Earth day: Whats a brewery's carbon foot-print like?

I mean - Do they break even due to the growing of the hop plants? Or is it still negative due to the gas required to harvest/ plant the hops?

How much co2 are you dudes throwing around?

I think the largest input to the co2 footprint is the energy required to run the operation. I say this because I took the New Belgium tour in Ft. Collins and they were very proud of being all solar powered.

Nice avatar.

I wonder if it would be possible to build a brewery that wouldn't output more co2 than the hop plants would intake.

Aren't solar panels still a chemical reaction?

Also - I'm amazed that we still use coal power. Are we seriously burning coal to heat water into steam to spin a turbine...? How many steps is that? Thats nuts to think about.

Sierra Nevada meets almost 100% of its energy through solar and reclaimed hydrogen. Last year, they bought hydrogen fuel cell generators instead of diesel ones. Late last year they completed a huge solar array that goes over the main parking lot, and supplies them with all their power in the summer months. Here's a quote about carbon footprint from a local paper:

Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. is one of the first businesses to tap into a new PG&E program that allows energy consumers to take responsibility for their greenhouse-gas emissions.

"We're working on becoming a carbon-neutral business," said Cheri Chastain, Sierra Nevada's sustainability coordinator. "If we don't take care of our environment, then we won't have a good product."


Link to SN website about their energy strategy, including solar and fuel cells: http://www.sierranevada.com/environment.html

Thats incredible. Their pale ale is my default beer. I wonder if it saves them money at all.

I can't believe I haven't heard of that before now.

Someone posted up a while back where a company was producing a large portion of their power through the burning of spent grains. But I would say most breweries are way in the negative.

TwoHeadsBrewing said:

Late last year they completed a huge solar array that goes over the main parking lot, and supplies them with all their power in the summer months.

Click to expand...

Now there's smart environmentalism. Draw power and cool/protect cars at the same time.

Found a pic of the parking lot, but I didn't even realize how many more solar panels there were at the brewery, and the hop garden is on the left!

This whole "carbon footprint" is hogwash. CO2 is exhaled by living mammels and is used by plants which exhale oxygen.

All if it is insignificant compared to what Mother Nature can and does when she decides to go stomping around leaving footprints.

Nothing wrong with conserving, but lets leave it at that and don't pee on my head and tell me it's acid rain from global warming.

The parking lot photo is awesome!

Reminds me of something an ex-coworker used to mention often, the "adobe effect" -- nothing to do with fonts or PostScript!-- roughly something like heat reflection off concrete urban surfaces...

Come on, the last thing this forum needs is another "climate change is a myth" thread, we've had a half dozen in the past few weeks alone.

Any way you slice it, and whatever your beliefs, conserving energy is a GOOD THING. It's also a patriotic thing.

Big ups to Sierra Nevada! Hopefully others will follow their lead.

EdWort said:

This whole "carbon footprint" is hogwash. CO2 is exhaled by living mammels and is used by plants which exhale oxygen.

All if it is insignificant compared to what Mother Nature can and does when she decides to go stomping around leaving footprints.

Nothing wrong with conserving, but lets leave it at that and don't pee on my head and tell me it's acid rain from global warming.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by that? Volcanism is pretty steady. Rock weathering is contingent on carbonic acid.

that picture of sierra nevada is amazing. having an energy independent brewery would be pretty sweet.

Originally posed by blacklab
I took the New Belgium tour in Ft. Collins and they were very proud of being all solar powered.

Click to expand...

New Belgium actually uses wind powered electricity along with a variety of other sustainable resources through out the brewery. You can read more about it here.

http://www.newbelgium.com/sustainability2.php

I agree that conserving energy is good, but let's not get into any debates on man-caused climate change myths.

One thing that bothers me about "my" brewery is how often I have to heat something, just to cool it later, using energy on both ends. For example, having to boil wort, then use a wort chiller to cool it.

commercial breweries use a heat exchanger to use that heat to heat the mash and lauter water. If I brewed continuously, I'd do that too.

drsocc said:

I mean - Do they break even due to the growing of the hop plants? Or is it still negative due to the gas required to harvest/ plant the hops?

