# Go Green For Brewing



## Spartan 117 (18/8/09)

Hey Guy's

Found this *http://www.buckleysbeer.com.au/site/uploads/Main/solarBuckleys.pdf*article not sure if it's been posted before but thought it was interesting and worth sharing. 

Enjoy 

Aaron


----------



## raven19 (18/8/09)

Great idea that to preheat the water to 80 degrees. Nice find, I have not seen that one before.


----------



## Bribie G (18/8/09)

I get all my strike water that way, free from Solahart and the Sun as the old jingle used to go. As it's already around strike temp it also shortens the brew day by about twenty minutes.


----------



## marlow_coates (18/8/09)

Good idea, and there was a Beer and Brewer Magazine article some time back on another brewery that uses solar power to get their water to strike temp. It may well have been this one, but too lazy to look up now.

The government gave them some sort of rebate, and green grant, to get it all installed which helped.

Of course it's only useful if you believe in the Globabl Warming caused by CO2 Theory h34r: 

Marlow ninja roles out prior to possible flaming...


----------



## Bribie G (18/8/09)

If you go to a country like Israel there is a solar unit (generally hot water) on the roof of every building, with sometimes ten or fifteen on the flat roof of an apartment building. They have few if no natural energy resources. Then look around Australia and it's maybe one in four or five or even less, because we have been bludgeing off cheap coal and power for too long. If I was in charge I'd make it illegal to build a house, office or factory without a solar HWS or energy panel on the roof.


----------



## Fourstar (18/8/09)

marlow_coates said:


> Of course it's only useful if you believe in the Globabl Warming caused by CO2 Theory h34r:



Yeah, that 1% created by humans which is exchanged by the atmosphere and sea.....


*Fourstar sets the bait and lets the spool run free!

:lol:


----------



## Spartan 117 (18/8/09)

Fourstar said:


> Yeah, that 1% created by humans which is exchanged by the atmosphere and sea.....
> 
> 
> *Fourstar sets the bait and lets the spool run free!
> ...



I'll take a bite

more like 0.038%.... I hate when people go about things the wrong way, it's, IMO, got very little to do with the concentration of CO2 and more to do with the massive amount of energy we've released in the past 200 odd years. All that energy has to go somewhere. 

Aaron


----------



## Fourstar (18/8/09)

Touche, 0.038% it is!

I'm a skeptic at the best of times but with the amounts of decaying matter and respiration thats been on earth prior to the industrial revolution, surely that has been putting out way more CO2 than what human interaction has and will continue todo so well after we cut down our output. I'm not saying our cutdown and renewable energy ideas are bad, im all for it our fossil fuesl need to be reserved, they wont last forever. I just dont think CO2 is the root of the issue and if global warming and/or cooling is something we can slow/stop anyway. 

I just think this whole emmisisons trading idea is 'legitimate' grab from the western govt's to keep their $ up and keep the yuan and rupee down. After all, we cant end up being the ones sewing the soccer balls... can we?


----------



## Spartan 117 (18/8/09)

Fourstar said:


> Touche, 0.038% it is!
> 
> I'm a skeptic at the best of times but with the amounts of decaying matter and respiration thats been on earth prior to the industrial revolution, surely that has been putting out way more CO2 than what human interaction has and will continue todo so well after we cut down our output. I'm not saying our cutdown and renewable energy ideas are bad, im all for it our fossil fuesl need to be reserved, they wont last forever. I just dont think CO2 is the root of the issue and if global warming and/or cooling is something we can slow/stop anyway.
> 
> I just think this whole emmisisons trading idea is 'legitimate' grab from the western govt's to keep their $ up and keep the yuan and rupee down. After all, we cant end up being the ones sewing the soccer balls... can we?



