# Is Hb Good For The Environment?



## Renegade (2/7/09)

Ever wondered what the extent of an ecological footprint we leave on the planet when making beer at home ? I have, that's why I'm opening up this discussion ! 

Clearly there are some pretty big advantages to the environment. Looking at bottling, there's no waste going into landfill, or if going back to the recycling plant, no excess energy wasted on melting down the glass and creating a new glass product. 

There's no transport pollution, shipping bottles from the manufacturer, to the brewery, then onto a distribution centre for delivery to each outlet. 

There's no wasted paper on cardboard cartons or four/six pack holders. 

On the other hand, there is still the shipping of grain, kit cans or extract malts from the grower to the maltster then onto the distribution channels. I would take a guess that overall transportation pollution from shipping the ingredients would still be less than shipping heavy bottles all over the country. 

However, how much water per litre of beer does a brewery use in the process of manufacturing beer ? Personally I might use 75-100 litres, so that works out to be over four litres of water per one litre of beer output. 

Does this wastage correspond with commercial breweries ? Taking the liberty of assumption again, I would say that HB'ers use heaps more water. And probably more cleaning agents on a per-litre basis too. All down the drain. 



Thoughts, anyone ?


----------



## Offline (2/7/09)

Yes,

don't put it down the drain


----------



## apd (2/7/09)

Renegade said:


> Does this wastage correspond with commercial breweries ? Taking the liberty of assumption again, I would say that HB'ers use heaps more water. And probably more cleaning agents on a per-litre basis too. All down the drain.



Renegade, 

It's probably safe to say that home brewers do use more water that a commercial brewery but in my case, it's not all necessarily down the drown. Most of the water I use gets let out onto my garden and my chiller re-circulates back to my rainwater tank. I'd say most people are making this sort of effort to reduce their water usage.

Andrew


----------



## captaincleanoff (2/7/09)

you guys think that water with starsan would be ok to go on the garden? Have often wondered this.


----------



## Pennywise (2/7/09)

captaincleanoff said:


> you guys think that water with starsan would be ok to go on the garden? Have often wondered this.




Can't say for the garden but it's not good on laminated bench tops. Man did I get my ass kicked for that one


----------



## brettprevans (2/7/09)

maybe not over your veggie garden but lawn/garden its fine. after all you can ingest the stuff in small quanities as its a no rinse. so it should be fine.


there is a thread somewhere on AHB regarding waste and envrionmental impact. i think it stemmed from a newspaper article on how much water is used/wasted on making various products and the article had beer as an example. there was a long discussion that followede. nfi where the thread is though.


----------



## Offline (2/7/09)

captaincleanoff said:


> you guys think that water with starsan would be ok to go on the garden? Have often wondered this.



i don't know i have never used it

IIRC worlds best practice for a brewery is around 2.5 litres of water per litre of beer. 
But there are more knowledgeable people here that would know the figures from first hand experience.


----------



## captaincleanoff (2/7/09)

yeh? Ive got laminated bench tops that often get covered with starsan spray when doing yeast stuff.. haven't noticed anything..

What happened? Did it just discolour it?


----------



## Interloper (2/7/09)

Think about the huge reduction in your carbon emissions though. Less travelling in a car to buy beer, which is delivered and distributed in fossil fuel burning trucks.

Even a trip to the LHBS would get you enough ingredients to brew a lot more beer than you could fit in your car in just one trip to the local bottle-o.

Each carton of commerical beer would have a huge footprint (raw ingredients of beer, packaging, cardboard, ink, printing - the printing industry is notorious for it's use of water/paper especially - transport, storage, refrigeration).

Be mindful of water use, but even still home brewing would definitately be a plus for the environment. 1 bottle of homebrew would almost certainly have a miniscule carbon footprint compared to a bottle of my beloved Hoegaarden Grand Cru flown all the way from Belgium!
 

Oh man that makes me feel bad - almost bad enough to not drink one tonight...almost!


----------



## Pollux (2/7/09)

I throw the water I use to wash my fermenters with out onto the lawn, the grass loves yeast trub....


I may use more water than a commercial brewery for each litre of beer produced, but I try to get as much as possible on the gardens or grass.


----------



## A3k (2/7/09)

I wouldn't be supprised if we'd use more energy on a per litre basis to actually make the beer. Commercial breweries can have their heat exchangers cool sweet wort down and heating up water for their next brew simultaneously to save energy/money.


----------



## Pennywise (2/7/09)

captaincleanoff said:


> yeh? Ive got laminated bench tops that often get covered with starsan spray when doing yeast stuff.. haven't noticed anything..
> 
> What happened? Did it just discolour it?




Not just discolour it, but took the shiney coat right off the top. Now I have several white patches on the bench. The minister noticed it a few weeks ago, I'm still getting an ear full about it.


----------



## Ol'Wobbly (2/7/09)

Interesting topic.

There can be no doubt that, leaving water aside for a moment, HB's consume far less resources than commercial brewers - for all the reasons mentioned in the other posts. Taking water, I estimate that I use about 100-120 litres of water per 30 litre brew, mainly on rinsing. But seeing that about half of that rinse water finishes up on the lawn (even on a damp Adelaide winter's day), is it really wasted?

The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that HB's have much less of an impact on the environment than pub and bottle-o drinkers. :icon_cheers: 

2c


----------



## Pennywise (2/7/09)

Pollux said:


> I throw the water I use to wash my fermenters with out onto the lawn, the grass loves yeast trub....




I threw some trub on my veggie patch, it killed all the worms in there. Grass prolly doesn't matter but I'd prefer to keep the worms in my veggie patch, killed em' in about 15 mins


----------



## newguy (2/7/09)

Star san is mildly acidic so dumping it on the lawn probably isn't good. I dumped approx 160l of sour porter on an anthill in my backyard 3 years ago. It killed the ants and the lawn *and* it rendered the soil sterile. Nothing grows there now. I get an earful every time the wife is in the backyard (which is daily).

I'll be first smartarse to mention my HB induced methane emissions (I'm surprised no one else has yet).


----------



## Renegade (2/7/09)

"Down the Drain" wasnt the best choice of words. But admittedly 'some' stuff goes dowm my drain - mostly first-rinse of the yeast trub. And i will always try to gear it so if I have a fermenter soaking, i will use the same water to soak another fermenter instead of emptying it out. So I guess that decreases water usage a lot more than I considered. But I find i rinse the hell out of my bottles when we've drank them, as Im a bit paranoid about 

All up, about 1 litre (per 1 L of beer) actually goes down the drain, but i would say another 2 litres (per 1 L of beer) at least will go on the lawn and maybe 500ml (per 1 L of beer) of 'clean runnings' end up in the pot plants, which need to be watered anyway. 

Although I reckon the stated best practice figure of 2.5/1 is achievable. In fact I'm going to start aiming for it. For starters, I am going to refrain from soaking my fermenters, and scrub them by hand, spray them with S02 every 15 minutes to maintain surface contact etc. And as for no-rinse, I actuaklly am very efficient already, less to do with water savings but more about sparing the no-rinse. 

But yea, the offset against carbon emissions is huge, HB would be way ahead in terms of being environmentally sound compared to buying beers over the counter.

Edit - when I say 'lawn' I dont mean grass, but a patch of leaf mulch under a tree. I take no responsibility if someone throws cleaning agents on their lawn and it kills the buffalo. :icon_cheers:


----------



## bum (2/7/09)

A3k said:


> I wouldn't be supprised if we'd use more energy on a per litre basis to actually make the beer. Commercial breweries can have their heat exchangers cool sweet wort down and heating up water for their next brew simultaneously to save energy/money.



And, even with a fridgemate, those of use who use a fermenting fridge are probably causing more CO2 production per litre as well.


----------



## shonky (2/7/09)

Best practice by commercial brewers may be 2.5lt per lt of beer but most breweries use between 6 and 10lt per lt.

I remember visiting Cascade brewery a few years ago and the guide saying that after implementing various water saving initiatives they had reduced their water usage to 10lt per lt! Being the country's oldest operating brewery though, I suppose it would have been harder for them than others.

I believe most of the usage in smaller breweries is in pasteurisation, I have heard you can cut your water usage by about a third is you don't pasteurise.

As far as power goes I would guess that a commercial brewery would use much less power per lt. The bigger the volume the greater the thermal mass. Most breweries (even small ones, say 600lt batch size) will save their cooling water and it will still be hot enough the next day to mash in with.

As far as carbon footprint goes you are better off drinking VB :icon_vomit: - 40% cane sugar or corn starch so doesn't have to go through the energy intensive malting process, virtually no hops (they probably use a dash of iso hops for bitterness), high gravity brewing (making about 7% alc and then diluting so less energy there), I am sure the list would go on....

Cheers


----------



## petesbrew (2/7/09)

bum said:


> And, even with a fridgemate, those of use who use a fermenting fridge are probably causing more CO2 production per litre as well.


I only have a bar fridge, however it's a tad old, and some old ones can chew up as much power as a full sized fridge.
As for fermenting, it's brew-with-the-seasons setup for me. no heat pads, no chillers, no pumps and all that.


----------



## flattop (2/7/09)

ok i lose about 7 litres in the boil plus say 3 litres in washing and cleaning, the rinsing of the bottles at a rough guess i would use about 35-40 litres from grain to drain (via me).
No fresh water is wasted, everything goes on the garden, starsan goes down the drain but it's small quantities.
90 minutes of electricity for the mash and another for boil.
Co2 from the yeast.

Using grain is probably better for the environment overall and it's recyclable. Also i think there is something to be said for small scale pollution everywhere over large concentrated pollution in one spot. The earth may be able to deal with small amounts widespread rather than all in one place.