How much co2 are you dudes throwing around?

Click to expand...

Taking the hop growing alone, you have to add in fertilizers and the production thereof and the fossil fuels it takes to process and transport the cones into account. This is the same issue that biofuels face - on a life cycle analysis, most subsidized sources of biofuels cause greater GHG emissions than fossil fuels.

The brewing process itself involves heating water, which is notoriously costly in terms of energy.

I love that so many microbreweries have invested in renewable energy and energy efficiency while still turning a solid profit. It helps me enjoy Sierra Nevada and Brooklyn Brewery products even more. And it disspells the old myth that being environmentally friendly has to be expensive or result in a decrease in standards of living. Just like my big screen LCD HDTV consumes a good big less power than my old clunky tube TV; so are great-tasting beers like Sierra Nevada less damaging to the environment than something like Budweiser on a per-unit basis.

I was reading an article the other day stating that some breweried are piping the co2 off of the fermenters and into algae bio-reactors. They then extract the oil from the algae for bio-fuels.

Wow, solar panels on the roof of the brewery too. Now just imagine if it were like that on every building in every major city....

Screw the 'carbon footprint' debate, if everyone had solar panels on the buildings that means cheaper power for everyone! Sadly, it's one of those 'Why don't they?..." questions.

tranceamerica said:

One thing that bothers me about "my" brewery is how often I have to heat something, just to cool it later, using energy on both ends. For example, having to boil wort, then use a wort chiller to cool it.

commercial breweries use a heat exchanger to use that heat to heat the mash and lauter water. If I brewed continuously, I'd do that too.

Click to expand...

You might try using water from the hot water heater for brewing. Your hot water heater is much more efficient that your gas burner.

Also, use the water output from your wort chiller for warm/hot (depending of the efficiency of the chiller) water for sanitizing. You don't really need sanatizing solution before this step anyway. I save most of the water, even after the output temp. drops, in buckets and re-use for clean-up.

drsocc said:

Aren't solar panels still a chemical reaction?

Also - I'm amazed that we still use coal power. Are we seriously burning coal to heat water into steam to spin a turbine...? How many steps is that? Thats nuts to think about.

Click to expand...

Solar panels do not operate on a chemical reaction but are solid state electronics. It is very similar to how your computer chips operate. Still I'm not sure how this relates.

Solar panels are quite expensive in terms of energy required to produce. It takes a significant portion of their life expectancy to pay back that energy.

The coal to electric conversion is a very efficient process. Much more efficient than many other energy conversions like automobiles or solar panels. Commercial solar panels are less than 15% efficient at converting solar energy to electric, autos are usually no better than 30% efficient and coal power plants can be over 60%. Coal also happens to be very plentiful, much more so that oil or natural gas. Ofcourse it is very dirty and produces more CO2 per unit energy than other fossil fuels but I expect it will be an important part of our energy mix for centuries.

Hop plants may use CO2 during the season but that CO2 is released back into the environment when the bines die back and decompose at the end of the year. So a hop field is carbon neutral if you ignore external inputs. Fertilizers and fuel for harvesting usually have a significant CO2 "cost". This is true of any annual and perennial crop. Only woody crops like nuts and fruits are a carbon sink.

Craig

chillHayze said:

You might try using water from the hot water heater for brewing. Your hot water heater is much more efficient that your gas burner.

Also, use the water output from your wort chiller for warm/hot (depending of the efficiency of the chiller) water for sanitizing. You don't really need sanatizing solution before this step anyway. I save most of the water, even after the output temp. drops, in buckets and re-use for clean-up.

Click to expand...

good ideas & thanks. both my hot water heater and stove are electric, but probably the hot water heater is still more efficient. I don't have a wort chiller yet, but i see one in my future...currently doing an ice bath in the sink w/the brew pot.

A coal plant is more efficient than an internal combustion engine in terms of output? Thats impressive.

I went to a mechatronics presentation the other day and got to see a demonstration of an automatic bottling system for homebrewers. It was pretty cool/ really fast and didn't spill. Components were 1000 dollars.