Yeah I know what you mean, one of the major concerns with CO2 emissions is that we are cutting down trees that convert all that CO2 into oxygen. The issue I reckon is in the inefficiencies of the established systems we have (coal, gas, oil, etc.) I read in a chemical kinetics text book that a minimum of 30% of the energy stored in coal goes out the chimney, and the generators they use aren't much better either. I reckon renewable energies should be supported, as it is shown burning fossil fuels decreases the air quality which is overall detrimental to our health, however I do not believe/subscribe whole heartedly in the "greenhouse effect", it does happen all you have to do is look at Venus, but I doubt 0.038% of CO2 in our atmosphere is causing it. 

If looked at from a physical chemistry point of view the energy released must go somewhere, and if we consider our earth as a "closed" system when all that energy is released it will inevitably warm up. All the fossil fuels on earth have been generated over millions of years, that's millions of years of solar energy (the sun being at the bottom of the food chain in a sense) being released in a few hundred years..... Somethings not quiet right with that.

Anyway back on topic, good on ya buckleys.


----------



## marlow_coates (18/8/09)

Haha, thought I would be shot down for that comment. Glad there are a few others here who are skeptical of mass media claims, and Al Gore movies. The more I read about it the more skeptical I become.

Agree with your above points, so won't restate them.

Marlow


----------



## Spartan 117 (18/8/09)

I'm not skeptical about the whole global warming thing, it's happening, no doubt about it. Just dont't think it's CO2 doing all the damage. All in all though we really should try our best to be a sustanable society, energy is something we always have and always will need, the cleaner and more efficently we obtain it the better. 

Aaron


----------



## geoff_tewierik (18/8/09)

marlow_coates said:


> Good idea, and there was a Beer and Brewer Magazine article some time back on another brewery that uses solar power to get their water to strike temp. It may well have been this one, but too lazy to look up now.



Twas the Goat Brewery.


----------



## jimi (18/8/09)

Great to see any business doing their bit to cut emmissions rather than maximise immediate profits. There seems to be plenty of breweries starting to get on board!!


----------



## bullsneck (18/8/09)

Go green or go red?? h34r: 

 Kidding, boys...


----------



## drsmurto (19/8/09)

IIRC the Yorke Brewery is setting itself up to be very green. Massive rainwater collection and recirculation of cleaning water etc.

The grain is going to be sourced locally (Yorke Peninsula is barley and wheat growing country) and i have a vague memory of them growing their own hops.


----------



## jonocarroll (19/8/09)

<< Woop Woop >>

That's the science alarm going off.



Spartan 117 said:


> however I do not believe/subscribe whole heartedly in the "greenhouse effect", it does happen all you have to do is look at Venus, but I doubt 0.038% of CO2 in our atmosphere is causing it.


The greenhouse effect is an _effect_ - it's experimentally proven that greenhouse gases can trap reflected IR radiation inside the atmosphere, and that this is how the atmosphere stays above the theoretical -18*C that it would naturally be at without this effect. The main gases responsible are also well known, and these include CO2. 'Greenhouse Effect' however, is not a substitute for the terms 'Climate Change' or 'Global Warming'. Those are terms for the deviation from the assumed constant state by whatever means.



Spartan 117 said:


> If looked at from a physical chemistry point of view the energy released must go somewhere, and if we consider our earth as a "closed" system when all that energy is released it will inevitably warm up.


'Closed System'??? By what justification? Empty space sits at a cool 3K (-270*C), so Earth is comparatively hot, and will radiate heat (as well as particles for that matter) into space. Also remember that the mass of the atmosphere is immense with an okay specific heat - it takes a lot of heat to warm up all of the atmosphere... but that of course assumes you're heating a single body, and ignores all effects of climate, weather patterns, and currents. Then the atmosphere is in contact with the oceans, also quite large, which are in contact with the Earth, which also weighs a lot.

Thinking that this heat has nowhere to go is a little over-naive.



Spartan 117 said:


> I'm not skeptical about the whole global warming thing, it's happening, no doubt about it.