----------



## Gout (2/7/09)

I have a pump to reuse rain water (not drinking) - eg its cold from storage and i use it to chill the wort - warms up the tank but next time i use it say 2 weeks its cold so i use no water just the pump power.

currently the brewery is getting an upgrade so i need to buy beer - that means a box, 6pack carton, bottles, a drive to the bottle shop, the truck to collect the glass etc

I only drive to my home brew shop a few times a year and buy a large grain bill and reuse yeast and my malt is local so no ships to travel the world.

I would at a guess be far more efficent that driving to buy beer. The only worry is the gas and power usage.

The kegs mean far less glass also

plus its saves a swag of money, drinking beers you like rather than can afford

If only i can stop friends drinking all the beer i would be efficent


----------



## Snow (2/7/09)

[quote name='Ol'Wobbly' post='485776' date='Jul 2 2009, 03:14 PM']Interesting topic.

There can be no doubt that, leaving water aside for a moment, HB's consume far less resources than commercial brewers - for all the reasons mentioned in the other posts. Taking water, I estimate that I use about 100-120 litres of water per 30 litre brew, mainly on rinsing. But seeing that about half of that rinse water finishes up on the lawn (even on a damp Adelaide winter's day), is it really wasted?

The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that HB's have much less of an impact on the environment than pub and bottle-o drinkers. :icon_cheers: 

2c[/quote]

I don't know... even that seems like a lot of water to me. I use about 40L in the brew, then about 10L to clean the brew equipment (all rainwater)and sanitise the fermenter, then 10L to clean the primary and secondary fermenters, 2L to sanitise and clean the keg, 5L here and there for sanitising and cleaning general odds and sods... I make it around 67L. My chiller is recycled through the rainwater tank. Pretty close to worlds best practice. 

However..... this is all off-set by the fact I have 5 fridges in the house, 4 of which are used for beer/brewing at various times <_< . To counter this, I am about to purchase 100% green power to ease my concience. I justify this by the money I save brewing at home.

Cheers - Snow.


----------



## shawnheiderich (2/7/09)

Who would pay more to have the greenhouse gasses off set for delivery? It should be easy (maybe not) for the sponsers to put an added charge for delivery depending on your location then buy the off set though a retailer? Any thoughts?

Shawn

PS I would be happy to pay a bit extra although I dont order as much as some.


----------



## Interloper (2/7/09)

Would you buy it?
*
Sapporo Test-Markets Beer with Carbon Footprint Calculated*

http://www.japanfs.org/en/pages/029005.html


----------



## shawnheiderich (2/7/09)

No just the cost (carbon cost) of the delivery from a sponser to my home. I care about the enviroment but.... we all have a budget.


Cheers

Shawn


----------



## Adamt (2/7/09)

Gah... humans have evolved to adapt to their environment for millenia... Surely we can do so for beer.


----------



## Bribie G (2/7/09)

The commercials send millions of kilos of spent grain to be used in cattle feed. Transport miles and cow methane farts. My spent grain ends up as compost and keeps me in eggplants, tomatoes, spinach etc. 

AHB member round the corner from here has also just invested in some chooks so they will be getting some grains as well because my little garden is just about at its limit.

I buy nearly all my stuff from a sponsor and the freight is flat-fee up to 20 kilos (or maybe 25 I forget) so I order in enough for four or five brews which cuts down on the malt miles.


----------



## tcraig20 (2/7/09)

shawn_H said:


> Who would pay more to have the greenhouse gasses off set for delivery? It should be easy (maybe not) for the sponsers to put an added charge for delivery depending on your location then buy the off set though a retailer? Any thoughts?
> 
> Shawn
> 
> PS I would be happy to pay a bit extra although I dont order as much as some.



Many of those so-called 'offsets' are outright scams.


----------



## Midnight Brew (2/7/09)

hey hey

All the water I use for cleaning is rainwater apart from 9 litres which I use from tap water to rinse after sanatising bottles. Half the water usage for my brewing is rainwater boiled and the other half tap water. All the water I used for cleaning ends up on the lawn too so I would say I only use about 20 litres of water per 23 litre batch which covers cleaning and half the total water volume and in the end it all ends back on the garden/lawn.

dicko


----------



## Spartan 117 (2/7/09)

captaincleanoff said:


> you guys think that water with starsan would be ok to go on the garden? Have often wondered this.




Just gave the msds a quick read, its 50% phosphoric acid, if used regurally it will cause a pH change in soil so you might just wanna be carefull about that. It also has isoprpyl alcohol which is a poison to some plants in high concentrations, but otherwise it looks fine too put on your grass or plants once and a while. 

Aaron


----------



## Duff (2/7/09)

JamesCraig said:


> Many of those so-called 'offsets' are outright scams.



Some sense does remain on AHB. Hooray!!

:icon_chickcheers:


----------



## Katherine (2/7/09)

We dont rubbish the streets with VB cans...


----------



## sinkas (2/7/09)

Interloper said:


> Be mindful of water use, but even still home brewing would definitately be a plus for the environment. 1 bottle of homebrew would almost certainly have a miniscule carbon footprint compared to a bottle of my beloved Hoegaarden Grand Cru flown all the way from Belgium!



Hoegaarden isnt flown over from belg


----------



## shawnheiderich (2/7/09)

If you can trust the sponsors to deliver the best HB equipment and the freshest ingredients can we trust them to ofset carbon emitted by getting our goods to us?

I would trust the company I deal with, I would even trust my LHBS.

Shawn


----------



## codzilla (2/7/09)

Katie said:


> We dont rubbish the streets with VB cans...



Someone does. Visit the St Kilda Festival some time.


----------



## bconnery (2/7/09)

newguy said:


> I'll be first smartarse to mention my HB induced methane emissions (I'm surprised no one else has yet).



Well to be fair, we haven't met you


----------



## manticle (2/7/09)

Renegade said:


> Ever wondered what the extent of an ecological footprint we leave on the planet when making beer at home ? I have, that's why I'm opening up this discussion !
> 
> However, how much water per litre of beer does a brewery use in the process of manufacturing beer ? Personally I might use 75-100 litres, so that works out to be over four litres of water per one litre of beer output.
> 
> ...



I'd disagree. Most water consumption in the nation is used by industry. By homebrewing we're supporting less of that. Also many of us (myself included) use what we can on our gardens. I'd almost guarantee that their are millions of megalitres used by CUB each year and much of it is used once and not recycled.

When I sanitise, I use a bit of bleach, vinegar and water and then some sodium metabisulphite. If I'm sanitising bottles I make up a 1. 5 L jug of each, fill as many bottles as I can (usually 8-10) and use that same solution in the next bottles an so on till all are done. This is the only water that's wasted (straight down the drain). Rinsing water goes into a bucket and on to the garden.

I think doing anything yourself rather than relying on a commercial product will prove to be better for the environment.


----------



## lastdrinks (2/7/09)

HB'ers must get points for re-using bottles or kegging (not using bottles/cans at all). The making of cans and bottles must use a lot of water and energy. And even if they are recycled that process would use a lot of energy and water, obviuosly less than making it the bottle/cans from scratch but there is the garbage truck, sorting, cleaning, melting etc.

i work for a mining company that mines and makes aluminium and man does that use electricity!! Absolute bucket loads and sure once alumina has been turned into aluminium it is easy to recycle but before it is huge. That's why power stations are often built near refineries and seriously why we chew through a lot of electricity in Oz. 
(yes a bit simplictic but i am enjoying my eco-friendly home brew)  Also do i get points for pissing on my lemon tree?


----------



## Snow (2/7/09)

lastdrinks said:


> Also do i get points for pissing on my lemon tree?



Yes - you get double points :icon_cheers: and so do I - started just this year and without a doubt best lemons we've ever had!


----------



## QldKev (2/7/09)

man you want another lemon.....

naa, better not I've got to drive :icon_drunk: 

QldKev


----------



## AndrewQLD (2/7/09)

Snow said:


> Yes - you get double points :icon_cheers: and so do I - started just this year and without a doubt best lemons we've ever had!



:lol:


----------



## lastdrinks (2/7/09)

:icon_cheers: nice. probably best not too raise our water saving technique when someone is munching down on our home made lemon tart or sucking on a lemon after a shot of tequlia at our house though.


----------



## Steve (2/7/09)

shonky said:


> I remember visiting Cascade brewery a few years ago and the guide saying that after implementing various water saving initiatives they had reduced their water usage to 10lt per lt! Being the country's oldest operating brewery though, I suppose it would have been harder for them than others.



dont they get all their water from a babbling brook gently cascading past their factory straight from the snow from the mountains? Thats gotta be worth a few browny points? Or am I mistaken?
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Steve (2/7/09)

lastdrinks said:


> Also do i get points for pissing on my lemon tree?




Yes you do - works a treat doesnt it. Adds that little bit extra twang I find.


----------



## Polar Beer (2/7/09)

I've thought about this before and I'm still not sure what I think. I don't believe it's worthwhile comparing HB to large commercial or craft breweries as they are industry and we are hobby. My feeling is you should only really compare this hobby to the alternative ways to spend your time. That may or may not be drinking down the pub. 
We can't sit still all day, we need to do something. If you didn't drink, didn't HB and you spent your time doing something with less environmental impact then either, the planet would be better off. But it might also be boring. 

In that context I see HB as an environmentally better time waster then playing with hotted up cars, watching imported DVDs on imported TVs, holidaying overseas, driving when you could walk etc etc. 
But less environmentally friendly then vegetable gardening, walking, reading and other low impact pursuits. 

If you are worried HB is a bad environmental activity, first look at the rest of your life. I'm sure there are worse things you could cut out that would have a greater net effect on the planet. Then your could BREW MORE :icon_chickcheers: 

FWIW, I stick to JW grain to save food miles and I drop in a 3/4 full smaller container into my fermenters if I soak them. This floats around the fermenter and takes the space of what would be probably 8-10 litres of water. 

