Ooni Volt 12 review: Taking the pizza party indoors

Outdoor pizza ovens are having a moment. The compact, portable models have become popular for both novice and pro cooks alike, allowing them to host casual pizza parties or cater events as part of a restaurant business. While the wood- and gas-burning ovens can be fun to use for all skill levels, they have to remain outdoors, and using wood or charcoal requires more attention.

After making some of the best outdoor pizza ovens, Ooni introduced its first electric model designed for indoor use in March. The Volt 12 ($999) encompasses everything from the company’s existing product line, from high-heat cooking to consistent results, and adds ease of use and baking versatility to the mix. This beast is big and expensive, but it also makes some damn good pizza.

Design

Photo by Billy Steele/Engadget

The Volt 12 looks like what I’d expect an electric pizza oven from Ooni to look like. It bears the most resemblance to the Karu 16, one of the largest models the company offers. The gray and black color scheme is on every current Ooni model, except for the all-silver multi-fuel Karu 12. Rather than a rectangle, the Volt 12 has angled corners, making it more of a flat octagon than a boring box. Ooni says the exterior is powder-coated and weather resistant so you can take it outdoors – not that you would want it to get too wet. Since this model is more of a countertop appliance than its open-flame predecessors, the Volt 12 has short, stubby legs rather than the longer, folding ones on the wood- and gas- burning units.

Only three Ooni models have glass doors that allow you to watch the entire cooking process. As an electric, indoor oven, the Volt 12 is one of those. Unlike the Karu 16 and Karu 12G, this panel is gloss black instead of metal. The door has a robust black handle that remains cool to the touch, even at 850 degrees, and a row of three control dials sit beneath the glass window. The only other button is an on/off switch on the left side of the front. This turns off the power completely. When this is switched on, the oven sits in standby mode until you hit the power button on the front that actually gets the Volt 12 ready to use.

On the left is the time dial with the power button above it. The center control is for temperature, which ranges from 350 to 850 degrees Fahrenheit. Lastly, the far right dial is for “balance,” allowing you to shift how much power is given to the top and bottom heating elements. In other words, you can put more emphasis on the stone for a crisper crust or more on the top for a bit more browning/char. The balance control also activates a boost feature that can be used to get the stone to return to target temp quickly between pizzas (it takes about 45 seconds). All three controls are flanked by white lights for precise level indications. During pre-heating, for example, the temperature dial starts at 350 and slowly moves around to your target, blinking along the way at the current status.

The bottom heating element sits underneath the stone – a 13-inch square cooking surface that can accommodate a variety of pans in addition to 12-inch pizza. There’s also an interior light that stays on the whole time, making it very easy to see how things are progressing without having to open the door.

Setup and use

Photo by Billy Steele/Engadget

Before the first use, you’ll need to season Volt 12. This requires you to run the oven at full blast (850) for 20 minutes and then allow it to cool before preheating to launch your first pizza. The cooldown takes quite a bit longer than the preheating or 20-minute burnoff, so you’ll want to do thing well before you need to actually cook. The cool down time on the Volt 12 takes a while. While the exterior will be back to room temp sooner, it takes a while for the inside to do the same since the Volt 12 is so well-insulated. This means you’ll have to wait at least an hour to safely store it or put the cover on.

Ooni says the 1,600-watt Volt 12 can hit 850 degrees in 20 minutes where it can cook a pizza in 90 seconds. This makes it slightly slower to achieve max temperature than its wood- or gas-burning counterparts. The Karu 16, for example, can reach 950 degrees Fahrenheit in 15 minutes. Still, 20 minutes is remarkably quick, and in my experience, the Volt 12 actually hit 850 faster than that.

The key advantage the Volt 12 has over its wood-burning siblings is convenience. Those models make great pizza with the subtle flavor of wood fire, but the flames require supervision whereas the Volt 12 is very much set it and forget it. You don’t have to worry about maintaining the fire in between stretching dough, topping pizzas and launching them into the oven. The Volt 12 also sets the balance dial based on your cooking temperature, but you can adjust it if you need to. Most outdoor Ooni ovens have an optional gas burner (propane and natural gas models), which would also remedy some of the headaches with temperature regulation.

