overfilled vessels waste energy through longer heat-up or inefficient heat transfer.

When in doubt, favor non-venting cook modes and designs, since steam venting is the single biggest controllable loss pathway in pressure cooking workflows, according to controlled measurements of energy flows and heat losses. That one design choice—avoiding or minimizing steam release once at pressure—can be the difference between a 30% “effective” cooker and a 90%+ performer in the same kitchen with the same beans.

2) Pre-soak, measure liquid, and avoid venting

Soaked beans, grains, and legumes cook faster and need less energy because water penetrates the material ahead of time, cutting the pressurized phase, and this exact prep step is part of many controlled experiments that report the largest energy savings. It sounds basic, but it drives the arithmetic: if pressure-phase time and energy are cut by a third, savings stack without compromising texture or nutrition, which is why studies normalize comparisons by soaking protocol for fairness. The payoff is even larger for dense staples like chickpeas and whole grains that otherwise demand long simmer times and regular burner attention on gas or electric hobs.

Use only the liquid needed to achieve and maintain pressure while preventing scorching, because excess water has to be heated and pressurized too, which adds unnecessary watt-hours to the cycle. As a rule of thumb, modern EPCs raise the boiling temperature to approximately 121 °C at 15 psi, which shortens cooking dramatically compared to ambient-pressure boiling at 100 °C, making precise liquid management a direct lever on time and energy. Then lock in the gains by avoiding quick-release venting unless a recipe absolutely requires it, since high-enthalpy steam is effectively stored energy that can finish the cook by natural release and internal condensation, a dynamic measured and validated in lab tests.

Here’s the kicker: that trapped latent heat does free work during the stand phase, which is why non-venting runs delivered 196% to 200% efficiency improvements versus runs that whistled away steam at intervals. Put bluntly, venting steam is the loud sound of energy leaving the building, which is why non-venting protocols are the single highest-ROI habit to adopt for lower bills and lower emissions from everyday meals.

3) Batch cook strategically and reheat smart

Batching multiplies the advantage of a pressure cooker because the pressurization overhead gets spread over more portions, bringing down energy per serving while trading oven-scale wastage for compact, insulated cook cycles. For families cooking staples like beans, brown rice, shredded chicken, or stews, a single evening session can knock out lunch and dinner bases for two to three days, avoiding multiple oven preheats or long stovetop simmers that dominate household cooking energy. A simple workflow is to pressure cook a “base” and then diversify later with fresh add-ins or sauces, which keeps reheat cycles short and tailored to portion size.

On the topic of reheats, use the microwave for small, single-portion plates because it targets the food, not the air, and tends to be among the most energy-thrifty appliances for that task when the quantity is modest. If reheating a larger family portion, the EPC’s low-power “keep warm” or a short pressure cycle can make sense because the vessel remains insulated and the controller will cycle power rather than run flat-out, limiting total kWh. In contrast, large conventional ovens heat a comparatively vast air volume and cavity mass, which is why energy analysts and consumer groups flag them as the costlier option unless full trays are being cooked in one go.

One more practical note: plan the batch order so long-cook items go first while the unit is cool, then faster cooks, then a final keep-warm phase, leveraging residual heat to cheat a little energy at the margins. This “laddering” approach uses the physics of the EPC to advantage, the same reason researchers see large efficiency bumps when steam and heat are retained in the cooking envelope rather than dumped between steps.

4) Pair with induction, not a red-hot ring

When a stovetop pressure cooker is the choice, pairing it with an induction hob further squeezes losses because induction generates heat in the pot itself rather than on a burner surface that must then transfer heat across an air gap and into the vessel. Experiments evaluating induction show high transfer efficiency, quick temperature rise, and shorter overall cooking time, traits that compound pressure-cooking’s own time compression and reduce total input energy. In head-to-head lab runs, an insulated, automated stovetop pressure cooker on induction used less energy in total than an EPC for the same meal despite posting a slightly lower measured efficiency, largely because direct vessel heating reduced intermediary losses.

To put that in everyday terms, an EPC’s electric element is a resistive heater that warms the inner pot and surrounding mass, which is efficient but still incurs transfer overhead and controller logic cycles that take minutes to settle. An induction hob delivers energy right into the ferrous base of the pressure cooker, so ramp-up is immediate and steady-state is crisp, making it easier for cooks to avoid the “overshoot, vent, overshoot” loop that wastes steam and watts. If an induction-capable stovetop cooker is available, it’s a credible path to parity or better against an EPC, provided venting is minimized once pressure is reached.