Other interesting projects:
-Slide flute orchestra (programming had to include the logarithmic function that defined the distance between notes on the slide)
-A gun with a camera on it that tracked and shot moving targets. You could define a set of pixels in the camera's vision the gun would track and shoot moving targets.
-A book scanner that would pick up one page at a time with a vacuum and photograph each page. The thing could kill you though because it was using 8-15 amps.

EvilTOJ said:

Wow, solar panels on the roof of the brewery too. Now just imagine if it were like that on every building in every major city....

Screw the 'carbon footprint' debate, if everyone had solar panels on the buildings that means cheaper power for everyone! Sadly, it's one of those 'Why don't they?..." questions.

Click to expand...

I work 'in the biz' and get to see this equasion run all the time. I think the real answer, of "why aren't they on every building" is simply that they don't output much power, either per square foot, or per dollar spent. Take, for example, a high rise tower - it's footprint (roof area) is very small compared to it's floor area, and hence also to it's power consumption. Even if you covered it's roof w/solar panels, it'd hardly make a dent in the power use of the building. When the owner sees how little power it outputs, and how much it'll cost, they tend to put their green dollars elsewhere, where it'll have more of a real impact, such as using more energy efficient light fixtures, or power management systems.

I think right now, the most efficient use of solar for power is using focused mirrors to boil water and turn turbines - the question for me is "why aren't we building those type of plants in desert areas?".

Well, for me, I want to find more efficient ways to brew, because this is supposed to be a cheap hobby (LOL) and I abhor inefficiency.

I'll tell SWMBO that the CO2 from the beer is good for her plants - maybe we can have more of a synergy between our hobbies, and then I'll be able to buy more brewing equipment.

And, I'll keep looking for ways to heat and cool the system more efficiently. My electric bill is already too high...

tranceamerica said:

Even if you covered it's roof w/solar panels, it'd hardly make a dent in the power use of the building. When the owner sees how little power it outputs, and how much it'll cost, they tend to put their green dollars elsewhere, where it'll have more of a real impact, such as using more energy efficient light fixtures, or power management systems.

Click to expand...

Hit the nail RIGHT on the head

The largest power load in a brewery is the boilers. Most are fired with NG or LPG and there isn't any cost-effective technology to replace that.

The CO2 uptake of the hop plants is trivial. Even that of the barley plants isn't much.

And don't forget, half the sugars are converted to CO2 by the yeast.

tranceamerica said:

I work 'in the biz' and get to see this equasion run all the time. I think the real answer, of "why aren't they on every building" is simply that they don't output much power, either per square foot, or per dollar spent. Take, for example, a high rise tower - it's footprint (roof area) is very small compared to it's floor area, and hence also to it's power consumption.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing that is assuming the sun does a straight path over the building. I figured instead the sun's light hits buildings at an angle on the X-axis which is dependent on day and a Z-axis depending on latitude. Y-Axis changes as well, depending on season.
Couldn't putting angled panels at an 30-40 degree and using them as awnings for windows be an acceptable return? I doubt you could do this is anywhere north but places like Las Vegas, Houston, Atlanta, etc would be ideal.

Of course, for single family housing and warehouses, solar panels with a slight angle bias to the sun would be ideal, as you've got a good amount of roof area and immediate consumption (no need to run long lines from solar farm).

EvilTOJ said:

Screw the 'carbon footprint' debate, if everyone had solar panels on the buildings that means cheaper power for everyone!

Click to expand...

Exactly. I think that's what is going to push renewable energy technologies forward. You are going to be hard pressed to make something carbon free once you start accounting for all steps in the supply chain, so suck it up and admit it. Instead, focusing on the actual ROI of the panels now and worry about the production cleanliness later will make a better impact. It's not digging a hole deeper if your making foot holds to get out.

I'll take them just to run stuff when the power is out, though. We had a tornado come through here and knock out power for 3 days.