Making the pizza

Photo by Billy Steele/Engadget

All of this sounds great on paper, but it would be for naught if the thing didn’t make good pizza. Thankfully, Ooni has translated its formula for excellent outdoor cooking to its electric oven. The Volt 12 produces comparable results to any of the company’s other models, right down to the char and leoparding on Neapolitan pies. Since the temperature dial gives you more precise control, it’s easier to achieve the desired cook on everything from New York style to thin-and-crispy. With the extra space inside, you can also make Detroit pan pizza, as well as roast and bake other items with ease. The Volt 12 did well with any type of crust I threw at it, churning out tasty pies consistently in just a few minutes.

Running wide open at 850 degrees, the Volt 12 makes excellent Neapolitan-style pizza. You’ll need to make sure you have a proper dough recipe (Scott Deley’s The Ooni Pizza Project is a great guide), but assuming you're starting with a good base, the oven will do its thing well. I found that the Volt 12 is a little more forgiving with rotating the pies than the open-flame outdoor models, so you don’t need to babysit it quite as much. These pizzas were light and airy with a slight crispness to the bottom and the requisite leoparding. New York-style pizzas baked at 650 were also great, with crisp edges and bottom, with a pleasant chewiness to the crust.

Photo by Billy Steele/Engadget

There are some downsides to the Volt 12, the big one being the price. It’s $999, and I’ll be the first to tell you that excellent pizza is achievable with your main oven and a baking stone or steel that costs a fraction as much. The second thing is it’s huge. The Volt 12 takes up the entire depth of the counter and is 20 inches wide. It also weighs just under 40 pounds. That’s not too heavy, relatively speaking, and the Volt 12 can easily be chucked in the backseat for a nearby party. Ooni did design it with built-in handles on the sides though, which makes the task of moving it slightly easier.

The competition

In the US, Ooni’s main competition for the Volt 12 is the Breville Pizzaiolo. This oven has been on the market for a few years at this point, with a design that looks more like one of the company’s toaster ovens. It’s an all-stainless steel aesthetic, with a glass door for viewing and easy-to-use controls up front. Out of the box, the Pizzaiolo runs on a variety of presets for different styles, but Breville also equipped it with a manual mode to give you full control over the top and bottom heating elements.

The three strikes against this alternative are cost, a confining cooking surface and the lack of interior lighting. The Pizzaiolo is $999.95, so unless you find one on sale, you won’t save any money over the Volt 12. The stone on the Pizzaiolo is circular instead of square, so you’ll only be able to use 12-inch round pans in addition to your pizza. And lastly, there’s no light inside, so it can be a challenge to keep tabs on the cooking process. You’ll almost certainly have to open the door at some point for a closer inspection.

Wrap-up

With the Volt 12, Ooni enters new territory by bringing its formula for stone-baked pizza indoors. While the results are consistently great across a range of styles, this is the company’s most expensive product to date, and I can see that being prohibitive for some – no matter how good the pizza is. A Karu 16 with the additional purchase of a gas burner is $920 or $950 (propane vs. natural gas), which would give you the convenience of a control dial with option of cooking with wood. Still not cheap, but that oven is big enough to do more than just pizza, so it’s also quite versatile. What it really comes down to is where you’ll be cooking most often – inside or out – or if you’re just fine upgrading your pizza game with accessories for your kitchen oven. And there’s absolutely no shame in doing that.

Ooni Volt 12 review

Hitting the Books: Why America once leaded its gasoline

Engine knock, wherein fuel ignites unevenly along the cylinder wall resulting in damaging percussive shockwaves, is an issue that automakers have struggled to mitigate since the days of the Model T. The industry's initial attempts to solve the problem — namely tetraethyl lead — were, in hindsight, a huge mistake, having endumbened and stupefied an entire generation of Americans with their neurotoxic byproducts.

Dr. Vaclav Smil, Professor Emeritus at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, examines the short-sighted economic reasoning that lead to leaded gas rather than a nationwide network of ethanol stations in his new book Invention and Innovation: A Brief History of Hype and Failure. Lead gas is far from the only presumed advance to go over like a lead balloon. Invention and Innovation is packed with tales of humanity's best-intentioned, most ill-conceived and generally half-cocked ideas — from airships and hyperloops to DDT and CFCs. 

MIT Press

Excerpted from Invention and Innovation: A Brief History of Hype and Failure by Professor Vaclav Smil. Reprinted with permission from The MIT Press. Copyright 2023.

Just seven years later Henry Ford began to sell his Model T, the first mass-produced affordable and durable passenger car, and in 1911 Charles Kettering, who later played a key role in developing leaded gasoline, designed the first practical electric starter, which obviated dangerous hand cranking. And although hard-topped roads were still in short supply even in the eastern part of the US, their construction began to accelerate, with the country’s paved highway length more than doubling between 1905 and 1920. No less important, decades of crude oil discoveries accompanied by advances in refining provided the liquid fuels needed for the expansion of the new transportation, and in 1913 Standard Oil of Indiana introduced William Burton’s thermal cracking of crude oil, the process that increased gasoline yield while reducing the share of volatile compounds that make up the bulk of natural gasolines.

But having more affordable and more reliable cars, more paved roads, and a dependable supply of appropriate fuel still left a problem inherent in the combustion cycle used by car engines: the propensity to violent knocking (pinging). In a perfectly operating gasoline engine, gas combustion is initiated solely by a timed spark at the top of the combustion chamber and the resulting flame front moves uniformly across the cylinder volume. Knocking is caused by spontaneous ignitions (small explosions, mini-detonations) taking place in the remaining gases before they are reached by the flame front initiated by sparking. Knocking creates high pressures (up to 18 MPa, or nearly up to 180 times the normal atmospheric level), and the resulting shock waves, traveling at speeds greater than sound, vibrate the combustion chamber walls and produce the telling sounds of a knocking, malfunctioning engine.

Knocking sounds alarming at any speed, but when an engine operates at a high load it can be very destructive. Severe knocking can cause brutal irreparable engine damage, including cylinder head erosion, broken piston rings, and melted pistons; and any knocking reduces an engine’s efficiency and releases more pollutants; in particular, it results in higher nitrogen oxide emissions. The capacity to resist knocking— that is, fuel’s stability— is based on the pressure at which fuel will spontaneously ignite and has been universally measured in octane numbers, which are usually displayed by filling stations in bold black numbers on a yellow background.

Octane (C8H18) is one of the alkanes (hydrocarbons with the general formula CnH2n + 2) that form anywhere between 10 to 40 percent of light crude oils, and one of its isomers (compounds with the same number of carbon and hydrogen atoms but with a different molecular structure), 2,2,4-trimethypentane (iso-octane), was taken as the maximum (100 percent) on the octane rating scale because the compound completely prevents any knocking. The higher the octane rating of gasoline, the more resistant the fuel is to knocking, and engines can operate more efficiently with higher compression ratios. North American refiners now offer three octane grades, regular gasoline (87), midgrade fuel (89), and premium fuel mixes (91– 93).

During the first two decades of the twentieth century, the earliest phase of automotive expansion, there were three options to minimize or eliminate destructive knocking. The first one was to keep the compression ratios of internal combustion engines relatively low, below 4.3:1: Ford’s best-selling Model T, rolled out in 1908, had a compression ratio of 3.98:1. The second one was to develop smaller but more efficient engines running on better fuel, and the third one was to use additives that would prevent the uncontrolled ignition. Keeping compression ratios low meant wasting fuel, and the reduced engine efficiency was of a particular concern during the years of rapid post–World War I economic expansion as rising car ownership of more powerful and more spacious cars led to concerns about the long-term adequacy of domestic crude oil supplies and the growing dependence on imports. Consequently, additives offered the easiest way out: they would allow using lower-quality fuel in more powerful engines operating more efficiently with higher compression ratios.

During the first two decades of the twentieth century there was considerable interest in ethanol (ethyl alcohol, C2H6O or CH3CH2OH), both as a car fuel and as a gasoline additive. Numerous tests proved that engines using pure ethanol would never knock, and ethanol blends with kerosene and gasoline were tried in Europe and in the US. Ethanol’s well-known proponents included Alexander Graham Bell, Elihu Thomson, and Henry Ford (although Ford did not, as many sources erroneously claim, design the Model T to run on ethanol or to be a dual-fuel vehicle; it was to be fueled by gasoline); Charles Kettering considered it to be the fuel of the future.

But three disadvantages complicated ethanol’s large-scale adoption: it was more expensive than gasoline, it was not available in volumes sufficient to meet the rising demand for automotive fuel, and increasing its supply, even only if it were used as the dominant additive, would have claimed significant shares of crop production. At that time there were no affordable, direct ways to produce the fuel on a large scale from abundant cellulosic waste such as wood or straw: cellulose had first to be hydrolyzed by sulfuric acid and the resulting sugars were then fermented. That is why the fuel ethanol was made mostly from the same food crops that were used to make (in much smaller volumes) alcohol for drinking and medicinal and industrial uses.

The search for a new, effective additive began in 1916 in Charles Kettering’s Dayton Research Laboratories with Thomas Midgley, a young (born in 1889) mechanical engineer, in charge of this effort. In July 1918 a report prepared in collaboration with the US Army and the US Bureau of Mines listed ethyl alcohol, benzene, and a cyclohexane as the compounds that did not produce any knocking in high-compression engines. In 1919, when Kettering was hired by GM to head its new research division, he defined the challenge as one of averting a looming fuel shortage: the US domestic crude oil supply was expected to be gone in fifteen years, and “if we could successfully raise the compression of our motors . . . we could double the mileage and thereby lengthen this period to 30 years.” Kettering saw two routes toward that goal, by using a high-volume additive (ethanol or, as tests showed, fuel with 40 percent benzene that eliminated any knocking) or a low-percentage alternative, akin to but better than the 1 percent iodine solution that was accidentally discovered in 1919 to have the same effect.

In early 1921 Kettering learned about Victor Lehner’s synthesis of selenium oxychloride at the University of Wisconsin. Tests showed it to be a highly effective but, as expected, also a highly corrosive anti-knocking compound, but they led directly to considering compounds of other elements in group 16 of the periodic table: both diethyl selenide and diethyl telluride showed even better anti-knocking properties, but the latter compound was poisonous when inhaled or absorbed through skin and had a powerful garlicky smell. Tetraethyl tin was the next compound found to be modestly effective, and on December 9, 1921, a solution of 1 percent tetraethyl lead (TEL) — (C2H5)4 Pb — produced no knock in the test engine, and soon was found to be effective even when added in concentrations as low as 0.04 percent by volume.

TEL was originally synthesized in Germany by Karl Jacob Löwig in 1853 and had no previous commercial use. In January 1922, DuPont and Standard Oil of New Jersey were contracted to produce TEL, and by February 1923 the new fuel (with the additive mixed into the gasoline at pumps by means of simple devices called ethylizers) became available to the public in a small number of filling stations. Even as the commitment to TEL was going ahead, Midgley and Kettering conceded that “unquestionably alcohol is the fuel of the future,” and estimates showed that a 20 percent blend of ethanol and gasoline needed in 1920 could be supplied by using only about 9 percent of the country’s grain and sugar crops while providing an additional market for US farmers. And during the interwar period many European and some tropical countries used blends of 10– 25 percent ethanol (made from surplus food crops and paper mill wastes) and gasoline, admittedly for relatively small markets as the pre–World War II ownership of family cars in Europe was only a fraction of the US mean.

Other known alternatives included vapor-phase cracked refinery liquids, benzene blends, and gasoline from naphthenic crudes (containing little or no wax). Why did GM, well aware of these realities, decide not only to pursue just the TEL route but also to claim (despite its own correct understanding) that there were no available alternatives: “So far as we know at the present time, tetraethyl lead is the only material available which can bring about these results”? Several factors help to explain the choice. The ethanol route would have required a mass-scale development of a new industry dedicated to an automotive fuel additive that could not be controlled by GM. Moreover, as already noted, the preferable option, producing ethanol from cellulosic waste (crop residues, wood), rather than from food crops, was too expensive to be practical. In fact, the large-scale production of cellulosic ethanol by new enzymatic conversions, promised to be of epoch-making importance in the twenty-first century, has failed its expectations, and by 2020 high-volume US production of ethanol (used as an anti-knocking additive) continued to be based on fermenting corn: in 2020 it claimed almost exactly one-third of the country’s corn harvest.

Gasoline prices are displayed at a gas station in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, U.S. October 19, 2022.  REUTERS/Aimee Dilger

How to watch Super Bowl 2023

An estimated two thirds of the US population watched the Super Bowl last year – and it didn’t even have Rihanna. Super Bowl 2023 will take place in Glendale, Arizona at the State Farm Stadium on Sunday, February 12th with a kick off time of 4:30pm Mountain (or 6:30pm Eastern/3:30pm Pacific). The Philadelphia Eagles will play against the Kansas City Chiefs to see who takes home the Lombardi trophy this year. Whether you show up for the snacks, the halftime show or actual football, here are all of the ways to watch Super Bowl 2023.

Who’s airing the Super Bowl this year?

Fox will televise the game this year, and have confirmed it will air in 4K as the network did in 2020. Airing rights to the Super Bowl rotate annually between broadcasters and since 2007, the game has alternated between CBS, Fox and NBC (ABC will get a turn in 2027). As it’s Fox’s year, you can watch the game on local Fox broadcast stations and on Fox channels offered through your cable or satellite TV provider, including Fox Sports 1 and the Spanish-language Fox Desportes. You can also watch through certain live TV streaming services and the NFL+ app on mobile. If you’re watching outside the US, here is a list of international channels that will carry the game.

How to watch with cable or satellite TV

If you already pay for cable, you’re set. Even basic cable services include access to your local Fox channel, and most also include Fox Sports 1, both of which will air the game. You can find your local Fox channels here. Having a cable or satellite subscription also means you can log into the standalone Fox Sports app and watch via your smart TV or computer.

How to watch Super Bowl 2023 without cable

For those who’ve cut the cord, live TV streaming offers a bunch of ways to watch. A few – but not all – of those services will let you watch the Super Bowl this year. Here’s a list of providers that carry Fox Sports, along with their monthly subscription fees:

• Sling Blue - $40 per month, $20 first month

• YouTube with Live TV - $65 per month

• Hulu with Live TV - $70 per month

• FuboTV (Pro tier) - $75 per month

• DirecTV Stream (Entertainment tier) - $75 per month

Sling TV is the cheapest way to watch the game with live streaming, and the channel lineup confirms access to Fox Sports 1 with their Blue package. Many of these services also include a free trial period, so you could sign up before the game and cancel afterwards to avoid a charge.

How to watch the Super Bowl on mobile

If it’s just you watching and you’re thinking of using your smartphone or tablet, NFL+ is an over-the-top subscription app that’s $5 per month or $13 for the NFL season (which ends with the Super Bowl). We should note that the app won’t work on a TV and doesn’t support casting, so this is only a good option if you were already planning on watching on mobile.

How to watch the Super Bowl for free

Local Fox stations will broadcast the Super Bowl over the airwaves and access is free, provided you have a way to receive the signal. Indoor HD digital antennas are available for between $20 and $100. These devices plug into your RF connection input (the coaxial port) on your TV and tend to work best when placed in a window. They’re not all that beautiful to look at, and there is an initial cost, but they do give you the ability to grab content out of the air for (almost) free.

Making a field goal or extra point through the goal post during an American football game at night in stadium with lens flare from the lights.