This is where choices get local: EPCs shine in apartments or dorms with no hobs and offer push-button consistency, while induction plus a stovetop cooker excels in kitchens that can accommodate the pairing and a bit more hands-on control. Either way, most of the savings flow from shorter cook times at higher temperature and not venting steam, and the lab data backs that up across multiple cooker types and control regimes.

5) Maintain gaskets, use natural release, and mind wattage

Small maintenance decisions become energy decisions with pressure cookers, because worn gaskets or sticky vents force controllers to run heaters longer to maintain target pressure or trigger unnecessary venting that dumps latent heat. A tight seal is the prerequisite for natural pressure release, where the cooker’s trapped steam condenses and keeps cooking without new energy input—a key reason non-venting configurations delivered two- to three-fold efficiency gains in controlled testing. It’s also why basic upkeep like cleaning the float valve and checking the lid ring pays back quietly in fewer watt-hours per meal and more predictable timing.

Use natural release as the default, switching to quick release only for delicate textures or timing needs, because that one step can make or break the energy math on longer-cook dishes like beans or braises. Plan recipes to finish with residual heat where possible—think rice, grains, and many stews—because the pressure environment at ~121 °C cooks through even off-heat better than open-pot boiling at 100 °C. And keep an eye on the appliance’s actual wattage and duty cycle, since many popular multi-cookers draw 700–1200 watts at peak but only cycle the heater for a fraction of the total cook time, leading to cumulative energy closer to a few hundred watt-hours rather than a continuous kilowatt-hour burn.

Here’s the rub: “up to 70% faster” marketing claims often float around, and some are legit for pressure-phase minutes but omit preheat and release steps in the fine print, which can turn a 20-minute promise into a 35-minute reality in the kitchen. That doesn’t negate the savings, but it does mean savvy cooks should look at the whole cycle and lock in the easy wins—tight seals, natural release, and just-enough liquid—before believing splashy timelines that, sources say, can be more sizzle than steak.

The people

“A pressure cooker saves 90 percent of the energy used to boil a pot on the hob,” notes BBC Food in a plainspoken explainer that captures why this tool has returned to mainstream kitchens during a rolling cost-of-living crunch. “The EPC has 95% efficiency, while the insulated, automated pressure cooker has 93%,” write the authors of a 2025 Journal of Thermal Engineering study, quantifying what home cooks can feel in shorter cook cycles and cooler kitchens. And Constellation, a major U.S. energy supplier, frames the practical delta this way: “If you cooked a pot roast in an electric oven for more than three hours, you would use at least 6 kWh… [with] an Instant Pot… you may only use between 1 and 2 kWh,” which, marketing gloss aside, lines up with the physics and lab tests.

The fallout

On household bills, the combination of higher temperature, shorter times, and reduced venting means fewer kWh per meal, with credible appliance-level comparisons suggesting that swapping a long oven session for a pressure-cooker cycle can shave multiple kilowatt-hours in a single dinner, especially for stews, roasts, and beans. Scaled across a month, that’s tangible savings for families, particularly where electricity tariffs have spiked and energy advisers now spotlight microwaves, air fryers, and electric pressure cookers as cheaper-to-run options compared with ovens and open pots.

On climate and public health, electric pressure cooking aligns with efficient electrification and can materially reduce emissions in regions still reliant on biomass or LPG for cooking, with programs in East Africa documenting bill savings from efficient electric devices—even at higher tariffs—because energy use drops enough to beat legacy fuels. Policy is nudging in the same direction, with the U.S. Department of Energy tightening efficiency baselines for conventional cooking products in 2024, citing national energy savings of 0.22 quads and millions of metric tons of CO2 avoided over time, which reinforces the broader regulatory context that values faster, cleaner cooking.

For manufacturers—and yes, Instant Brands looms large—the upside is stickier product ecosystems and durable replacement cycles in a category that’s now tied to measurable bill and emissions outcomes, not just convenience or flavor. The risk, frankly, is overclaim: this smells like an area where “up to 70% faster” becomes a catch-all, and when results vary at home, trust can wobble even if the underlying efficiency story is strong and repeatable with good technique.

Closing thought

If pressure cookers keep proving they can cut cooking energy by double-digit percentages while delivering weeknight speed, will investors and regulators start seeing countertop electrics as a quiet, scalable pillar of household decarbonization—or will a wave of marketing noise blunt the momentum before policy and practice converge in the kitchen ?