I love these justifications - they've grown so much now that this is sufficient to prove the case.

'Average surface/ground temperatures' and the like are not only poorly defined, but poorly measured. To assume that the global properties of an entire planet can be summarised in a single (averaged!) parameter is scientifically laughable. To then make the leap that this single parameter is caused by a single change in environment conditions entirely exclusive of any other effects is the pinnacle of 'bad science' and yet it has so many people convinced of its authority that people are going to extraordinary lengths to combat something that we have such a poor understanding of.

The global environment may be warming. I'm not going to doubt that - I haven't seen any experimental evidence that sways me either way. Pollution is bad, I'm pretty sure of that one. Green technologies, although unlikely to be money-savers, are a clever way to generate the power that we all rely on, and should be encouraged. 

I can't emphasise this last one enough: '_the Earth's atmosphere/environment is an immensely complicated and obsfucated system that cannot be summarised by one or two variables, and which we do not understand well enough to call anything "*normal*". Saying that the conditions are moving away from normal is a ridiculous statement that entirely ignores the first half of this paragraph. By all means, reduce the human contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, but FFS - stop pretending you're saving the planet."_

I can't wait - once we have zero carbon emissions, and the global temperature keeps rising, we'll have to blame something else. I would like to nominate all reality-show contestants as the next cause of global warming. I can draw a graph of the rise in their numbers vs. the rise in global temperatures if that would persuade enough people.


----------



## Scruffy (19/8/09)

bleedin politics.

we can solve ALL our energy needs immediately by going geothermal. solar is pretty useful too...

it's great to see these enlightened [sic] souls taking the lead, whether we've made a global worming or an igloo, I'm sure they'll come up with a beer to suit...

might look into some changes mesel...


----------



## brettprevans (19/8/09)

the planet has cycles of heating and cooling depending on a lot of things such as position to the sun/orbit etc etc. but what has never happened before is the massive increased rate of eneregy/pollution released into the atmoshere and the rapid heating or accelerated cycle of heating. This is a major concern. esp[ as there is most likely a tipping point (cant remember the correct term), where once passed there is no going back.. the planet is a complex system and wumans have been playing about and effecting it for a short time (relative to the age of the earth). but the effect we have had is enormous and we dont know how that is going to affect the earth in the long term. 

what we do know is that if we ignore warninng signs, one day we might find ourself screwed. so preemtive or proactive measures need to be taken to avoid this from happening. its called risk management in its most basic sense.

If any one thinks accellerated and unprecidented global warming is bs, look at the scientific studies on glaciers and the unprecendented destruction of them around the world. there is no doubt there is a problem never before encountered on this scale. all things things contribute to tipping the scale in a bad way; its fundamentally altering the complex system that governs earth.


----------



## Spartan 117 (19/8/09)

QuantumBrewer said:


> The greenhouse effect is an _effect_ - it's experimentally proven that greenhouse gases can trap reflected IR radiation



Yup this is true, but could you please direct me to a credible experiment that shows small ammounts, <1%, cause what we are observing today. The only experiments I've ben able to find are ones wiht pure CO2 vs Air.



QuantumBrewer said:


> 'Closed System'??? By what justification?



Yeah you're right there. My bad 




QuantumBrewer said:


> Thinking that this heat has nowhere to go is a little over-naive.



I never said it goes nowhere, i said it must go somewhere, that somewhere could be ice caps, oceans and the ground. 


Cheers 

Aaron


----------



## enoch (19/8/09)

Global warming is a myth - so says Senator Fielding so it must be true.
Obviously the earth is flat and hey creationism has a lot going for it too. He has just been too busy to champion these fantastic causes.





OK I'll go back to being sick now...


----------



## Pollux (19/8/09)

QuantumBrewer said:


> I can't wait - once we have zero carbon emissions, and the global temperature keeps rising, we'll have to blame something else. I would like to nominate all reality-show contestants as the next cause of global warming. I can draw a graph of the rise in their numbers vs. the rise in global temperatures if that would persuade enough people.













We need more pirates....


----------



## Leigh (19/8/09)

QuantumBrewer said:


> The global environment may be warming. I'm not going to doubt that - I haven't seen any experimental evidence that sways me either way. Pollution is bad, I'm pretty sure of that one. Green technologies, although unlikely to be money-savers, are a clever way to generate the power that we all rely on, and should be encouraged.



I agree 110%



Scruffy said:


> bleedin politics.
> 
> we can solve ALL our energy needs immediately by going geothermal. solar is pretty useful too...
> 
> ...



I'll commence my response to this bold statement by saying I currently work in the energy technology sector. 

Statements that solar or geothermal can provide the worlds energy needs are entirely theoretical and are usually made by the green armies that don't understand basic scientific and engineering principles. We currently have less than 0.1% of the worlds energy requirements coming from the two technologies that you provide as examples...think about that in the context of how we allocate our resources (in terms of raw materials and labour) and this is a task that nobody has ever attempted before...then consider that geothermal technologies are not "commercial" and that silicon based solar panels are only 15%-20% efficient (unless you want to spend millions like NASA do).

Then think about countries like China that are installing Australia's entire electricity generation capacity every 3 months with coal fired powerstations (they are also installing nukes and renewables on top of that).

So you begin to see, that the word "IMMEDIATELY" is not really helpful in moving forward and removing our reliance away from fossil fuels...


----------



## jonocarroll (19/8/09)

Spartan 117 said:


> Yup this is true, but could you please direct me to a credible experiment that shows small ammounts, <1%, cause what we are observing today. The only experiments I've ben able to find are ones wiht pure CO2 vs Air.


If you mean can I find a reference for <anything> directly causing global warming, hell no.

If you mean can I find a reference that shows that CO2 content in the atmosphere is related to the greenhouse effect, then yes, I can;

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?reques...ge=197&ct=1 a.k.a. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078

which details the measurements of longwave radiation measured at the top of the atmosphere, and shows the various absorptions for various molecules. There may not be much CO2 by percent in the atmosphere, but it happens to be of the appropriate size to trap the IR radiation. There's considerably less dust in the atmosphere, but it's enough to turn the sky blue by scattering.

Note: The above example article shows that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect. Anyone considering making the leap from these results to 'what would happen if there was more CO2' or 'look! Climate Change!' should promptly sit down and shut up.


----------



## mesa (19/8/09)

QuantumBrewer said:


> The global environment may be warming. I'm not going to doubt that - I haven't seen any experimental evidence that sways me either way. Pollution is bad, I'm pretty sure of that one. Green technologies, although unlikely to be money-savers, are a clever way to generate the power that we all rely on, and should be encouraged.



Speaking to some of the guys in Perth who are fans of geothermal power, apparently we would require a hole 2-3km deap and about $15-20M. The money you can save on electricity will repay the initial investment in 10-20 years. Its the upfront costs at are the killer. 



> I can't emphasise this last one enough: '_the Earth's atmosphere/environment is an immensely complicated and obsfucated system that cannot be summarised by one or two variables, and which we do not understand well enough to call anything "*normal*". Saying that the conditions are moving away from normal is a ridiculous statement that entirely ignores the first half of this paragraph. By all means, reduce the human contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, but FFS - stop pretending you're saving the planet."_



I'm the first to say that our numerical climate models are pretty dodgy, but one thing I think they pretty clearly indicate (even with this level of dodgyness) is that significant changes to the planets albedo (espeically in the infrared range) will produce significant changes in weather patterns. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine if changing weather patterns in ways that we can't predict properly will have good or bad consequences.

