Home of the BrewNosers

Reasonable article, but again (grrrrr), we get the ethical/sustainable crap. And it's far from Bridge alone in that, it's becoming the norm. Mini rant over.

mr x wrote:Reasonable article, but again (grrrrr), we get the ethical/sustainable crap. And it's far from Bridge alone in that, it's becoming the norm. Mini rant over.

Greenwashing or small steps in the right direction. Either way, a zero-emission brewery is one hell of a task. Unless of course they have a barley pipeline powered by wind, a maltster using solar ovens, and they fire their kettles with wood...

Oh yeah, don't forget those ceramic bottles...

Brew-master, Josh Herbin, uses a natural carbonation process instead of forced carbonation (which can create bigger bubbles with less of a refined taste).

Am I missing something here? I was always under the impression that carbonation is carbonation. It doesn't matter how it gets there.

CartoonCod: Then clearly you've never heard of the revolutionary process of "micro-carbonation"! http://www.marketwire.com/press-release ... 080817.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One issue I have is all the chemicals used. How does that fit in?

As for the carbonation, that's an argument that's hard to quantify, but some of us think has merit.

Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 2

mr x wrote:As for the carbonation, that's an argument that's hard to quantify, but some of us think has merit.

I think from a 'green' perspective, adding bottling sugar to naturally carbonate isn't saving much. Hard to say if recapturing CO2 during fermentation and using that to force carb the beer is any better. I think the best method is to keg/bottle the beer when it's a few points prior to being done fermenting. That was your not adding any additional sugar, and it's reducing the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. I've read the official CAMRA guide to Cask Ales and that (apparently) is the proper way to carbonate a cask as well.

Jayme wrote:I think the best method is to keg/bottle the beer when it's a few points prior to being done fermenting. That was your not adding any additional sugar, and it's reducing the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. I've read the official CAMRA guide to Cask Ales and that (apparently) is the proper way to carbonate a cask as well.

Until you drink it - the co2 gets into the atmosphere eventually.

akr71 wrote:Until you drink it - the co2 gets into the atmosphere eventually.

Duly noted.

Perhaps it's time for someone to draw a line in sand with a new micro brewery and state that they fully intend on wreaking havoc to air, land, and sea in order to bring you the beer you so rightfully deserve. Just a thought ....

akr71 wrote:

Jayme wrote:I think the best method is to keg/bottle the beer when it's a few points prior to being done fermenting. That was your not adding any additional sugar, and it's reducing the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. I've read the official CAMRA guide to Cask Ales and that (apparently) is the proper way to carbonate a cask as well.

Until you drink it - the co2 gets into the atmosphere eventually.

I think you missed the point - you are 'creating' and releasing less total CO2... I'm saying if the target FG is 1.010, and you bottle at 1.015. The CO2 generated by fermenting out those 0.005 gravity points will carbonate the beer. If you transfer the beer at 1.010, then add 0.005 gravity points BACK to the beer with corn sugar to bottle carb, you are creating more CO2.

Jayme wrote:I think you missed the point - you are 'creating' and releasing less total CO2... I'm saying if the target FG is 1.010, and you bottle at 1.015. The CO2 generated by fermenting out those 0.005 gravity points will carbonate the beer. If you transfer the beer at 1.010, then add 0.005 gravity points BACK to the beer with corn sugar to bottle carb, you are creating more CO2.

No, I understood what you were getting at.

I was mostly joking, but the fact is, breweries can claim that they are capturing co2 and using it to force carb, or whatever method they say is reducing the amount of co2 going into the atmosphere, but at the end of the day, when the beer gets consumed, that co2 is going to get released.

Reclaiming CO2 still reduces the total quantity released into the atmosphere. Of course you're always going to release some CO2... But why not try and reduce it?

dean2k wrote:Perhaps it's time for someone to draw a line in sand with a new micro brewery and state that they fully intend on wreaking havoc to air, land, and sea in order to bring you the beer you so rightfully deserve.

lmfao

Boiling your beer an extra 60 seconds probably produces more CO2 than anything about fermentation

CorneliusAlphonse wrote:Boiling your beer an extra 60 seconds probably produces more CO2 than anything about fermentation

^this

Also, if its organic in nature (and I'm not talking fossilized reserves like oil and coal) net CO2 is zero unless you count the emissions required to transport the sugar they are using to prime. Although the CO2 we buy does come from a fossil fuel source (at least most of it did 5 years ago), so there is that minor contribution for force carb'ing. It takes way less energy to scrub the impurities from something like methane then it does to try and scrub them from say a wood fire, so force carb'ing is slightly carbon negative but I am sure that is negated by the transport/refinement/farming required from using sugar.

Jayme wrote:Reclaiming CO2 still reduces the total quantity released into the atmosphere. Of course you're always going to release some CO2... But why not try and reduce it?