Cheers
POLAR


----------



## mash head (2/7/09)

I havent read all this thread. But dont fool yourselves think about the shitoads of diesel I burn not only to plant the barley but to harvest it, as well then the big trucks to take it to the bulk storage joint then all the energy it takes ( not to mention the water ) to malt the said barley. I havent even mentioned the toxic chemicals we use to spray the barley with to control weeds and insects. All this enviromental vandalism before you even crack a grain, so my suggestion is dwhahb or quit drinking ffs lol. :icon_cheers: 
Cheers Greg


----------



## Thirsty Boy (2/7/09)

BribieG said:


> The commercials send millions of kilos of spent grain to be used in cattle feed. Transport miles and cow methane farts. My spent grain ends up as compost and keeps me in eggplants, tomatoes, spinach etc.
> 
> AHB member round the corner from here has also just invested in some chooks so they will be getting some grains as well because my little garden is just about at its limit.
> 
> I buy nearly all my stuff from a sponsor and the freight is flat-fee up to 20 kilos (or maybe 25 I forget) so I order in enough for four or five brews which cuts down on the malt miles.




Oddly enough - cows that eat spent grain produce about 1/3rd of the greenhouse gas as do cows that eat grass.

For info purposes the two biggest breweries in Australia use 2.4 and 2.6L of water respectively to send 1L of packaged beer out the door.

The majority of a commercial beer's ecological footprint is in the packaging and packaging process

Do you use as little water as you think? Nobody talked about washing glasses - even if you just give the glass a quick rinse in between beers.. thats nearly 1L of water per Litre of beer consumed - before you wash it at the end of the day. Water not used if you drank from a stubby of commercial brew. And this whole "but it goes on the lawn" thing is false economy - you turned on a tap, you sucked out some water and you used it to make beer - if you hadn't done that it would still be in the reservoir. Your damn lawn can do without - that's why water restrictions limit watering the grass/garden.. its still officially wasting it. You cant say you didn't waste it on your brewing because you then wasted it on your lawn.

I spent a while a year or two ago working out the carbon footprint of my brewing - I gave up when I realized it was going to come in at about 2/3rds of owning and driving a small car. So I just bought offsets for a small car and got on with life.

My gut feel is that the smallest ecological footprint you could have while still drinking beer - would be to sit at the bar of your local pub and drink draught beer from the Mega brewery in your city. Don't live in a city with a mega brewery.... then maybe homebrew if you are reasonably conscientious about it.


----------



## lastdrinks (2/7/09)

greg simons said:


> I havent read all this thread. But dont fool yourselves think about the shitoads of diesel I burn not only to plant the barley but to harvest it, as well then the big trucks to take it to the bulk storage joint then all the energy it takes ( not to mention the water ) to malt the said barley. I havent even mentioned the toxic chemicals we use to spray the barley with to control weeds and insects. All this enviromental vandalism before you even crack a grain, so my suggestion is dwhahb or quit drinking ffs lol. :icon_cheers:
> Cheers Greg




lol absolute classic! talk about smacking down my eco BS warm and fuzzy feeling. might go out now in my V8 and shot some things with my spotlight. lol


----------



## manticle (2/7/09)

Thirsty Boy said:


> Do you use as little water as you think? Nobody talked about washing glasses - even if you just give the glass a quick rinse in between beers.. thats nearly 1L of water per Litre of beer consumed - before you wash it at the end of the day. Water not used if you drank from a stubby of commercial brew. And this whole "but it goes on the lawn" thing is false economy - you turned on a tap, you sucked out some water and you used it to make beer - if you hadn't done that it would still be in the reservoir. Your damn lawn can do without - that's why water restrictions limit watering the grass/garden.. its still officially wasting it. You cant say you didn't waste it on your brewing because you then wasted it on your lawn.



How hard is it to keep a bucket next to the sink so rinsing water goes in that? 
How hard is it it dig up the lawn and plant veges instead. That isn't wasting it, officially or not. Less veges bought = less contributions to industry water usage (again).

I reckon I leave a bigger carbon footprint doing my dishes (and I save water there by NOT doing them). I don't care about my lawn. Grass is essentially a weed.


----------



## manticle (2/7/09)

greg simons said:


> I havent read all this thread. But dont fool yourselves think about the shitoads of diesel I burn not only to plant the barley but to harvest it, as well then the big trucks to take it to the bulk storage joint then all the energy it takes ( not to mention the water ) to malt the said barley. I havent even mentioned the toxic chemicals we use to spray the barley with to control weeds and insects. All this enviromental vandalism before you even crack a grain, so my suggestion is dwhahb or quit drinking ffs lol. :icon_cheers:
> Cheers Greg



The reason that barley is grown is not for homebrewers though. I'd estimate they contribute very little to the overall amounts grown, maintained and sold and without them the industry wouldn't be massively affected. The overall impact of DIY is always going to be less than commercial or industrialised produce.


----------



## Renegade (2/7/09)

The arguement between kegging vs bottling for HB is probably worth some consideration in this discussion. Both have already gone through the energy-burning process of production when they were created, and they will last a lifetime (let's not consider the small % of bottles that get smashed, it's going to be a small number. The advantage over kegging would be from a water consumption viewpoint. I'm a bottler, and use a shitload of water to rinse after each beer is consumed, at least 1.5/1, probably much more. Kegging wouldn't need 30 litres to clean it out each time though (or would it ?) 

Bottles, however, have already been produced for the purpose of beer the first time around, and generally aren't 'custom made' (who here actually BUYS their glass bottles ? To me that's a waste when I can buy bottles with beer in them already!)

It's difficult to weigh up an overall ecological benefit when there are sevral distinct variables in the processes. How do you compare water use to energy use ? Two differing models of impact measurement on the earth. Lets look at:

Water
Without being consciously conservative, the HB'er might use 150 litres per brew, or roughly a 6/1 ratio, considering fermenter cleaning, rinsing, etc, post consumption bottle/keg rinsing, kettle/pot/equipment cleaning, pre-bottling cleaning & sanitising and so forth. The question is, what are the breweries water consumption rates - which would include the not so obvious factory cleaning, staff ablution, right down to worker's amenities. We would need to find some figures on what industry water consumption is. 

A water conservative HB'er could probably do it within a 3/1 ratio if they tried to. 

Energy - Production
Some good points were raised earlier today that the big brewery set ups could reuse their mass of hot water for secondary purposes. Fair call, but we might need someone who works for one (or is at least familiar with the process) to chime in with some more details. 

Energy - Transport
This is an area where I think the HB'er is going to win hands down. There's far less 'middle-men' in the process, and we generally buy in bulk, whether doing AG or other. So popping down to the shop for supplies means an end result of perhaps a dozen cartons of beer at a time. Not many people drive to their bottleshop for that much beer at any one time. 

Then there's the comment that I touched on in my first post. The bottles are made in a factory where the materials need to be shipped in. They are then manufactured (more energy!) and shipped out to the breweries. When they are filled, they are trucked to a series of central distribution points. They may then (maybe) be taken to a retail chain's central distribution point, which then bleed it to the stores. The end user then jumps in his car to pick up a small volume, maybe a case, for for many of us, maybe just a four pack. 

As for imported beers, add to that the shipping by air or sea, and that adds heavily to the carbon footprint. All of the above, plus going to the departure port, and being taxi'd around by forklifts! 

For transport efficiency alone, I reckon HB wins from an environmental standpoint. By all means there's transport networks in place that are shipping the hops and the grain around, but compare it to a truckload of commercial beer, where a huge part of the weight is simply the vessels that hold the beer (cans are obviously more efficient, but how many people buy cans?) 

Anyway, homebrew rocks. I do it for the planet, right!


----------



## mash head (2/7/09)

Now that I have read most of this thread home brewing is probably more ec than buying from the drive though but the act of brewing gives off alot emmissiions directly and in directly, so the choice is yours, quit drinking , I think not.  Greg


----------



## manticle (2/7/09)

I give off a lot of emissions, that's for sure. Good to see I'm not alone as this was mentioned earlier.


----------



## Steve (2/7/09)

manticle said:


> I give off a lot of emissions, that's for sure. Good to see I'm not alone as this was mentioned earlier.



im not allowed to brew or drink stout due to my emissions


----------



## Renegade (2/7/09)

greg simons said:


> I havent read all this thread. But dont fool yourselves think about the shitoads of diesel I burn not only to plant the barley but to harvest it, as well then the big trucks to take it to the bulk storage joint then all the energy it takes ( not to mention the water ) to malt the said barley. I havent even mentioned the toxic chemicals we use to spray the barley with to control weeds and insects. All this enviromental vandalism before you even crack a grain, so my suggestion is dwhahb or quit drinking ffs lol. :icon_cheers:
> Cheers Greg



Come on, that's not a valid consideration. The energy consumtioon in the production of grain is STILL there when commercial breweries make beer. So that's a zero-effect consideration. Unless we start argueing about barley crops vs sugar crops of course  




Thirsty Boy said:


> For info purposes the two biggest breweries in Australia use 2.4 and 2.6L of water respectively to send 1L of packaged beer out the door.



Oh you work for a brewery, yea? That's good information to add to the discussion, we should all try to work at equalling that figure. 



Thirsty Boy said:


> Nobody talked about washing glasses - even if you just give the glass a quick rinse in between beers.. thats nearly 1L of water per Litre of beer consumed



Good point too. While WE might generally drink from a glass, the commercial beer consumers out there will suck it straight from the bottle/can. Mind you, I have a lot of glasses, and replace them with a new one every three beers, and in the end they get washed in the same water that I'll use for washing the dishes. (I wash the beer glasses before the detergent goes in though!)