Back on topic. A couple of times I've though about trying to get >4m^2 of frenel refelector focused on the bottom of my kettle. I suspect I'd need to pain the bottom black and provide some decent insulation on the sides. Not sure if i need some layer of air and glass bellow it to help trap the heat from the bottom. I believe you can make large mirrors pretty easily from theatrical supplies. Only problem is if it worked I'd only ever be able to brew on a sunny afternoon. Also I'd have to figure out where to store the mirrors when not in use.


----------



## jonocarroll (19/8/09)

mesa said:


> I'm the first to say that our numerical climate models are pretty dodgy, but one thing I think they pretty clearly indicate (even with this level of dodgyness) is that significant changes to the planets albedo (espeically in the infrared range) will produce significant changes in weather patterns. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine if changing weather patterns in ways that we can't predict properly will have good or bad consequences.


That's a reasonable conclusion from the models, but the question remains - do anthropogenic sources of CO2 produce such significant changes, or does Nature sufficiently buffer against them? It's an overwhelmingly difficult question to answer, and many people - even high-ranking scientists - have taken the more popular route of ignoring the question altogether in favor of 'action' despite not knowing whether or not said 'action' will have any consequence.

For back on topic stuff - who throws their spent grain in the bin? What's the most 'green' thing you could do with it? Make a hot-water-bottle type muscle relaxer from hot grain then when cold, feed it to the chooks?


----------



## Leigh (19/8/09)

mesa said:


> Speaking to some of the guys in Perth who are fans of geothermal power, apparently we would require a hole 2-3km deap and about $15-20M. The money you can save on electricity will repay the initial investment in 10-20 years. Its the upfront costs at are the killer.



...and you need to "perfectly" fracture the rock to allow water to pass through with no channelling (as this will result in poor thermal efficiency)...the science of geothermal power is very poor...



mesa said:


> I'm the first to say that our numerical climate models are pretty dodgy, but one thing I think they pretty clearly indicate (even with this level of dodgyness) is that significant changes to the planets albedo (espeically in the infrared range) will produce significant changes in weather patterns. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine if changing weather patterns in ways that we can't predict properly will have good or bad consequences.
> 
> Back on topic. A couple of times I've though about trying to get >4m^2 of frenel refelector focused on the bottom of my kettle. I suspect I'd need to pain the bottom black and provide some decent insulation on the sides. Not sure if i need some layer of air and glass bellow it to help trap the heat from the bottom. I believe you can make large mirrors pretty easily from theatrical supplies. Only problem is if it worked I'd only ever be able to brew on a sunny afternoon. Also I'd have to figure out where to store the mirrors when not in use.



The two best models that I have seen, that actually "predict" future years climate for the last 5-6 years have nothing to do with CO2. One models the natural cycles of our solar system (hence a "true" climate change model), the other models aerosol particulates from Europe and how they influence ocean currents, the major mechanism of distributing heat around the planet...


----------



## Fents (19/8/09)

Dean and John @ buckleys are top blokes. good on em for going green.


----------



## brettprevans (19/8/09)

go green in your brewing is good. every bit helps. 

insulated mash tun and HLT.
use preheated water if possible and more energegy efficent 
mulch spent grain / feed it to chooks or whatever
grow your own hops if you can
dont waste water


----------



## Pollux (19/8/09)

On the note of not wasting grain, I'd like to extend an offer of my spent grain for mulch/compost to anyone who lives nearby (Stanmore NSW) and has a purpose for it......


I'd throw it on the garden beds around the apartment block, but I'm not too sure how well that would be received..


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (19/8/09)

QuantumBrewer said:


> That's a reasonable conclusion from the models, but the question remains - do anthropogenic sources of CO2 produce such significant changes, or does Nature sufficiently buffer against them? It's an overwhelmingly difficult question to answer, and many people - even high-ranking scientists - have taken the more popular route of ignoring the question altogether in favor of 'action' despite not knowing whether or not said 'action' will have any consequence.



