TECHNOLOGY | KNOWLEDGE | BRAUWELT INTERNATIONALSSB Students examining a label magazine                                    ...
BRAUWELT INTERNATIONAL | KNOWLEDGE | TECHNOLOGY                                                                           ...
TECHNOLOGY | KNOWLEDGE | BRAUWELT INTERNATIONALjobs. Only few untrained operators will re-      lReferences               ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

The Future Brewery Part 2 Brauwelt Int. 3 2011


Published on

Techncal article published i Brauwelt Int. 2011

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The Future Brewery Part 2 Brauwelt Int. 3 2011

  1. 1. BRAUWELT INTERNATIONAL | KNOWLEDGE | TECHNOLOGY2020: The future brewery–Part 2THE NEXT BREWERY GENERATION | In this two-part article the on bottle labels can be avoided. For cheaperauthors, two teachers at The Scandinavian School of Brewing in beers and beers with a short shelf-life, e.g. 3 months, some breweries may even con-Copenhagen and their Diploma Master Brewer Class 2010 / 2011 sider not chemically stabilizing their beerspresent their idea of how the next generation of breweries larger at all. This may save chemicals and a process step, but will require to at least chill the beersthan 200 000 hl/month could look like. In the first part of the before filtration.series (published in BRAUWELT International No. 2 2011, p. 88 ff.) lFiltrationthey introduced the subject, reviewed the developments in brewing Kieselguhr filters (KGFs) will most likelyover the last 70 years and began to describe the core issues for the still be around in 2020, as this technology has already been installed in most brewer-future brewing industry, focusing on raw materials, brewhouse, ies, and some of them still prefer well-es-yeast and fermentation. The second part covers the issues stabili- tablished technology. But newly built large- scale breweries will probably increasinglysation, filtration, energy and environmental aspects, waste water, prefer cross-flow filtration (CFF), becausestorage and packaging. now that the initial development chal- lenges have been overcome, this method will clearly help reducing energy and water consumption. Stan Bergenhenegouwen hasTHIS ARTICLE SERIES FOCUSES ON The development of a proline-specific documented the Norit solution [11]. Sev-brewers producing international lagers at endo-protease type ‘’Brewers’ Clarex’’ from eral CCF solutions are now commercially200 000 – 500 000 hl/month. It describes DSM, which hydrolyses the haze-active pro- the next generation of large scale brew- teins, is therefore likely to replace PVPP and In addition, a CFF plant can be positionederies could look like in a logical order, follow- silica gel in the future, partly for monetary right in the packaging hall, supervised bying the process flow through the brewery. reasons, but mainly to save cooling energy, the filler operator, as CFFs are not as labour-The first part ended with a description of as beer treated in that way can be sent to the demanding as KGFs.fermentation issues that will be interesting filter at 4 – 7 °C. This is also advantageous Quality-wise there seems to be little dif-for the future brewery, this second part will in the later beer bottling operation, as typi- ference between CFFs and KGFs, so – again –deal with the remaining process steps, be- cal problems with condensation of water economy becomes the driving force.ginning with stabilisation.lStabilisationToday, breweries largely rely on PVPP, Sili-cagel or a combination of these two chemi-cal stabilizers. Both work well in preventingthe formation of permanent hazes. They arecostly, however, and require that the beerbe chilled to temperatures below 0 °C to be-come effective.Authors: Axel G. Kristiansen, Director of Students atScandinavian School of Brewing (SSB), Kim SSB examiningL. Johansen,Training Manager of SSB and a hollow Crossthe Diploma Master Brewer Class at SSB 2010 Flow Filter module/ 2011, Copenhagen, Denmark2 BRAUWELT INTERNATIONAL | 2011/III
  2. 2. TECHNOLOGY | KNOWLEDGE | BRAUWELT INTERNATIONALSSB Students examining a label magazine SSB students monitoring CO2 flow Both KGFs and CFFs rely on an efficient pasteuriser. Returns from packaging from with duplicate machines for EBIs, fillers andremoval of tank bottoms by a high speed e.g. over- and under fills will also increasing- labellers.centrifuge just prior to the beer filter. Recent ly be worth collecting. They will most likely Packaging machines are huge invest-improvements in centrifuge technology go back to the whirlpool, as this a) saves an ments, and the practice that demands pal-suggest that we may approach a time when additional pasteurisation, b) does not affect letizer and depalletizer to have 40 – 50 per-some beers will already be sufficiently bright the capacity of the brewhouse much and c) cent higher capacity than the filler mayafter passing the centrifuge, not requiring does require only a minimum of supervision well be challenged. It is expected that thefiltration at all. As there will be traces of mi- and work. palletizer / depalletizer overcapacity willcroorganisms, a pasteurisation of the cen- reduce to 15 – 20 percent to save machinetrifuged beer will no doubt become useful. lBright beer tanks costs, space and buffer time. Consequently Whether the brewery uses KGF or CFF, by In the future brewery, the bright beer tank the demand to avoid short stops at the pack-2020 many breweries will finish their beers (BBT) farm will probably remain as