Thirsty Boy said:


> And this whole "but it goes on the lawn" thing is false economy



Yep ! Your lawn does not need the amount of water youre pouring onto it to survive. I agree that this arguement is not really valid. Personally some of mine goes onto my potted botanicals, which DO need a drink often. But not as much as Im wasting through the brewing process.


----------



## fcmcg (2/7/09)

This thread is an interesting one...
i guess , it was almost one of the reasons (besides swmbo) why it took me so long to go all grain after 4 years of wort kit brewing...living in Vic...its dry...
so to help...i do this..
use the ferg 2000 immersion chiller ( sorry new comp and i can't get the link but the pic is in my gallery ) and after washing everything with oxyper (down the drain) i rinse and then pour onto the garden lawn .I do not fill my fermenter. I use about 5 litres, a scrubbing brush and alot of shaking..I use hot water to clean my kegs..then iodopher
I even pour the yeast cake etc onto my apple and lime tree's..
I use iodophor to sanitise...no rinsing...and i mostly keg...
So , i'm feeling allright about making my own beer............
However.....
i'm building a wood fired pizza oven...that is a whole different kettle of wort....all that greenhouse gas and quality home made pizza...lol...and methane...hmmm
Cheers
FTB


----------



## Snow (2/7/09)

ooh ooh! I forgot - my chickens eat all my spent grain.... do they fart less than cows? They produce eggs, which I eat.......but eggs make me fart..... is that good? I'm confused :huh:


----------



## Ivan Other One (2/7/09)

Snow said:


> ooh ooh! I forgot - my chickens eat all my spent grain.... do they fart less than cows? They produce eggs, which I eat.......but eggs make me fart..... is that good? I'm confused :huh:




So if one says that one doesn't give a shit,,,,,,,, does that mean one is a greenie??????? :unsure:


----------



## manticle (2/7/09)

Steve said:


> im not allowed to brew or drink stout due to my emissions



I'm super lucky my missus likes to partake of my stouts and they are probably her preferred manticle style HB.


----------



## skippy (2/7/09)

manticle said:


> I'm super lucky my missus likes to partake of my stouts and they are probably her preferred manticle style HB.



wtf


----------



## mash head (2/7/09)

skippy said:


> wtf




Whats that skip you havnt read the whole post and Sonnys down the creek with his home made still. Its ok Gary will be here in the chopper soon :lol:


----------



## manticle (2/7/09)

skippy said:


> wtf



Are you surprised my girlfriend likes to drink my homebrew, that she likes to drink my stout or is my post just unclear?

In summary: Sometimes I make stout. My girlfriend likes it. Therefore she won't ban me making it just because it makes me fart.

I hope all is clear.


----------



## remi (2/7/09)

one other good water use suggestion (for those of us that don't already have grey-water/ rainwater systems) is to use rinsing/ cleaning/ cooling water for the washing machine or similar- i fill old fermenters with cooling/ cleaning water during the brew day, and they get gradually tipped into the washing machine over the coming weeks...no garden wastage here (no garden)

remi


----------



## notung (3/7/09)

There were some comments about ants and worms on the first page of this thread. Until last year I was maintaining some worm farms for composting reasons and as food for the axolotls. I once made the mistake of grabbing a handful of boiled hops from the hopsock and feeding them to a container of worms. They all died! I think this could be one of the dangers in feeding kettle trub to your compost worms.


----------



## notung (3/7/09)

"Fermenting Revolution: How to Drink Beer and Save the World 
By Christopher Mark O'Brien 

Fermenting Revolution delivers an empowering message about how individuals can change the world through the simple act of having a beer. It is also the first book to view all of the important trends in human history as fundamentally revolving around beer.

Globalization pitches the corporate worldview that is essentially selfish, rewarding the few while demeaning the many and devastating nature, against the sustainability movement that calls for cooperation, the protection and celebration of nature and the nurturing of equitable communities. Beer exemplifies the struggle. This book: 
Traces the path of brewing from a women-led, home-based craft to corporate industry;
Describes how craft breweries and home-brewing are forging stronger communities;
Explains how corporate mega-breweries are saving the world by pioneering industrial ecology; and
Profiles the most inspiring and radical breweries, brewers and beer drinkers that are making the world a better place to live.


The return to beer as a way of life is communal, convivial, democratic, healthful, and natural. The American beer renaissance champions ecologically sustainable production, and is helping to create thriving community places. After reading Fermenting Revolution, mere beer drinkers will become "beer activists," ready to fight corporate-rule by simply meeting their neighbors for a pint at the local brewpub -- saving the world one beer at a time.
About the Contributor(s) 
Christopher O'Brien is Director of the Responsible Purchasing Network at The Center for a New American Dream. Part owner of an organic and fair trade brewing supplies company, he is publisher of the online brewsletter, Beeractivist.com."


----------



## Renegade (3/7/09)

greg simons said:


> Whats that skip you havnt read the whole post and Sonnys down the creek with his home made still. Its ok Gary will be here in the chopper soon :lol:



Allegedly he bitters with Eucalyptus leaves too. Weeeeooo- e- Oooh - Oooh. Who knows what sort of neurological damage those native oils cause. 




manticle said:


> snip/ my girlfriend likes to drink my homebrew,
> snip/ she likes to drink my stout
> snip/ is my post just
> snip/ Sometimes I make stout.
> ...



I love reading stuff out of context, dirty old man that I am :unsure: 




notung said:


> There were some comments about ants and worms on the first page of this thread. Until last year I was maintaining some worm farms for composting reasons and as food for the axolotls. I once made the mistake of grabbing a handful of boiled hops from the hopsock and feeding them to a container of worms. They all died! I think this could be one of the dangers in feeding kettle trub to your compost worms.



And you are a genocidal maniac in the worm community. Fortunately, very few of the survivors have ever logged into an internet forum. (I dare those worms who have - to speak up NOW.)

I don't think they have the backbone for it. 

Perhaps I should visit the "Dry July" thread now and let the gang know that I've fallen off the wagon.


----------



## chucke (3/7/09)

> Is Hb Good For The Environment?


If HB produced dangerous byproducts, like mercury or PCBs, I might give it a thought. As it is


----------



## mje1980 (3/7/09)

How much electricity does a brewery consume in a 24hr period?? Probably more than you do at home all year ( including non brewing )

How much paperwork does a brewery consume?? A shitload more than you ever will

How many workers in a brewery who drive to work everyday?? Lots of greenhouse gas there

How many delivery trucks driving beer all over the country?? Shitloads, and we know how enviro friendly the big rigs are!!!!

That's just a start. I seriously doubt HB'ing leaves a bigger eco footprint than a mega brewery.


----------



## bum (3/7/09)

The brewery employees' cars is the only valid point you've raised. Every other point can be greatly reduced/negated when you consider the volume they produce compared to HBers and the greater efficiency they maintain in regard to water, etc.


----------



## Polar Beer (3/7/09)

mje1980 said:


> How much electricity does a brewery consume in a 24hr period?? Probably more than you do at home all year ( including non brewing )
> 
> How much paperwork does a brewery consume?? A shitload more than you ever will
> 
> ...



Almost everyone works. The industry you work in may be even more polluting then mega brewing. You can't compare a home hobby to a fully fledged major employer. The mega brew industry can leverage it's massive scale to deliver the best environmental outcomes but still needs to keep it's shareholders and employees happy. That's something we don't need to worry about at all.
Looking at this question as a process (hb) vs process (mega) to achieve beer in your glass, doesn't IMO result in a meaningful answer. The impact of the HB process should certainly be looked at, but it can only really be compared to what YOU might otherwise be able to achieve with that time, water, money etc. In which case, depending on how efficient you are with your water etc, it's probably not great, but could be much worse.


----------



## drtomc (3/7/09)

Interloper said:


> Think about the huge reduction in your carbon emissions though. Less travelling in a car to buy beer, which is delivered and distributed in fossil fuel burning trucks.
> 
> Even a trip to the LHBS would get you enough ingredients to brew a lot more beer than you could fit in your car in just one trip to the local bottle-o.



You make me feel better and better for riding my bike to the HBS.  Not so good for buying bulk grain, etc, but I still by mine a brew at a time. The 60L pot on the back of my bike was entertaining.

T. (looking outside at the rain, thinking about my planned lunchtime trip to get the grain for brewing tonight)


----------



## bum (3/7/09)

Polar Beer said:


> Looking at this question as a process (hb) vs process (mega) to achieve beer in your glass, doesn't IMO result in a meaningful answer. The impact of the HB process should certainly be looked at, but it can only really be compared to what YOU might otherwise be able to achieve with that time, water, money etc.



And looking at the megas can't teach us anything in that regard?


----------



## tcraig20 (3/7/09)

notung said:


> the corporate worldview that is essentially selfish, rewarding the few while demeaning the many and devastating nature,
> 
> Explains how corporate mega-breweries are saving the world by pioneering industrial ecology;



:unsure:


----------



## OzMick (3/7/09)

mje1980 said:


> How much electricity does a brewery consume in a 24hr period?? Probably more than you do at home all year ( including non brewing )
> 
> How much paperwork does a brewery consume?? A shitload more than you ever will
> 
> ...



I'll just throw in my two cents here, seeing as I work at a brewery. All of these points quoted ignore economy of scale! If a major brewery does 40 odd brews a week, each one perhaps 4000 times the size of a standard homebrew batch, we are talking 160000x as much of everything per week, assuming 1 brew per week from a homebrewer. A couple hundred employees still means very little in labour and transport costs per litre when compared to the cost of driving to your LHBS for ingredients. And big rigs are a much more fuel efficient way of transporting product than homebrewing, might take 1L of diesel to move a single carton from one side of the country to the other, compared with the maybe 10L of petrol I need to burn to get to my new HBS of choice. Paperwork is surprisingly little these days, almost all electronic, and again, multiply whatever you do each week by 160000 and I'd wager you'd find the brewery comes out well in front. Lets say your 1 batch requires you to use a computer for 10 minutes per brew. For a brewery turning over a brew every couple hours, running a few servers and a dozen terminals to monitor it is still much more efficient than the amount of computer time you've spent on your single brew, in terms of time/litre.