Not to mention the nightmare that was Katrina, though Jackson came out much better than those south of us...

my point is that all building owners have a limited budget. When they look at two options that cost the same amount:

1) solar panels that output 1 killowatt

2) higher efficiency light fixtures that save 2 killowatts

they'll go for the light fixtures every time. They spend the same amount, but actually get more bang for their green buck with the light fixtures.

This is a simplified example, but my experiences tell me that this same sort of example is run all the time when it comes to solar.

It's all about the bottom line. The math doesn't lie when it tells you that you will use less energy and hence save money. That's assuming your fine with waiting an extra 1/20th of a second for the light to come on.

If you can get a washer/dryer/oven/refrigerator/AC/Furnace that is more efficient, get that! It just plain doesn't make sense to waste money on residential energy production unless you're already at peak efficiency. Solar might make sense for cutting down costs even further then, which I kinda doubt given current production cost.

Just don't go polluting with smug at that point.

drsocc said:

I mean - Do they break even due to the growing of the hop plants? Or is it still negative due to the gas required to harvest/ plant the hops?

How much co2 are you dudes throwing around?

Click to expand...

I dont throw around to much CO2 ------ After too many Stouts the methane gets to be a problem

chillHayze said:

You might try using water from the hot water heater for brewing. Your hot water heater is much more efficient that your gas burner.

Also, use the water output from your wort chiller for warm/hot (depending of the efficiency of the chiller) water for sanitizing. You don't really need sanatizing solution before this step anyway. I save most of the water, even after the output temp. drops, in buckets and re-use for clean-up.

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t use water from a hot water heater for my beer.

1 Ever see what comes out of a hot water tank when you flush it out?

2 Older homes have lead in the plumbing Pipes and solder, hot water makes these chemicals leach out in higher concentrations than cold.


+1 on the chiller water I use it to clean the brew pots and such.

Well, now that Earthday is over, time for some cooler news.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

EdWort said:

This whole "carbon footprint" is hogwash. CO2 is exhaled by living mammels and is used by plants which exhale oxygen.

All if it is insignificant compared to what Mother Nature can and does when she decides to go stomping around leaving footprints.

Nothing wrong with conserving, but lets leave it at that and don't pee on my head and tell me it's acid rain from global warming.

Click to expand...

RIGHT ON!....I dont get why people are buying into this crap

I have no idea where that dude pulled his numbers from - but surface temperature went up last year.

I mean:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

"The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle."

drsocc said:

I mean:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

"The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle."

Click to expand...

sorry, but the data is flawed since the measuring stations were not properly installed or controlled. Kinda like this one.


Detroit Lakes, MN USHCN climate station of record. The Stevenson Screen is sinking into the swamp and the MMTS sensor is kept at a comfortable temperature thanks to the nearby A/C units.

Or this one.



Junk science with bad data equals GW Hoax.

I mean - if you download the raw data you can see the alpha. I think thats just misunderstanding the data collection and statistical analysis.

The NASA GISS stats are not "junk science". You just have to understand what it means and I certainly don't see anything to verify anything from your source from just googling around. If you have something - post it.

I mean - the real pseudoscience is saying that anthropomorphic activities somehow don't impact globe. The 'debate' is now in to what extent this impact has an effect on the planet.

And the acid rain stuff you were talking about earlier is weird. I don't see how you're not picking out the feedback loop from more atmospheric co2 = more carbonic acid = faster rock weathering.

I feel like we're beating a dead and buried horse in this thread though as this discussion pops up pretty much everywhere and most everyone is sick of the topic.

If there was anything to gripe about in the NASA/ GISS data it was stated in the report already in the "Data Flaw" section.

edit: haha - just found this and im sure ed and i feel the same way about each other's posts right now.

EdWort said:

This whole "carbon footprint" is hogwash. CO2 is exhaled by living mammels and is used by plants which exhale oxygen.

All if it is insignificant compared to what Mother Nature can and does when she decides to go stomping around leaving footprints.

Nothing wrong with conserving, but lets leave it at that and don't pee on my head and tell me it's acid rain from global warming.

Click to expand...

Amen Ed! Sick and tired over the crap spouted by Al Gore and his ilk!