such, aging lines which nowadays cost efficiencyduring filtration: Add spices, hops, syrups, featuring a minimum of one BBT per filter will increase.flavours or other beers. line plus one stand-by BBT. The steps final Volumetric fillers will become increas- As mentioned in part 1 when dealing carbonation – and possibly blending – to ingly cheap, gradually replacing classicwith potentially relevant brewhouse issues, packaging will by 2020 be stationed post- level fillers.breweries in 2020 will probably rather fin- BBT, en route to the filler. Self adhesive labels and the “no-labelish their beers during filtration than by look” will continue to be popular, which willgenuine brewing. As the company Sym- lFilling and packaging increase packaging material costs. To com-rise suggests: “One single wort type” will In most parts of the world the returnable pensate this, brewers will further standard-suffice “for a variety of beer types: pilsner, glass bottle is becoming a thing of the past, ize their container sizes. This way they willstout, wheat beer, non-alcoholic beer’’, and this trend is not likely to stop, except for achieve longer filling runs and avoid costlywhen adding components for flavouring countries where legislation favours return- changeovers.( able glass bottles. The 2020 brewery might therefore need PET bottles have recently improved their lPasteurisation:Yes or no?comprehensive blending facilities in the fil- barrier characteristics to such quality that The world is not quite united in determiningtration department. bottling premium beers in PET is possible, the methods of pasteurisation, let alone the as we already see in Eastern Europe and question whether to pasteurise at all.lBeer recovery the Baltics. More PET filling lines operating Several studies, among the one by SSBThe extract value of lost wort and beer is with preforms and a blowmoulder prior to students in 2008 [10], compare microbio-still too high to accept in large breweries, the filler will be installed in future, as they logical safety, investments and space cost,and the collection systems for tank bottoms may serve also for packaging soft drinks and manning demands and operational costsand first and last runnings that are in use at water. between flash pasteurisation and tunnelpresent will improve. Cross flow filtration As for the packaging lines, the urge to pasteurisation, but still there are no clearof yeast and other tank bottoms appears to constantly increase speed will not contin- results.become most promising, since the resulting ue: Most breweries do not prefer glass lines Some breweries have introduced sterilebeer may be blended in small amounts into faster than 60 000 bph and can lines faster filtration instead of pasteurisation, a tech-regular beers, with the better quality flow- than 100 000 cph. Anyway, lines already in nology first tested in the 1980s, which hasing back into beer filtration through a flash operation with higher output are equipped not gained much popularity ever since, BRAUWELT INTERNATIONAL | 2011/III 3
  3. 3. BRAUWELT INTERNATIONAL | KNOWLEDGE | TECHNOLOGY lWaste water treatment THE PAST, CURRENT AND FUTURE BREWERY The technology for anaerobic WWTP pro- Parameter Data year 1980 Data year 2010 Data year 2020 ducing biogas supplying 15 percent of the Farmers malt barley yield 4 t/ha 7 t/ha 8.5 t/ha brewery needs for boiler gas is in place. 0 ? (if replaced Many implementations of this concept are Malt consumption for 16 000 t 16 000 t by unmalted to be expected, as it serves both energy con- 1 mio hl lager beer barley) servation (environment) and cost savings. Alfa acid content in raw hops 10 % 15 % 18 % Brewery production waste will become in- Bitterness in lager beer 25 BU 20 BU 16 BU creasingly valuable, as it becomes possible Heat consumption 40 kWh / hl 20 kWh / hl 15 kWh / hl to generate biogas from more waste sources Electricity consumption 13 kWh / hl 9 kWh / hl 7 kWh / hl like spent grains and surplus yeast as sug- Factor water / beer 9 hl / hl 4 hl / hl 3 hl / hl gested by Günther Pesta [13]. Consumption of yeast 1 kg / hl wort 1 kg / hl wort 1 kg / hl wort Yeast re-production 2.7 2.0 1.7 lStorage and distribution Extract loss in entire brewery 15 % 7% 4% The just-in-time (JIT) principle is not ex- Productivity 2000 hl / FTE 20 000 hl / FTE 30 000 hl / FTE actly new, but still some breweries may Packaging line utilisation 70 % 70 % 80 % benefit from shorter storage time for all Biogas amount of total heat supply 0% 7% 15 % material supplies and for finished products. Table 1 To achieve a good JIT rate, a fast rotation of raw material and packaging material is re- quired, but the benefits are clear: Reducedbecause of strict hygiene requirements de- condensate will increase; work-in-progress = reduced cash demand.manding time for additional cleaning. ■ power: Electricity supply will still mostly Malt storage for only 24 hours is manage- Although there is not one single com- come from the national grid, but some able, and empty cans and disposable bottlesmon global approach to pasteurisation, breweries will find it economically at- may arrive continuously as needed, leavingsterile filtration or aseptic filling, a tendency tractive to install a Combined Heat and no stock, as long as the suppliers carry a pre-can still be made out: There will be a slow Power (CHP) plant. A CHP plant designed ferred supplier status and can guarantee thedevelopment from tunnel pasteurisation to supply the needed heat will normally quality for each flash pasteurisation, and some countries deliver more than the needed electricity, High-bay warehouses will prevail inlike Germany will opt for aseptic filling, i.e. so the brewery will need to sell electricity, some breweries, where price of land or plantwithout pasteurisation. if it runs a CHP plant; transport costs are high. For other breweries ■ cooling: The use of underground brew- the concept of no warehouse at all may be-lBrewery utilities ery plants will become attractive in or- come attractive, demanding trucks / trainsUntil now, the utilities management of der to chill the cooling circuit, except for ready to be filled directly from packagingbreweries has been treated rather step- tropical areas. A move from two-stage lines.motherly, but future breweries will need to cooling circuits to one-stage cooling cir- Large breweries will more and more seekfocus on this department, as cuits is only expected to a greater extent to avoid depots and opt for direct store distri-■ cost of utilities is rising faster than infla- by direct NH3 evaporation. bution (DSD) from packaging lines to large tion; ■ CO2: CO2 recovery will still only be in- supermarkets. Wherever this is possible,■ environmental demands increase; stalled if economically attractive. The much time and value of stock can be saved.■ utilities are increasingly becoming a new breweries’ CO2 supply plant will be of the In practice, a brewery may operate direct target for cost reductions, like brewing ‘’Liquivap’’-type which helps re-using supply delivery to large supermarkets and at and beer processing have already been cooling energy from evaporating CO2; the same time continue to distribute from a for a while. ■ water: Efforts already spent to reduce picking area for smaller customers. ‘’Sustainability’’ will become an even the water : beer factor from nowadayshotter topic than it already is today, some- approx. 4 : 1 will continue, and a target lConclusion and outlookthing to consider before major investments of 3 : 1 will become achievable for many Going through the entire brewery in theand decisions are made. There are some breweries by 2020; flow of the manufacturing process as docu-main issues the breweries of the future will ■ materials: Stainless steel will loose its mented in this two-part article has shownhave to consider: monopoly as the preferred material for that substantial improvements concerning■ heat supply: Gas boilers not delivering hygienic tanks and pipe construction for consumption are still achievable. Table 1 96 percent efficiency will be improved beverages, water and even steam sup- shows some data and estimates for the past, or replaced. Newer boiler type econo- ply, as new food-grade polyethylene (PE) the present and the future brewery. mizers will allow for a smoke tempera- materials will be available, which will be Operators will increasingly also do main- ture < 50 °C. Condensate return systems able to withstand high and low tempera- tenance jobs, weekly planning of produc- for steam boilers will become more ef- tures and chemicals and which will offer tion, weekly call-off of supplies of raw and ficient, and volume targets for returned longer life than stainless steel. packaging materials and quality assurance4 BRAUWELT INTERNATIONAL | 2011/III
  4. 4. TECHNOLOGY | KNOWLEDGE | BRAUWELT INTERNATIONALjobs. Only few untrained operators will re- lReferences 8. in the brewery, as the breweries will technology/view/asahi-breweries, ac-probably drive automation further. 1. Narziss, L.: “Brewery technology in de- cess on 28 August 2008. Large breweries face many challenges. velopment”, BRAUWELT International 9. Kristiansen, A. G.: “Major achieve-Many have in the past been overcome by No. 6, 2005, pp. 439 – 440. ments in Brewing Science and tech-capital investment projects driven by the 2. Maule, L.: “50 years in the brewing in- nological in 250 years”, Scandina-desire for new technology, often offering less dustry”, The Brewer & Distiller 2, Au- vian Brewer’s Review, August 2009,manual work which in turn also led to staff gust 2006, pp. 12 – 18. pp. 30 – 31.reduction. 3. Buttick, P.: “A brewer’s view on a mod- 10. SSB Module 3 students 2008, unpub- As seen from above, still much improve- ern brewhouse project”, The Brewer & lished report from SSB.ment work is possible at no or little capital Distiller 2, February 2006, pp. 13 – 18. 11. Bergenhenegouwen, S.: “The breweryinvestment costs, for example higher HGB 4. SSB Diploma Master Brewer Module 2, of the future”, BRAUWELT Interna-degrees, thicker mashes, reduced yeast re- 2010, SSB module binders 1 – 4. tional No. 5, 2010, pp. 288 – 289.production and more blending of final beer 5. Kunze, W.: “Technology Brewing & 12. Schönenberg, S.; Kreisz, S.: “The use ofat the filtration stage, to mention but a few. Malting”, chapter 4, 4th ed., 2010. 100 percent unmalted barley”, BRAU- Perhaps a brewery of the future should 6. Candy, E.: “Making the environment WELT International No. 1, 2010,keep in mind that this type of work needs pay!”, Brewer & Distiller Int., October pp. 30 – 32.even more attention, and perhaps more ed- 2010, pp. 55 – 58. 13. Pesta, G. et al.: “Generating biogasucated and experienced brewery staff will 7. Nelson, L.: “Martens Brewery”, Brew- from spent grains – 47 % savings in en-be needed to manage these process optimi- ers’ Guardian, November/December ergy costs”, BRAUWELT Internationalsations. ■ 2009, pp. 32 – 34. No. 5, 2010, pp. 324 – 326. BRAUWELT INTERNATIONAL | 2011/III 5