Water, gas and electricity all cost the brewery, and a lot of money is invested in heat recovery, CO2 recovery and water recovery. I'm quite certain CO2 recovery from fermentation *isn't* done by homebrewers, and while some people use a heat exchanger to cool wort, the heat is generally dumped rather than recovered back into the next HLT. Spent grain is also sold for animal feed, and yeast sold to Kraft to turn into Vegemite. Very little is wasted, and it all costs money.

Packaging materials are another story. Homebrew stomps all over retail product (although a brewery's kegs would be better in terms of what goes into cleaning them). No argument that homebrew is better for bottled product.

All said and done, probably break even if you're recovering water onto your lawn/garden and mulching grain waste etc.


----------



## mje1980 (4/7/09)

Can you tell me how much power the mega brewery you work in uses each week, roughly??. I guarantee no one here uses that much in a year. I know that a Mega brewery is more efficient on a large scale, but they STILL use more energy in a week than we do in a year. Just because they do it more efficiently is irrelevant. The total amount is waaaaaaaaaaaay bigger than any of us. The environment doesn't say " Oh well, all the power you use, and the size of your carbon footprint is ok, because you've done it efficiently" does it??


The efficiency of the system doesn't matter, its the TOTAL volume/footprint/enery consumption that is important. Yes, i understand that if our home brewing setups were magnified to produce the same amount as a brewery, we'd be screwed, but my point is, we DONT brew the same volume as a brewery.


----------



## OzMick (4/7/09)

mje1980 said:


> Can you tell me how much power the mega brewery you work in uses each week, roughly??. I guarantee no one here uses that much in a year. I know that a Mega brewery is more efficient on a large scale, but they STILL use more energy in a week than we do in a year. Just because they do it more efficiently is irrelevant. The total amount is waaaaaaaaaaaay bigger than any of us. The environment doesn't say " Oh well, all the power you use, and the size of your carbon footprint is ok, because you've done it efficiently" does it??
> 
> 
> The efficiency of the system doesn't matter, its the TOTAL volume/footprint/enery consumption that is important. Yes, i understand that if our home brewing setups were magnified to produce the same amount as a brewery, we'd be screwed, but my point is, we DONT brew the same volume as a brewery.



I can't provide $$$ info off hand and would be reluctant to provide specifics in any case, but I can say with confidence that you and your dozen best mates combined will never drink the weekly multi-million litre capacity of our brewery in your lifetime so comparing 1 brewery to 1 individual is pointless, and without that the big boys, the drinkers of commercial beer would otherwise have to brew their own, which you've suggested would not scale well. In that sense, centralizing production isn't as bad as the alternative if you want to assess things that way. 

I'm not trying to say a big brewery is better or worse, just trying to state some facts because the big boys (one of whom pay my bills admittedly) don't deserve to be bashed over this, a lot of time and money is invested in ensuring things are as clean and efficient as possible (and a lot of the things homebrewers can get away with the big boys would be prosecuted or charged big bucks for, trade waste disposal _isn't_ cheap, and the EPA don't mind handing out big fines). I homebrew myself and do it for the hobby and educational value, so I'd like to think I'm relatively neutral on the subject. Ultimately the total footprint _isn't_ the issue, and things can _always_ be done better by everyone.


----------



## Angry Scotsman (4/7/09)

mje1980 said:


> Can you tell me how much power the mega brewery you work in uses each week, roughly??. I guarantee no one here uses that much in a year. I know that a Mega brewery is more efficient on a large scale, but they STILL use more energy in a week than we do in a year. Just because they do it more efficiently is irrelevant. The total amount is waaaaaaaaaaaay bigger than any of us. The environment doesn't say " Oh well, all the power you use, and the size of your carbon footprint is ok, because you've done it efficiently" does it??
> 
> 
> The efficiency of the system doesn't matter, its the TOTAL volume/footprint/enery consumption that is important. Yes, i understand that if our home brewing setups were magnified to produce the same amount as a brewery, we'd be screwed, but my point is, we DONT brew the same volume as a brewery.


Individually we don't brew as much as a big brewery but collectively our foot print would be quite large. To me the fact they are so effiecent is irrelevant. I don't work for any brewery but this site all ways comes back to large brewery bashing.


----------



## Brewer_010 (4/7/09)

I've got one word to say to you all: "offsets"

If you're worried about your carbon footprint from brewing, get signed up to green energy or some other way of reducing the energy impact of your brewing. Personally, I think if you're minimising and/or re-using your water, the worst thing about the hb process is running an extra fridge [or two]. Signing on to getting at least 10% of your electricity from green energy would minimise your footprint.


----------



## PostModern (4/7/09)

How much of the malt we use ends up as CO2? Never mind where your power comes from, fermentation and carbonation are direct greenhouse gas injectors. However, as it's come from plants, it's a closed loop.


----------



## tcraig20 (4/7/09)

mje1980 said:


> Can you tell me how much power the mega brewery you work in uses each week, roughly??. I guarantee no one here uses that much in a year. I know that a Mega brewery is more efficient on a large scale, but they STILL use more energy in a week than we do in a year. Just because they do it more efficiently is irrelevant. The total amount is waaaaaaaaaaaay bigger than any of us. The environment doesn't say " Oh well, all the power you use, and the size of your carbon footprint is ok, because you've done it efficiently" does it??
> 
> 
> The efficiency of the system doesn't matter, its the TOTAL volume/footprint/enery consumption that is important. Yes, i understand that if our home brewing setups were magnified to produce the same amount as a brewery, we'd be screwed, but my point is, we DONT brew the same volume as a brewery.



So Im cool because I make less pollution than China?


----------



## domonsura (4/7/09)

Brewer_010 said:


> I've got one word to say to you all: "offsets"
> 
> If you're worried about your carbon footprint from brewing, get signed up to green energy or some other way of reducing the energy impact of your brewing. Personally, I think if you're minimising and/or re-using your water, the worst thing about the hb process is running an extra fridge [or two]. Signing on to getting at least 10% of your electricity from green energy would minimise your footprint.



Sorry, but this is a pet hate subject of mine.....some of you might want to look away now....(I'm not having a go at you either Brewer010 )

In my every so humble opinion, offsets are a load of rubbish created by politicians and big businesses to try and make us all feel better and this whole carbon footprint thing is a load of sh*t.
The only valid 'offset' as far as I'm concerned is not producing the pollution in the first place, and that comes down to everybody simply reducing the amount of energy they consume across the board in simple ways, not saying 'it's OK because I offset it with something else...'.
Try 'offsetting' it by turning that aircon/light/heater/spa-pool/pool filter/plasma TV/christmas decoration lights all over the house/tennis court floodlights/football night games under floodlights...OFF. Try getting something fixed instead of kicking it to the kerb and replacing it.....Buy your groceries in larger amounts less often with less packaging, less printing and less pretty colours, from LOCAL suppliers to reduce the contained energy per calorie achieved. Buy products that you know will last, instead of something that you know you're only likely to get a few uses out of and then have to replace.

Most of the energy production methods create waste and or destruction somewhere along the line, it all comes back to the simple fact that every action creates and equal and opposite reaction. Paying a little more for your electricity because a utilities company says that theirs is greener is putting your head in the sand and passing responsibility on to someone else (in much the same way that people believe that putting everything in the recycling bin is going to save the world.......how much energy does it take to recycle stuff? Stackloads.....where does the energy/water come from? The same place it always does. Returns=severely diminished....buy things in packaging that doesn't require recycling)

I'll get on the bandwagon immediately for any utilities company that produces ALL their electricity from either wind or solar, and I'll quite happily pay more for it. Until then I reckon it's a load of bollocks and that any utilities company that claims to be green is full of it....

We don't need fancy names for things like 'offset' or some big (pathetic, useless, costly, beuracratic supporting) carbon trading system. We need people to consume only what they NEED (as opposed to what they _want _and have convinced themselves they need), and use common sense in their approach to everything they do instead of the wasteful just in time disposable society we have become.

Common sense and effort. Y'know, something from the history books........

The long and short of it is that in the western world, energy consumption per head of poulation has quadrupled in the last ten years, and so has the amount of waste created. Waste energy creating rubbish, then waste more trying to deal with the rubbish created... What a way to dig a hole for the whole planet eh? <_<


----------



## bum (4/7/09)

JamesCraig said:


> So Im cool because I make less pollution than China?



This is way OT but this is one of my pet hates - why do people put China up as the dirtiest country on the planet? Yeah, they are big polluters, but they are also massive producers. It goes hand in hand, you wanna complain about it then don't buy anything made in China (I wish you luck in this regard). The Chinese government employs more people in the renewable energy sector than _the entire population of our country_. Not meaning to be taking a swipe at you directly, JC.


----------



## tcraig20 (4/7/09)

bum said:


> This is way OT but this is one of my pet hates - why do people put China up as the dirtiest country on the planet? Yeah, they are big polluters, but they are also massive producers. It goes hand in hand, you wanna complain about it then don't buy anything made in China (I wish you luck in this regard). The Chinese government employs more people in the renewable energy sector than _the entire population of our country_. Not meaning to be taking a swipe at you directly, JC.



Its a fair enough point Bum, and I wasnt meant to be taking a swipe at China in particular. I could just as easily have said Japan, Germany or even Haiti. China just happened to be the one that I chose. What I was trying to demonstrate was the falsehood of comparing what I do personally with something many orders of magnitude larger to somehow justify my own excesses. 

To my mind, things like pollution shouldnt be measured by nations, or even by people and populations, but rather by the _volume of economic and manufactured product produced per unit of 'pollution'_. In that regard, the amount of beer a megabrewery can produce for, say, a tonne of carbon dioxide, is always going to be much higher than a home brewer could achieve.


----------



## Renegade (4/7/09)

domonsura said:


> In my every so humble opinion, offsets are a load of rubbish created by politicians and big businesses to try and make us all feel better and this whole carbon footprint thing is a load of sh*t.
> The only valid 'offset' as far as I'm concerned is not producing the pollution in the first place, and that comes down to everybody simply reducing the amount of energy they consume across the board in simple ways, not saying 'it's OK because I offset it with something else...'.
> Try 'offsetting' it by turning that aircon/light/heater/spa-pool/pool filter/plasma TV/christmas decoration lights all over the house/tennis court floodlights/football night games under floodlights...OFF. Try getting something fixed instead of kicking it to the kerb and replacing it.....Buy your groceries in larger amounts less often with less packaging, less printing and less pretty colours, from LOCAL suppliers to reduce the contained energy per calorie achieved. Buy products that you know will last, instead of something that you know you're only likely to get a few uses out of and then have to replace.



Whilst I agree with much of your statement in that we need to activly participate in 'best practice' energy consumption in our lives, the green energy surcharge (that I for one have been paying for years) helps to reduce pollution _in the long term_, by providing funding towards the creation of more sensible sources such as biomass, solar, wind, etc power. Sure, excess wastage probably wont bite us in the bum, but what about the future of our kids, grandkids etc ? The technology is already here in that we can be a far more efficient society of energy producers. Why isnt the state & federal governemnt doing more - like putting in place a law that requires all new residential developments to have solar panels installed - it would be a very small extra cost on the overall price of a new house or block of apartments. Even cheaper if the government threw in a couple of billion per year to the project instead of, say, campaign advertising. These solar collectors would feed back into the grid (this is a current technology, not a pipe dream) and you will find that with the better efficiency these days with panels, each new home would be producing more electricity than their usage requirements dictate. I would even agree to a 1% PAYG increase. Right now, with minumim outlay you could set up solar panels and probably have a negative bill each quarter from Energy Australia (your meter actually goes backwards!), but if it was more widespread let the energy companies keep charging something, as long as its equal to or less than the present cost of electricty. The end result is going to be a much cleaner source of power (that is, next to no emmissions comapred to coal-power). 

Sorry to get off topic, but its a pet hate of MINE to see goverments doing NOTHING constructive, and talking hand-jive about how they are doing so much.


----------



## bum (4/7/09)

Sorry, I probably should have mentioned that I see and agree with your original point completely.


----------



## MartinS (4/7/09)

BribieG said:


> The commercials send millions of kilos of spent grain to be used in cattle feed. Transport miles and cow methane farts. My spent grain ends up as compost and keeps me in eggplants, tomatoes, spinach etc.



You're right that many of us save on the transport cost, the cow-fart argument is a bit week. 

Someone else pointed out that spent-grain fed cows produce less methane than grass-fed ones. I have no idea if that's true or not, but it wouldn't matter if it weren't. We breed cows for milk and meat, not consuming our grain, so the spent-grain would just be offsetting grass consumption anyway. If the argument is true, then it's a good thing because the cows will produce CO2 instead of CH4, and CH4 is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 (err, I think).

So in your case, where's all that carbon going? When the grain grew, it absorbed a bunch of CO2 from the atmosphere. That has to be released somewhere when we're done with the grain. If you throw it on your garden, the plants aren't going to eat the carbon out of it. The work will be done by bacteria, which will release, you guessed it, CO2 and methane. Sure, your veges might be able to grow bigger courtesy of the nutrients they (indirectly) get out of the grain, which will mean they absorb more CO2, but when you eat them, or they die and rot, they just release that carbon again.

The only significant difference in the way you do it, and the way they do it, is the environmental cost of transporting the grain, and some of that might get recouped by nicer smelling cows.

I'm in an apartment, so I give a litre or two to my worms (any more than that and it stinks to high heaven). The rest goes to the tip. Maybe my local tip will do methane capture one day, and we'll be able to recoup a bit of electricity out of my spent grain.


----------



## domonsura (4/7/09)

Renegade said:


> Whilst I agree with much of your statement in that we need to activly participate in 'best practice' energy consumption in our lives, the green energy surcharge (that I for one have been paying for years) helps to reduce pollution _in the long term_, by providing funding towards the creation of more sensible sources such as biomass, solar, wind, etc power. Sure, excess wastage probably wont bite us in the bum, but what about the future of our kids, grandkids etc ? The technology is already here in that we can be a far more efficient society of energy producers. Why isnt the state & federal governemnt doing more - like putting in place a law that requires all new residential developments to have solar panels installed - it would be a very small extra cost on the overall price of a new house or block of apartments. Even cheaper if the government threw in a couple of billion per year to the project instead of, say, campaign advertising. These solar collectors would feed back into the grid (this is a current technology, not a pipe dream) and you will find that with the better efficiency these days with panels, each new home would be producing more electricity than their usage requirements dictate. I would even agree to a 1% PAYG increase. Right now, with minumim outlay you could set up solar panels and probably have a negative bill each quarter from Energy Australia (your meter actually goes backwards!), but if it was more widespread let the energy companies keep charging something, as long as its equal to or less than the present cost of electricty. The end result is going to be a much cleaner source of power (that is, next to no emmissions comapred to coal-power).
> 
> Sorry to get off topic, but its a pet hate of MINE to see goverments doing NOTHING constructive, and talking hand-jive about how they are doing so much.



:lol: we're pretty much on the same page by the sounds of it. Totally agree with you about funding needing to go directly towards the development of better energy sources, and equally in agreement that the best place to start would be with introducing legislation as you suggest. My problem is that with current schemes, my understanding is that what happens to the extra you pay towards your greener energy here in Australia is a very convoluted and parasitic process that I _believe_ could be much more direct and not involve the electricity companies at all. At the moment, it's essentially paying an electricity company to try to create electricity in a more environmentally friendly fashion, when the fact is that's what they _should _be doing in the first place in order to survive in a market of consumers who _should _be insisting that their energy isn't created in a way that does the amount of damage that it does. Such funding should be coming from government, independent of the influence of utilities providers (in my opinion). That to me defines what Government is and should be. Decisions of what steps will be taken from within the industry are so often subject to influences that have nothing to do with the greater good, but more to do with profit margins. Placing the responsibility for moving forward in the hands of the very people responsible for continuing to do business in an un-sustainable way is a bit pointless. 
Is my view somewhat idealistic and naieve? Probably. Am I a cynic when it comes to faith in the energy industry to do what's best for us all. Most definitely. Just look at their track record. Am I foolish enough to think that this can all happen overnight? Nope. (I am a cynic after all).

To answer the original post - *Yes*. Most definitely, homebrew is good for the environment. If only because it gives us all time to pause and reflect on life and all the things that we as humans should be doing in a more organic way and a much slower pace. I wish all my neighbours were home brewers who, grew their own vegies, worked less, played with their kids more and had time to lean on the fence and yarn with me while we share a couple of beers & enjoy the sunshine and the smell of fresh cut grass. Everybody take a moment, close your eyes and imagine........mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Now open. Sorry to disappoint the vast majority of you - we're still here in the real world.  

:lol: yes, I know I'm a prick. But it's ......................

Saturday, it's the name of the day.
And it aint ever gonna change....WO WO WO (cmon kiwis, join in)
Saturday, it;'s the name of the game..
and Blotto is the name of the game.........

Have a great weekend everybody......


----------



## Brewer_010 (4/7/09)

domonsura said:


> Sorry, but this is a pet hate subject of mine.....some of you might want to look away now....(I'm not having a go at you either Brewer010 )
> 
> In my every so humble opinion, offsets are a load of rubbish created by politicians and big businesses to try and make us all feel better and this whole carbon footprint thing is a load of sh*t.
> The only valid 'offset' as far as I'm concerned is not producing the pollution in the first place, and that comes down to everybody simply reducing the amount of energy they consume across the board in simple ways, not saying 'it's OK because I offset it with something else...'.
> ...



Agree totally. Normal offsets (read: a "promise" to plant trees that most never end up getting planted) are a pet hate of mine too. Offsetting your normal power usage (from fossil fuels) with a truly 'renweable' source is a step in the right direction. A scientist from CSIRO suggested a while ago that instead of taking money to plant trees we should be using it to set up renewable power projects. 
A power company that supplies 'green energy' is required by law to source a certain % from renewables, and they're audited so it's pretty legit. I'm more skeptical of those tree-planters who will take your $$ and promise to plant a tree or ten.
A lot of people waste power, granted, but that may be more about pricing or that people don't really think about it. My household (four people, nearly twice the average) uses only 11kwh per day, which I'd like to get down more if possible.
Cheers (says I supping from my low carbon footprint beer in a glass washed with low potassium detergent) :icon_chickcheers:


----------



## tcraig20 (4/7/09)

Brewer_010 said:


> Normal offsets (read: a "promise" to plant trees that most never end up getting planted) are a pet hate of mine too.



Some offset 'schemes' are even worse. Say you build a wind plant in India. If you didnt build it, someone would have had to have built a coal plant instead. Your wind plant therefore saves all the CO2 that would have otherwise been produced by the coal plant. Therefore, you have a right to sell this never-made pollution as an 'offset'.

In 91 years we'll probably be looking back on that little chestnut as one of the top five scams of the 21st century.


----------



## ant (5/7/09)

OzMick said:


> I'll just throw in my two cents here, seeing as I work at a brewery. All of these points quoted ignore economy of scale! If a major brewery does 40 odd brews a week, each one perhaps 4000 times the size of a standard homebrew batch, we are talking 160000x as much of everything per week, assuming 1 brew per week from a homebrewer. A couple hundred employees still means very little in labour and transport costs per litre when compared to the cost of driving to your LHBS for ingredients. And big rigs are a much more fuel efficient way of transporting product than homebrewing, might take 1L of diesel to move a single carton from one side of the country to the other, compared with the maybe 10L of petrol I need to burn to get to my new HBS of choice. Paperwork is surprisingly little these days, almost all electronic, and again, multiply whatever you do each week by 160000 and I'd wager you'd find the brewery comes out well in front. Lets say your 1 batch requires you to use a computer for 10 minutes per brew. For a brewery turning over a brew every couple hours, running a few servers and a dozen terminals to monitor it is still much more efficient than the amount of computer time you've spent on your single brew, in terms of time/litre.
> 
> Water, gas and electricity all cost the brewery, and a lot of money is invested in heat recovery, CO2 recovery and water recovery. I'm quite certain CO2 recovery from fermentation *isn't* done by homebrewers, and while some people use a heat exchanger to cool wort, the heat is generally dumped rather than recovered back into the next HLT. Spent grain is also sold for animal feed, and yeast sold to Kraft to turn into Vegemite. Very little is wasted, and it all costs money.
> 
> ...


Top post OzMick, and you go right to the heart of the argument here by raising economy of scale issues. When you bring environmental impact back to a common denominator (ie look at the entire lifecycle of the process, factoring in growing of ingredients, associated transport of ingredients, water and energy consumption during brewing, chemical consumption, heating and cooling, packaging, transport of finished product, transport of product to distributor to point of sale, associated cooling, transport associated with purchase of product, disposal/recycling of containers) you can compare the impact of HB to macro brewing on a volumetric basis, eg per litre of beer, who comes out on top.

In an ISO lifecycle assessment, short of growing and malting your own grain, growing your own hops, cultivating your own yeast, generating your own renewable power, using your own rainwater... the big boys will come out on top. Sorry, but that's how it is. You can't get close to the economies of scale the majors use.


----------



## Renegade (5/7/09)

JamesCraig said:


> Say you build a wind plant in India.



If botanical science has now created a 'wind plant' (cabbage not counted), then surely I could get some seeds in order to grow a money tree. 

Should you guys want to see how an energy provider can manipulate their control over society, check out the film "The Smartest Guys In The Room"


----------



## ant (5/7/09)

mje1980 said:


> Can you tell me how much power the mega brewery you work in uses each week, roughly??. I guarantee no one here uses that much in a year. I know that a Mega brewery is more efficient on a large scale, but they STILL use more energy in a week than we do in a year. Just because they do it more efficiently is irrelevant. The total amount is waaaaaaaaaaaay bigger than any of us. The environment doesn't say " Oh well, all the power you use, and the size of your carbon footprint is ok, because you've done it efficiently" does it??
> 
> 
> The efficiency of the system doesn't matter, its the TOTAL volume/footprint/enery consumption that is important. Yes, i understand that if our home brewing setups were magnified to produce the same amount as a brewery, we'd be screwed, but my point is, we DONT brew the same volume as a brewery.


Actually, the efficiency does matter. In a world of increasing population, you get increasing consumption. In order to maintain current levels of global environmental impact, you need to improve efficiency. The sum of each individuals impact is the global impact... if everyone increases efficiency, there is a net positive impact. Industry is just a more visible target.

In order to have an effect on the total environmental impact, you can use a hierarchy of controls:
Eliminate
Substitute
Reduce
Reuse/recycle
Treatment
Disposal

What this basically does is tell you the bang for your buck you can get by implementing management measures; the higher up the hierarchy, the more bang.

Let's consider homebrewing and energy, you would first look at methods to eliminate your energy consumption, unfortunately beer brewing requires heating and cooling, and these require energy.

If nothing in the elimination bracket works, you consider substitution; using 100% renewable over coal fired electricity for example.

Moving down to reduction, something like no chill for example reduces the need to use energy to cool wort, or you could ferment at ambient temperatures rather than using a fridge.

This is where the majors have the advantage over us, because there are generally business drivers to make these type of changes that affect efficiency, and they have a capital base to implement them. For example, I'd love to convert my house to run on 100% solar power, which would have a positive effect on my electricity consumption associated with my brewing, but the capital outlay doesn't support any reasonable return period, plus this is a side gig for me - it doesn't bring in the bacon.


----------



## ant (5/7/09)

JamesCraig said:


> Some offset 'schemes' are even worse. Say you build a wind plant in India. If you didnt build it, someone would have had to have built a coal plant instead. Your wind plant therefore saves all the CO2 that would have otherwise been produced by the coal plant. Therefore, you have a right to sell this never-made pollution as an 'offset'.
> 
> In 91 years we'll probably be looking back on that little chestnut as one of the top five scams of the 21st century.


But it does provide Annex members with a financial incentive to build the renewable plant. Without which, they wouldn't have, and the total global emissions would increase. It may be flawed, but it does get companies doing things for the purpose of reducing environmental impact far sooner than public and regulatory pressure would have done. It's a win-win TBH.


----------



## Renegade (5/7/09)

ant said:


> In an ISO lifecycle assessment, short of growing and malting your own grain, growing your own hops, cultivating your own yeast, generating your own renewable power, using your own rainwater... the big boys will come out on top. Sorry, but that's how it is. You can't get close to the economies of scale the majors use.



"That's How It Is" barely passes as a convincing defeat to the 'big boys'. Let's look at how it really is. I just went and found my dodgy analogue scales a moment ago, and can report a full 750ml bottle weighs 1180 grams. The very same make of bottle, when empty, weighs 500 grams. When you're shipping by road, and 48% of your load is packaging, that starts to chew into the energy. Are there any Class 5 (or whatever) drivers here that can tell us how many km's/Litre a fully loaded trailer-full would burn? 

On what ? On a product that is 52% beer, 48% glass. 

(Confession - - I was using Coopers bottles as my subjects, in order to inflate the figures and illustrate a point)


----------



## Renegade (5/7/09)

Ant, I like the cut of your jib.


----------



## ant (5/7/09)

Renegade said:


> "That's How It Is" barely passes as a convincing defeat to the 'big boys'. Let's look at how it really is. I just went and found my dodgy analogue scales a moment ago, and can report a full 750ml bottle weighs 1180 grams. The very same make of bottle, when empty, weighs 500 grams. When you're shipping by road, and 48% of your load is packaging, that starts to chew into the energy. Are there any Class 5 (or whatever) drivers here that can tell us how many km's/Litre a fully loaded trailer-full would burn?
> 
> On what ? On a product that is 52% beer, 48% glass.
> 
> (Confession - - I was using Coopers bottles as my subjects, in order to inflate the figures and illustrate a point)


Yeah, true, the transport of glass will chew diesel, but so does marine diesel for importeds. TBH, and someone else alluded to this earlier, the mining of raw materials and actual production of the aluminum cans or glass bottles is a bigger player than transport. Even with all of this however, over a lifetime of brewing, they will still be more efficient.

This doesn't mean you're off the hook with your brewing though... you should still minimise your water, energy and chemical use locally grown grains and hops, etc.


----------



## mje1980 (5/7/09)

Im not a mega brewery basher by any means, im just saying that it's easy to play with statistics, and say that a mega brewery has a smaller carbon footprint than us on a per litre basis. That sounds awesome, and i won't disagree with that. BUT, even if we have a footprint 10 times that of a mega brewery, when you times that figure by the volume of beer over a year, the brewery will still have a much larger footprint. I brew around 400 -450 litres a year. I doubt my carbon footprint for that amount of beer compares to the millions of litres a year a big brewery pumps out. 

We can play with facts and figures all we like, but when it comes down to it, the big boys are much worse for the environment than we are. It's laughable to suggest otherwise. Sure, they are doing a good job trying to get it better, and they should be commended, but still, any large manufacturing plant ( which is what a brewery is ) that uses energy ( in the form of heating, cooling, driven machinery, gases, electricity ) is going to have a larger carbon footprint than a backyard homebrewing setup.


----------



## ant (5/7/09)

mje1980 said:


> Im not a mega brewery basher by any means, im just saying that it's easy to play with statistics, and say that a mega brewery has a smaller carbon footprint than us on a per litre basis. That sounds awesome, and i won't disagree with that. BUT, even if we have a footprint 10 times that of a mega brewery, when you times that figure by the volume of beer over a year, the brewery will still have a much larger footprint. I brew around 400 -450 litres a year. I doubt my carbon footprint for that amount of beer compares to the millions of litres a year a big brewery pumps out.
> 
> We can play with facts and figures all we like, but when it comes down to it, the big boys are much worse for the environment than we are. It's laughable to suggest otherwise. Sure, they are doing a good job trying to get it better, and they should be commended, but still, any large manufacturing plant ( which is what a brewery is ) that uses energy ( in the form of heating, cooling, driven machinery, gases, electricity ) is going to have a larger carbon footprint than a backyard homebrewing setup.


Hell, I'm not suggesting that you compare CUB's carbon footprint to your own homebrewery... that's just plain ridiculous. I'm not trying to manipulate numbers either. But a discussion on environmental issues is a discussion on the global impacts, so you have to compare apples with apples. You can do it volumetrically, or per capita. So, looking at it on a per capita basis, work out your footprint and divide it by the number of people who solely drink your beer (ie 1). Now take a major, and divide their footprint by the number of drinkers. You can't get away with the fact that the majors beat homebrewers on efficiency metrics.

And another thing - "carbon footprint" is just a bees dick of the total lifecycle impact of a brewery - any discussion of the environmental impact of brewing needs to cover more than just carbon emissions. 

FWIW - in the interests of disclosure, I'm not employed by a brewer, but I am an Enviro Scientist who runs lifecycle assessments and impact analysis - this is not stuff I'm making up, or theorising about, this is what I do for my bread and butter. And I'm trying to take bias out of the equation by showing you what the real story is on an equitable playing field.


----------



## Wisey (5/7/09)

MartinS said:


> You're right that many of us save on the transport cost, the cow-fart argument is a bit week.
> 
> Someone else pointed out that spent-grain fed cows produce less methane than grass-fed ones. I have no idea if that's true or not, but it wouldn't matter if it weren't. We breed cows for milk and meat, not consuming our grain, so the spent-grain would just be offsetting grass consumption anyway. If the argument is true, then it's a good thing because the cows will produce CO2 instead of CH4, and CH4 is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 (err, I think).



I would have thought they would have to eat more as there is less protein and nutrients in spent grain - they would end up putting it in a mix with grain that was ok e.g. Corn, wheat, sorgum


----------



## OzMick (5/7/09)

Renegade said:


> "That's How It Is" barely passes as a convincing defeat to the 'big boys'. Let's look at how it really is. I just went and found my dodgy analogue scales a moment ago, and can report a full 750ml bottle weighs 1180 grams. The very same make of bottle, when empty, weighs 500 grams. When you're shipping by road, and 48% of your load is packaging, that starts to chew into the energy. Are there any Class 5 (or whatever) drivers here that can tell us how many km's/Litre a fully loaded trailer-full would burn?
> 
> On what ? On a product that is 52% beer, 48% glass.
> 
> (Confession - - I was using Coopers bottles as my subjects, in order to inflate the figures and illustrate a point)



In conversation with our logistics guys, I've previously been told that we should figure at about $1 per case of beer to move a fully finished case of beer between any two states as a crude estimate. That is an approximately all inclusive number; fuel, wages etc. A shuttle truck might move around 1500 cases in a single load, not sure if they use the same size truck for interstate stuff though. Can't give a breakdown beyond that, but there are major efforts to produce beer close to where it is drunk to reduce these costs, as they add up very quick. Likewise, raw materials are sourced locally. Not so much an effort to keep things "green", but it makes good sense to reduce costs, so is avoided wherever possible.

And it is a sad truth that packaging materials probably cost more than the actual beer itself. The old saying is that beer is drunk with the eye. Just about everyone here knows that the price to actually brew a "super premium" style beer and a run of the mill lager is not that much different. But you probably wouldn't buy that boring, unmarked brown box sitting in the corner would you?


----------



## tcraig20 (5/7/09)

Renegade said:


> If botanical science has now created a 'wind plant' (cabbage not counted), then surely I could get some seeds in order to grow a money tree.



You'll have to excuse me, my sides have split.


----------



## Wisey (6/7/09)

OzMick said:


> And it is a sad truth that packaging materials probably cost more than the actual beer itself. The old saying is that beer is drunk with the eye. Just about everyone here knows that the price to actually brew a "super premium" style beer and a run of the mill lager is not that much different. But you probably wouldn't buy that boring, unmarked brown box sitting in the corner would you?



Mate for years I have bought that sad yellow box that sits in the corner with 4 X's on it. Not no more, there is more to beer! We are even planning a Redoak Tour with a couple of mates!


----------



## mje1980 (6/7/09)

ant said:


> Hell, I'm not suggesting that you compare CUB's carbon footprint to your own homebrewery... that's just plain ridiculous. I'm not trying to manipulate numbers either. But a discussion on environmental issues is a discussion on the global impacts, so you have to compare apples with apples. You can do it volumetrically, or per capita. So, looking at it on a per capita basis, work out your footprint and divide it by the number of people who solely drink your beer (ie 1). Now take a major, and divide their footprint by the number of drinkers. You can't get away with the fact that the majors beat homebrewers on efficiency metrics.
> 
> And another thing - "carbon footprint" is just a bees dick of the total lifecycle impact of a brewery - any discussion of the environmental impact of brewing needs to cover more than just carbon emissions.
> 
> FWIW - in the interests of disclosure, I'm not employed by a brewer, but I am an Enviro Scientist who runs lifecycle assessments and impact analysis - this is not stuff I'm making up, or theorising about, this is what I do for my bread and butter. And I'm trying to take bias out of the equation by showing you what the real story is on an equitable playing field.




So, who do you believe does more damage to the environment on a yearly basis: 

A) All mega breweries worldwide put together.

B.) All homebrewers worldwide put together.


----------



## shonky (6/7/09)

> So, who do you believe does more damage to the environment on a yearly basis:
> 
> A) All mega breweries worldwide put together.
> 
> B.) All homebrewers worldwide put together



As many have pointed out this question is only valid if you are talking about per capita or per lt. By either of those measures, and they are the ONLY ones that count, homebrew would lose hands down. This is homebrewers 'inconvenient truth'.

My 2c.


----------



## mje1980 (6/7/09)

shonky said:


> As many have pointed out this question is only valid if you are talking about per capita or per lt. By either of those measures, and they are the ONLY ones that count, homebrew would lose hands down. This is homebrewers 'inconvenient truth'.
> 
> My 2c.




Ok, lets take per litre. Yes, on a litre basis, the mega brewery may use less energy, BUT, when you multiply that amount by the millions of litres they brew every year it way outstrips us home brewers in terms of energy usage and environmental impact. It's pretty simple really, but i guess im wasting my time. 

Time for a highly inefficient and energy consuming ale.


----------



## Renegade (6/7/09)

Im losing track here. 

You can ONLY measure as a point of comparison with a method such as 'per litre'. And why wouldnt you look at a per year basis ? That's the only logical approach to comparison. 

Im still not convinced that homebrew would 'lose hands down'. Transport of goods and manufacture of bottles is really going to tip the arguement in HB's favour.


----------



## bum (6/7/09)

There's still heavy transport involved in HB materials. And in most cases there would be more double handling in that transport. Moving the commercial beer would still be out in front but not far enough to counter the comparative wastage on the homebrew side.

IMO, obviously. I have no numbers to back that up.


----------



## bum (6/7/09)

Oh, the production of fermenters and cubes etc has a dramatic polutive effect. Even moreso than glass (yes, we buy fewer fermenters than stubbies but it must be considered none the less).


----------



## tcraig20 (6/7/09)

bum said:


> There's still heavy transport involved in HB materials. And in most cases there would be more double handling in that transport. Moving the commercial beer would still be out in front but not far enough to counter the comparative wastage on the homebrew side.
> 
> IMO, obviously. I have no numbers to back that up.



An example of homebrew double handling: I live about 120kms north of the Joe White malting plant in Tamworth. To buy grain from there, it is first shipped to Brisbane, then shipped here. A 1300-odd kilometre round trip.


----------



## geoffi (6/7/09)

How about all the idiotic advertisements for megaswill polluting the airwaves? And just think of the environmental damage caused by advertising execs with superfluous i's in their names hooning around in their Lotuses thanks to those lucrative megaswill contracts.

The environmental vandalism of megaswill knows no bounds!


----------



## Thirsty Boy (6/7/09)

we were given a "rough" number for the amount of impact the transport has in a mega beer. 1 dollar per carton for interstate transport. Lets add another dollar to that for local delivery. So $2 go to logistics ... even if you ignore the fact that that figure includes wages and profits etc - and just convert it to diesel. Its still only a litre and a bit of fuel.

If I drive to G&G and back... I burn that much fuel.

I think that the only area where you could even imagine that homebrew would come out in front is because of the lack of packaging and the re-use of bottles.

But ... I know at work when they decommissioned the bottle washing plant (we used to re-cycle 750ml bottles) one of the reasons was the environmental impact. A total cycle analysis showed that it was by far more energy efficient and had a much smaller total environmental impact (and was also cheaper) to buy new bottles every time, than it was to run the plant that cleaned them out for re-use. It literally took more energy to wash a bottle out for re-use, than it took to melt it down and recast a new bottle.

Screw the environment -- if you drink enough homebrew you will be so drunk you wont notice the lack of dolphins, which would be a good thing anyway because after the icecaps have melted the bastards were going to be a real pest in your backyard anyway.


----------



## ant (8/7/09)

mje1980 said:


> So, who do you believe does more damage to the environment on a yearly basis:
> 
> A) All mega breweries worldwide put together.
> 
> B.) All homebrewers worldwide put together.


You're not wasting your time, I guess you're just seeing it from a different perspective.

As to your question, on an absolute basis, A). On a unit basis (per L, per capita), B).

Think of it this way. Say there are 100,000,000 beer drinkers worldwide and HB'ers were 1% of that. Say we've brought environmental impact down to a common denominator, where impact per Major is 1 unit and impact per HB'er is 5 units. So the environmental impact is:
100,000,000 "megaswill" drinkers x 1 unit = 100,000,000
1,000,000 HB'ers x 5 units = 5,000,000
Net impact = 105,000,000 units

Now if everyone was a megaswill drinker, the impact would be:
101,000,000 megaswill drinkers x 1 unit = 101,000,000 units

If everyone was a HB'er, the impact would be:
101,000,000 HB'ers x 5 units = 505,000,000 units

Regardless of what type of beer you drink (megaswill vs HB), you'll still drink it. There are still the same number of people drinking in total. If they all brewed HB there would be a greater environmental impact; it comes back to economy of scale and efficiency.

HOWEVER, we don't brew our own beer to be environmentally friendly, we brew our own beer because we enjoy the experience and the vast array of styles we can brew. And there's nothing wrong with that... just don't be mistaken that it is environmentally the better option.


----------