But you're not reducing CO2 by bottling at higher gravity - you're reducing alcohol. If you start at an OG of 1.050, and bottle half of it at 1.015 without priming sugar, and the other half at 1.012 with priming sugar, the latter has a higher alcohol content. You could do another batch starting at about 1.047, let it ferment to 1.012 and prime the bottles, and get the same alcohol content as the first batch - with very nearly identical net CO2.

That said, I completely agree with CAMRA that priming by kegging an unfinished fermentation can produce a better beer - but I have better control if I ferment completely and then add sugar. But it makes no noticeable difference to your CO2 output.

CartoonCod wrote:

Brew-master, Josh Herbin, uses a natural carbonation process instead of forced carbonation (which can create bigger bubbles with less of a refined taste).

Am I missing something here? I was always under the impression that carbonation is carbonation. It doesn't matter how it gets there.

Definitely not (though I'm not convinced about the "refined taste" - I think that's probably called "yeast", since bottle - or keg - carbonation is always going to result in yeast sediment). The classic example of bottle carbonation versus forced carbonation is in sparkling wines: Champagne method vs Charmat. If I had to bet on why bottle carbonation creates smaller bubbles, I'd guess it's because of that yeast sediment, which would create nucleation sites.

derek wrote:

Jayme wrote:Reclaiming CO2 still reduces the total quantity released into the atmosphere. Of course you're always going to release some CO2... But why not try and reduce it?

But you're not reducing CO2 by bottling at higher gravity - you're reducing alcohol. If you start at an OG of 1.050, and bottle half of it at 1.015 without priming sugar, and the other half at 1.012 with priming sugar, the latter has a higher alcohol content. You could do another batch starting at about 1.047, let it ferment to 1.012 and prime the bottles, and get the same alcohol content as the first batch - with very nearly identical net CO2.

That said, I completely agree with CAMRA that priming by kegging an unfinished fermentation can produce a better beer - but I have better control if I ferment completely and then add sugar. But it makes no noticeable difference to your CO2 output.

True - if aiming for the exact same final ABV, the result is the same. However, in my defense, I would be surprised if these guys are even accounting for the priming sugar in their overall ABV calculation

derek wrote: I'd guess it's because of that yeast sediment, which would create nucleation sites.

Nucleation sites are the theory I go by, but I have never done a blind tasting of force carbed vs primed of the same beer.

I think as far as appearance goes, I have seen beer that was force carbonated and looks just as creamy/mousse like as bottle conditioned beer. That said, I think Graham is onto something - it would be fun to do a blind taste test on the exact same beer with one being force carbonated and the other bottle conditioned.

Or how about force carb a batch with some yeast/sediment if its presence alone helps with the nucleation spots

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk 2

Business Plan
-Start brewery using copious amounts of environmentally procured water.
-Return said water with Caustic, PL-10 Acid Wash, and everybody's friend Peracetic Acid to the water table.
-Using Gas? LP? NG? Electric? heck yeah let those Carbons roll!
-Maybe I will distribute by bicycle to help on my foot print.
-Recycled labels with low VOC glue on my ceramic/glass/plastic bottles.(read Lick and Stick)
-Locally sourced hops picked by illegal aliens and payed cash under the table.( Saving the Tax. Still a savings right? )
-Grain is reused in local homeless shelters for bread and pancakes. (aka Barley Bum Buns)
-Wash, Rinse, Repeat
-Eat granola

Lmfao, I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 2

Lmfao( spit take) Hphunter, pretty much summed it up. This is the issue with greenwashing. Its just pure hypocrisy and people doing it are marketing to the feel good(and the ego to lambaste people who dont follow the trend) of thinking one has done something worth while. I saw it far to much when I was at school, always hipsters doing it. "We are producing/screen printing ethical hoodies and sweaters made with Amaerican Apparel clothing" News falsh This just in American apparel is made by illegal mexican workers on american soil being paid slave wages.......uh oh....
Same deal every time.

Anathema wrote:Lmfao( spit take) Hphunter, pretty much summed it up. This is the issue with greenwashing. Its just pure hypocrisy and people doing it are marketing to the feel good(and the ego to lambaste people who dont follow the trend) of thinking one has done something worth while. I saw it far to much when I was at school, always hipsters doing it. "We are producing/screen printing ethical hoodies and sweaters made with Amaerican Apparel clothing" News falsh This just in American apparel is made by illegal mexican workers on american soil being paid slave wages.......uh oh....
Same deal every time.

No, really, it's not the same deal every time. That's the sort of attitude that says "there's no point in even attempting to reduce consumption, support ethical employers, fair trade, prevent clear-cutting or strip mining, etc, because none of it makes a difference". Anyone that cynical might as well just slit their wrists now.

There really are people trying to make environmentally conscious businesses, and I am perfectly willing to believe Bridge Brewing is trying. It's not easy, but kudos to them for making the attempt.

what is the attempt?