Yep, it is very complicated, that's why I defer to what the experts say, especially the intergovernmental panel on climate change. For several years now the IPCC hasn't minced its words when it comes to the anthropogenic nature of climate change. In their 2007 report says that it is "very likely" (90% certainty) that human activities are the cause of recent global warming. This position has been ratified and reiterated by a plethora of science academies and professional societies around the world.

Basically, because I lack the technical training to really understand the science, I am more than willing to believe what the IPCC says - its membership includes literally the most important, most widely published, field-leading scientists from a variety of disciplines/countries. I'm much more likely to believe them than the politicians, or my what mates down the pub say.


----------



## Katherine (19/8/09)

Beware of the flies with mulch our grain and they love the stuff. So you really have to work it in.

We put our chill water into a bucket and put it into the pot for the next days brew.

Though I do worry about the amout of fridges we do have.


----------



## mesa (19/8/09)

Leigh said:


> ...and you need to "perfectly" fracture the rock to allow water to pass through with no channelling (as this will result in poor thermal efficiency)...the science of geothermal power is very poor...



Very true for some types of geothermal power but in this case, the geotherm boffins want to tap water from an existing aquifer (I believe its the Yarragadee). In this case they are sure water is there in sufficient quantities and temperature that it will work. The biggest risk appears to be that you'll get to 2km find the water isn't hot enough and have to keep going till it is (they didn't mention the possibility of digging so deep that the aquifer didn't extend that deep, I guess thats not really a concern based on what they know about the Yarragadee).


----------



## Scruffy (19/8/09)

Leigh said:


> I'll commence my response to this bold statement by saying I currently work in the energy technology sector.
> 
> Statements that solar or geothermal can provide the worlds energy needs are entirely theoretical and are usually made by the green armies that don't understand basic scientific and engineering principles. We currently have less than 0.1% of the worlds energy requirements coming from the two technologies that you provide as examples...think about that in the context of how we allocate our resources (in terms of raw materials and labour) and this is a task that nobody has ever attempted before...then consider that geothermal technologies are not "commercial" and that silicon based solar panels are only 15%-20% efficient (unless you want to spend millions like NASA do).
> 
> ...



I'll commence my response by saying that whilst I'm not quite clever enough to understand energy technology sector science (doesn't Homer work in... never mind...) and perhaps I did use the word IMMEDIATELY (albeit correctly spelled and contextually cohesive) where 'in a bit' would have done, (and I have a PhD), can I call you a Luddite?
You quote NASA, true, NASA does spend a little more than my weekly shop on computer parts - but look where its 1960+ development got us..., software multitasking, virtual machines and paved the way for today's $99 iphone... Sure it costs a bit to start it all up, but once there...
And of course we only have noughtpointzip % of energy from my hippie sources - why should the big governments have to do any work when they can haul in tax dollars with the stuff they've got (untill it runs out - which it will... BTW, what _are_ current energy technology sector contingencies?)
Think about China - sure - but it's being sold technology from the West... of course it's going to be sold short... it's a business. 
Sure I've worked through at least two recessions and know too well any R&D money is amongst the first to dry up... but one can't sit on ones arse and say it's unprecedented, that there's no infrastructure, no man power - hell, my old mate from the UK has a few pipes under his lawn and it supplies ALL his heating... if he can do that and we take inspiration from NASA who put a man on the moon (and paid a photographer to prove it), then maybe we can change the inertia of the proletariat.

No, the word "IMMEDIATELY" wasn't really helpful in moving forward and removing our reliance away from fossil fuels', but those few small brewers putting a panel on the roof or keeping chickens, are a starting to create the demand to change...


----------



## peted27 (19/8/09)

Scruffy said:


> paved the way for today's $99 iphone...



are you selling thse?? put me down for three


----------



## haysie (19/8/09)

peted27 said:


> are you selling thse?? put me down for three



I would be in for a couple too, teenage kids but I am still scratching my head re. "inertia of the proletariat" :huh:


----------

