Go Green For Brewing

[Pollux]

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]

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%

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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

 

[brettprevans]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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...

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]

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

are you selling thse?? put me down for three

 

[haysie]

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: