Article about Sierra Nevada brewing green

[BlindLemonLars]

...fallen for the Global Warming farce.

Hats off to SN they are kicking some serious butt!!

I don't feel so bad about falling for the climate change farce when 99.9% of the scientific community has "fallen" right along with me.

Kudos to Sierra Nevada, they are a great company that I will continue to support.

 

[SPLASTiK]

yes and no... I was told that they were trying to create a furnace burning unit that would burn hot enough to convert the spent grain into fuel and effectively the intense heat would constantly keep itself burning... I wish I could find the article... Damn my stupidity

Alaskan Brewing Co. is working their way there. They're drying grain 24/7 and feeding spent grain to the furnace to dry it. There's no places around here to dump it like farms so they have to ship it down south.

They just installed a mash filter press this year which will make the drying process even more efficiency, as well as having to use 6% less grain, 65,000 gallons less of diesel and over 1 million gallons less water per year.

They plan in the next two years to have a steam boiler setup powered completely by their spent grain. They happened to also be the first craft brewery to install a CO2 reclamation setup and were the only one with one for a decade until Sierra Nevada installed one last year.

 

[creefer]

I received a bid for my house that adding solar panels would pay for itself in 8 years. After 8 years, my electric bill would be about $20 a month. How is that inefficient?

Eric

How much of a government subsidy of my money does it take for that. And don't forget the time value of money. In 8 years you should nearly double your money, so it's not really a pay back. But you go for it.

 

[creefer]

Oh yeah, stop brewing beer...it emits way to much evil CO2, lol

 

[carbon111]

Don't feed the trolls, guys. Without ignorant people, there'd be nobody to fill the lower half of the bell curve.

Sierra Nevada rocks!

 

[thedigitale]

How much of a government subsidy of my money does it take for that. And don't forget the time value of money. In 8 years you should nearly double your money, so it's not really a pay back. But you go for it.

I don't know where to begin....

I'm done here. I'm fighting a battle of wits and my opponent is unarmed.

Good day to you sir.

 

[ArcaneXor]

Ignore List:
creefer

Trolls are not welcome here.

 

[Synovia]

In 8 years you should nearly double your money, so it's not really a pay back. But you go for it.

You double your money in the last 8 years? I sure haven't

 

[arturo7]

Regardless of the manner in which he is doing it, creefer is making valid arguments on hydrogen and solar.

Hydrogen power, although clean, is not at all efficient. Production costs are quite high and storage is a big issue. The molecules will leach through almost anything.

The problems with solar are collection and storage. For residential use, it generates power during the day when no one is home and stores it in incredibly inefficient batteries. Were it not for utility buy-back and government subsidies it wouldn't exist.

If these technologies worked they would be everywhere.

However, solar power does make better sense for a factory or office building that needs power while the sun shines.

Solar needs sunlight and hydro needs electricity to produce. Neither one of them will get you off of the grid.

 

[carbon111]

The grid is overrated.

 

[buckeyebrewer]

Some people seem to take this very personal. I didn't know it would turn into this. Entertaining to say the least.......

 

[carbon111]

 

[BlindLemonLars]

If these technologies worked they would be everywhere.

Solar needs sunlight and hydro needs electricity to produce. Neither one of them will get you off of the grid.

They DO work, they just don't work everywhere and for every application. Solar sure appears to be working for Sierra Nevada. They are a forward thinking company, that understands today's investment will result in tomorrow's lower operating costs. As solar panel technology improves (it's made huge leaps in the past few decades) more companies will turn to them.

It's not about getting off the grid...in fact, the grid is a necessary part of any realistic alternative energy plan.

 

[arturo7]

It's not about getting off the grid...in fact, the grid is a necessary part of any realistic alternative energy plan.

If you mean necessary as a back-up I would agree. I'd rather generate my own power or share a source with a few neighbors.

As for Sierra, as stated in my previous post, solar power makes more sense in commercial, daytime applications where the power is used as it is produced.

 

[carbon111]

Even without subsidies, at the sector level, the true cost of solar power is surprisingly low even today. The average cost is less than $2/W for c-Si modules and less than $5/W for monolithic systems (This includes all costs through the supply chain, excluding only profit.)

First Solar, SolarWorld, SunPower and Suntech are good companies to keep an eye on over the next 5-6 years.

Expect costs to be closer to $1/W around then as well.

 

[BlindLemonLars]

If you mean necessary as a back-up I would agree. I'd rather generate my own power or share a source with a few neighbors.

Not just as a backup, but in the same role it serves now...a means of distribution. Just as now, the power we need will not always be generated right where we need it.

If we all expect to be individually energy independent, we have no chance. But as more businesses and individuals feed excess solar or wind produced electricity back into the grid, the less the utility companies have to fire up those coal/gas powered turbines.

 

[arturo7]

Even without subsidies, at the sector level, the true cost of solar power is surprisingly low even today. The average cost is less than $2/W for c-Si modules and less than $5/W for monolithic systems (This includes all costs through the supply chain, excluding only profit.)

First Solar, SolarWorld, SunPower and Suntech are good companies to keep an eye on over the next 5-6 years.

Expect costs to be closer to $1/W around then as well.

I didn't mean to imply that it wouldn't be feasible at some point in the future. The costs of production are only one part of the equation. Battery technology has to improve dramatically for solar to work residentially.

 

[arturo7]

If we all expect to be individually energy independent, we have no chance.

This sir, is your opinion and I disagree.

 

[carbon111]

I didn't mean to imply that it wouldn't be feasible at some point in the future. The costs of production are only one part of the equation. Battery technology has to improve dramatically for solar to work residentially.

It depends on your draw.

You'd be surprised at what's actually feasible both economically and ergonomically - depending on the application of course.

I'm certainly willing to agree that photovoltaic solar dosen't always make sense. For example, here in the Convergence Zone of the PNW, photovoltaic is not feasible. Despite this, Passive Solar Architecture works great here for both heating and cooling...and your house doesn't even have to look "weird".

 

[arturo7]

StumbeUpon'd this today.

Interesting read on a new battery technology. Decent follow up pieces as well.

New battery could change world, one house at a time

 

[DtownRiot]

One important thing to think about here that has been mentioned is this. If this move to more efficient production lowers production costs, why won't the price decrease? I hate to think that these companies who go energy efficient will actually raise there prices in the next few years despite their lowered costs. It is capitalism in the best sense of the word. an example comes to mind... My college has repeatedly asked students to give them suggestions on how to improve their efficiency to cut costs of operating the school.Let's assume that many people make suggestions that lead to a big savings....my tuition won't go down one bit regardless. same as SN. think about it, if were are being more efficient, where are the savings? I know it takes time for the new tech to pay for itself...but does anyone honestly believe that they will spend less on beer rather than more from Sn in five years? Don't argue inflation. I bet the price will increase by five dollars in the next five years

 

[ArcaneXor]

I know it takes time for the new tech to pay for itself...but does anyone honestly believe that they will spend less on beer rather than more from Sn in five years? Don't argue inflation. I bet the price will increase by five dollars in the next five years

SN and other breweries that use renewable energy sources to run their breweries don't charge any more than other craft breweries, and once the equipment is installed, the cost to run these systems is pretty low. I wouldn't expect their prices to increase any more or less than the industry as a whole.

And as long as people are willing to pay, there is no incentive for SN or other breweries to lower their prices. They pocket any savings (or re-invest it into their operation) and don't piss off their competitors by starting an unsustainable price war that would force everyone to lower production costs or to go out of business, which in turn would result in lower quality beer for the consumer. That would hurt the whole industry, since their raison d'etre is that they produce a premium, high quality product.

That's not to say that craft breweries don't compete with each other at all (quite to the contrary), but as with most luxuries, their producers rarely play by the same rules as mass market businesses do.

 

[TwoHeadsBrewing]

I suppose Sierra Nevada could change their course, but they have historically been very cheaply priced compared to other micros. That is one of the nice things about being privately held, and family owned. You don't have to worry about shareholder wealth, share price, or any of the bullshiite that comes with being publicly traded. The first time they raised prices in over 10 years was a couple years ago, and it went up from $4.99/sixer to $5.99 (at least locally). Even for Celebration and other seasonals, I've never seen it for more than $6.99. For the quality beer they produce, that's a damn good deal. If they wanted to charge $7.99/six, people would still buy it. But I seriously doubt I'll see prices like that in the next 10 years.

I think the price people see across the nation has more to do with the distributors than with Sierra Nevada. You don't put in solar, hydrogen fuel cells, and use biodiesel if you're into making a quick profit. It's an investment in the future of the company, and the earth which suggests a different kind of motive.

 

[ThickHead]

The market drives price, not cost. SN might not have "shareholders" but they certainly have stakeholders and the obligations are not too disimilar. SN is a quality product that is reasonably priced within its market. Going green and improving profitablility without lowering quality or increasing cost is a win, win. If you want cheaper beer, make it yourself.

Kudos to SN!

I think the price people see across the nation has more to do with the distributors than with Sierra Nevada. You don't put in solar, hydrogen fuel cells, and use biodiesel if you're into making a quick profit. It's an investment in the future of the company, and the earth which suggests a different kind of motive.

Well stated.

 

[Brewin_the_goods]

Hell yeah, go SN. These guys make a quality drink (my personal favorite PA) and their price is hella cheap, just $1.20 per beer, which is only .30 cents more than it costs to brew my own. Hopefully this willl pave the way for other breweries to follow suit so that the prices will stay what they are and not inflate.

 

[arturo7]

If SN sees any financial benefit from this system it won't be until 10 years down the road. That installation likely cost them several million dollars and they probably financed it.

Before they were pulling power off the grid, paying for it month by month. Now they are paying principal + interest every month. I'd guess it's a wash.

 

[ThickHead]

If SN sees any financial benefit from this system it won't be until 10 years down the road. That installation likely cost them several million dollars and they probably financed it.

Before they were pulling power off the grid, paying for it month by month. Now they are paying principal + interest every month. I'd guess it's a wash.

The quote below is from a podcast of an interview with the with Sierra Nevada's Sustainability Coordinator, Cheri Chastain:

TH: And when you consider the cost of installing these various renewable energy systems and the amount that you’re actually saving in energy expenses each year, what is the ROI? What sort of return on investment are you looking at?

CC: Sure. The return on investment for both the solar panels and the fuel cells is roughly six to seven years each, so the fuel cells have been up and running for about two and a half years, so we’ve got another four and a half or so years left on that investment. That investment period -- that payback period -- was made possible because of rebates and tax credit and tax incentives. We had some rebates from the local utility. We also had some rebates from the Department of Defense, so that helped out significantly.

The solar installation also has a roughly six to seven year payback period at this time, and, of course, all of this is pending what electricity prices are gonna be and that kind of thing.

Source: From Suds to Solar: The Greening of Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. | GreenBiz.com

The largest challenge for Sierra Nevada in terms of reducing its environmental impact is in the distribution process, namely transportation of product.

 

[TwoHeadsBrewing]

Just found this: http://www.chpcentermw.org/rac_profiles/pacific/SierraBrewery_v1_2.pdf

For the hydrogen fuel cells the cost was $7mil over 5 years. Energy savings were estimated at $400k/year. With incentives from PG&E and government, their expected payback for the investment is 5 years.

Ken Grossman interview: http://www.lotusguide.com/interviews/443-kengrossman