1.
BARLEY
TO
BOILER
Energy
and
Resource
Conservation
within
Craft
Brewing
Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
CVEN
6960
Building
Systems
Engineering
Masters
Report
Monday,
July
20,
2015
Masters
Project
Advisor
Moncef
Krarti
PhD
Master’s
Defense
Panel
Moncef
Krarti
PhD
Jon
Zhai
PhD
Paul
Komor
PhD

2. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
2

3. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
3
Abstract
Touch
the
earth
lightly,
use
the
earth
gently,
nourish
the
life
of
the
world
in
our
care:
gift
of
great
wonder,
ours
to
surrender,
trust
for
the
children
tomorrow
will
bear.
-­‐Shirley
E.
Murray
There
appears
to
be
a
contradiction
within
our
society;
we
consume
products
at
higher
rates
and
generally
demand
increased
quality
and
yet
there
is
greater
awareness
of
the
finite
resources
on
this
planet
and
the
impact
to
the
air,
water,
and
land
that
is
incurred
by
our
quality
of
life.
The
burgeoning
craft
brewing
industry
exemplifies
this
dichotomy.
The
growing
list
of
over
3,500
microbrewers
increases
in
sales,
annually
acquiring
an
additional
one
percent
of
the
market
share
for
the
past
couple
years
of
total
malt
beverage
sales.
At
the
same
time,
consumers
associate
the
concept
of
‘craft’
as
having
an
implicit
social
and
environmental
component.
While
this
is
often
not
the
case;
the
following
report
details
the
brewing
process
specifically
from
a
thermodynamic
analysis.
The
report
describes
the
process
of
defining
systems
boundaries
to
account
for
primary
and
secondary
energies
usage,
as
well
as
associated
greenhouse
gas
emissions
and
wastewater
disposal.
This
research
is
supplemented
with
a
primary
case
study
of
resource
usage
and
proposed
conservation
measures
for
Diebolt
Brewing
Company
in
Denver,
CO.
With
the
efficient
used
of
onsite
heat
generation
and
extraction,
reductions
in
systemic
internal
resistances,
possible
heat
recovery
or
power
generation,
byproduct
reuse
and
upcycling,
and
a
list
of
other
best
practices,
a
craft
brewery
can
continue
to
make
high
quality
microbrews
while
enhancing
their
community,
conserving
resources
and
thereby
minimizing
their
impact
on
the
environment,
and
spearheading
the
revolution
of
sustainable
brewing.

4. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
4
Statement
of
Authorship
Remember,
the
best
beer
in
the
world
is
the
one
you
brewed.
-­‐Charlie
Papazian
I,
Aaron
Blaise
Treeson,
have
produced
this
document
on
my
own
accord
in
full
compliance
with
the
Honor
Code
and
Student
Bylaws
of
the
University
of
Colorado
of
Boulder.
The
intention
of
this
document
is
to
act
as
a
consolidated
source
of
information
on
resource
conservation
in
the
craft
brewing
process.
While
scholarly
researched
and
empirically
corroborated,
it
is
intended
to
also
be
accessible
to
the
layman
within
the
field.
________________________________________________________________________
Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Monday,
July
20,
2015
abtreeson@gmail.com
505.918.7071
Master
of
Sciences:
Building
Systems
Engineering,
2015
Pending
The
University
of
Colorado
in
Boulder
Graduate
Energy
Certificate,
2014
The
Renewable
and
Sustainable
Energy
Institute
&
The
National
Renewable
Energy
Laboratory
Master
of
Architecture,
2012
The
University
of
New
Mexico
Bachelors
of
Fine
Arts,
2007
Colorado
College

5. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
5
Table
of
Contents
Abstract
..................................................................................................................................
3
Statement
of
Authorship
.........................................................................................................
4
List
of
Figures
..........................................................................................................................
7
Summary
Tables
of
Each
Section
.............................................................................................
9
Introduction
to
Research
........................................................................................................
10
Craft
Brewing
Milieu,
Impacts
&
Impetus
................................................................................
10
Specifications,
Units,
&
Factors
...............................................................................................
14
Summary
Table
of
Introduction
to
Research
...........................................................................
16
Scope
of
Research,
Method
of
Analysis,
&
Barriers
.................................................................
17
Holistic
Assessment
.................................................................................................................
17
Defining
the
System
by
Establishing
its
Boundaries
................................................................
18
Conventional
System
Energy
Inputs
........................................................................................
19
Integrating
Conservation
into
a
Business
Model
.....................................................................
20
Summary
Table
of
Scope
of
Research
&
Method
of
Analysis
..................................................
22
Brewing
Process
.....................................................................................................................
23
Scale
of
Production
..................................................................................................................
23
Off
Site
Inputs
Brewery
Inputs
.................................................................................................
24
The
Brewhouse
........................................................................................................................
27
Final
Production
&
Packaging
..................................................................................................
33
Summary
Table
of
the
Brewing
Process
..................................................................................
36
The
Impact
of
Craft
Brewing
&
Key
Performance
Indicators
....................................................
37
Secondary
Energy
....................................................................................................................
37
Onsite
Electricity
Consumption
...............................................................................................
37
Onsite
Natural
Gas
Consumption
............................................................................................
39
Primary
Energy
Use
Intensity
...................................................................................................
41
Emissions
Breakdown
..............................................................................................................
42
Water
Intensity:
Use
/
Production
...........................................................................................
44
Summary
Table
of
the
Impact
of
Craft
Brewing
&
Key
Performance
Indicators
......................
46
Brewhouse
Energy
Conservation
Opportunities
......................................................................
47
Energy
Conservation
Opportunities
in
the
Brewhouse
...........................................................
47
Steam
Boiler
&
Heat
Distribution
............................................................................................
49
Chillers
&
Heat
Extraction
........................................................................................................
51
Compressed
Air
........................................................................................................................
54
Motors
&
Driving
Systems
.......................................................................................................
54
Heat
Exchangers,
Recovery,
&
Storage
....................................................................................
56
Brewing
Automation
Systems
..................................................................................................
64
Brew
Kettle
&
Related
Vessels
.................................................................................................
65
Good
Housekeeping
&
Ancillary
Systems
................................................................................
69
Summary
Table
of
Brewhouse
Conservation
Opportunities
...................................................
70
Conservation
Opportunities
Outside
the
Brewing
Process
......................................................
71
Reduction,
Generation,
&
Coproduction:
Down,
Up
and
Lateral
Cycling
................................
71

6. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
6
Utility
Programs
and
the
Direct
Purchase
of
Offsets
...............................................................
72
Solar
Power
..............................................................................................................................
73
Water
Management
................................................................................................................
75
Reductions
in
Craft
Beer
Fresh
Water
Intensity
through
Brewhouse
Losses
..........................
76
Effluence
Management
............................................................................................................
76
Treat
and
Release
Effluence
....................................................................................................
77
Anaerobic
Effluence
Digestion
and
Combined
Heat
and
Power
..............................................
79
Spent
Grain
&
Other
Coproducts
.............................................................................................
81
On
Site
Gas
Management
System
............................................................................................
83
Summary
Table
of
Brewhouse
Conservation
Opportunities
...................................................
85
Barriers
..................................................................................................................................
86
Diebolt
Brewing
Company:
A
Case
Study
................................................................................
88
Introduction
to
Diebolt
Brewing
..............................................................................................
88
Brewhouse
Schedule,
Set
Up,
&
Energy
Systems
....................................................................
90
Dan
and
Jack
Diebolt:
Systems
Experience
&
Thoughts
on
Conservation
...............................
94
Energy
&
Resource
Use
in
Diebolt
Brewing
Company
.............................................................
95
Beer
Production
at
Diebolt
Brewing
Company
......................................................................
101
Current
Energy
and
Resource
Use
Intensity
at
Diebolt
Brewing
Company
...........................
103
Conservation
Measures
Already
in
Place
...............................................................................
105
Summary
Table
of
Diebolt
Brewery
Company’s
Existing
Brewhouse
....................................
109
Potential
Energy,
Resource
&
Expense
Conservation
Opportunities
for
Diebolt
Brewing
Company
..............................................................................................................................
110
Utility
Rate
Schedule
Change:
Rooftop
Photovoltaics
&
Demand
Side
Management
...........
110
Heat
Transfer
Exchanger
Redesign
........................................................................................
124
Lighting
Retrofit
in
Brewhouse
..............................................................................................
132
Recommendations
&
Concussions
for
Diebolt
Brewing
Company
........................................
138
Summary
Table
of
Diebolt
Brewing
Company’s
Proposed
ECOs
...........................................
141
Conclusion
............................................................................................................................
142
Appendix
1:
Glossary
&
Abbreviations
..................................................................................
145
Appendix
2
:
Intensities
&
Citations
......................................................................................
147
Works
Cited
..........................................................................................................................
149

7. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
7
List
of
Figures
This
is
neither
beer
nor
glass
on
the
page,
nor
is
there
a
damp
and
icy
film.
I
feel
certain
visual
stimuli,
colors,
spatial
relationships,
incidences
of
light
and
I
coordinate
them
into
a
given
perceptual
structure.
The
same
thing
happens
when
I
look
at
an
actual
glass
of
beer;
I
connect
together
some
stimuli
coming
from
an
as
yet
unstructured
field
and
I
produce
a
perceptum
based
on
a
previously
acquired
experience.
-­‐Umberto
Eco,
Theory
of
Sign
Production
Figure
1:
Profit
Increase
from
Energy
Savings
..................................................................................................................
13
Figure
2:
Ven
Diagram
of
the
Triple
Bottom
Line
Model
.................................................................................................
21
Figure
3:
Simplified
Brewing
System
................................................................................................................................
25
Figure
4:
Linear
Brewing
Sequence
..................................................................................................................................
28
Figure
5:
Bar
Graph
of
Electricity
Intensity
Range
............................................................................................................
38
Figure
6:
Bar
Graph
of
Natural
Gas
Intensity
Range
........................................................................................................
40
Figure
7:
Bar
Graph
of
Green
House
Gas
Emissions
Intensity
Range
...............................................................................
44
Figure
8:
Bar
Graph
of
Water
Intensity
Range
.................................................................................................................
45
Figure
9:
Boiler
and
Steam
ECOs
......................................................................................................................................
51
Figure
10:
Refrigeration
and
Cooling
ECOs
......................................................................................................................
53
Figure
11:
Drives
and
Motors
ECOs
..................................................................................................................................
56
Figure
12:
Heat
Exchanger
Network
with
Thermal
Storage
and
Vapor
Condensers
........................................................
60
Figure
13:
Pinch
Analysis
of
Streams,
Potential
Heat
Recovery,
and
Minimum
Load
......................................................
62
Figure
14:
Pinch
Analysis
of
the
Industrial
Green
Brewery
Concept
................................................................................
63
Figure
15:
Dynamic
Low
Pressure
Boiling
Process
...........................................................................................................
67
Figure
16:
Merlin
Brew
Kettle
..........................................................................................................................................
68
Figure
17:
Brew
Kettle
ECOs
.............................................................................................................................................
69
Figure
18:
Assorted
Other
ECOs
.......................................................................................................................................
69
Figure
19:
Wastewater
Treat
and
Release
Process
..........................................................................................................
78
Figure
20:
Anaerobic
Digester
&
Power
Generation
Process
...........................................................................................
80
Figure
21:
Process
of
Recovering
Carbon
Dioxide
............................................................................................................
84
Figure
22:
Diebolt
Brewing
Company
...............................................................................................................................
89
Figure
23:
Nameplate
on
Wort
to
Fresh
Water
and
Glycol
Two
Stage
Heat
Exchanger
..................................................
91
Figure
24:
Grain
Mill
in
Far
Back
Middle,
Grist
Hopper
on
Left,
&
Mash/Lauter
Tun
on
Right
........................................
92
Figure
25:
Mash/Lauter
Tun
on
Left,
Brew
Kettle
in
Middle,
&
Hot
Liquor
Tank
on
Right
..............................................
92
Figure
26:
The
Four
Fermentation
&
Crash
Chill
Tanks
....................................................................................................
93
Figure
27:
Diebolt
Brewing
Company’s
Gross
Electricity
Consumption
in
kWh/month
..................................................
96
Figure
28:
Diebolt
Brewing
Company’s
Billable
Power
Demand
in
kW/month
...............................................................
96
Figure
29:
Diebolt
Brewing
Company’s
Gross
Natural
Gas
Consumption
in
therms/month
...........................................
96
Figure
30:
Diebolt
Brewing
Company’s
Gross
Fresh
Water
Consumption
in
bbl/month
.................................................
97
Figure
31:
Diebolt
Brewing
Company’s
Gross
Sewage
Disposal
in
bbl/month
................................................................
97
Figure
32:
Diebolt
Brewing
Company’s
Levelized
Gross
Carbon
Dioxide
Consumption
in
kg/month
..............................
97
Figure
33:
Diebolt
Brewing
Company's
Monthly
Accumulated
Brewing
Related
Costs
...................................................
99
Figure
34:
Monthly
Beer
Production
at
Diebolt
Brewing
Company
...............................................................................
102
Figure
35:
Quarterly
Beer
Production
at
Diebolt
Brewing
Company
.............................................................................
102
Figure
36:
Diebolt's
Production
over
the
Past
9
Months
...............................................................................................
103
Figure
37:
Diebolt
Brewing
Company
Source
Energy
Use
Intensity
Calculation
............................................................
104
Figure
38:
Bought
Carbon
Dioxide
and
Fresh
Water
Intensities
at
Diebolt
Brewing
Company
.....................................
105
Figure
39:
Diebolt
Taphouse
Lighting
and
Air
Management
..........................................................................................
106
Figure
40:
VFD
for
Wort
Pump
in
Action
as
Wort
is
Pumped
from
the
Mash/Lauter
Tun
to
the
Brew
Kettle
...............
107
Figure
41:
Mash
Rake
inside
Mash/Lauter
Tun
..............................................................................................................
108
Figure
42:
VFD
connect
Mash
Rake
Drive
in
Blue
&
VFD
connected
Pump
on
the
Ground
with
Silver
Casing
..............
108
Figure
43:
Xcel
Shift
in
Rate
Schedule
Received
on
July
2013
and
Enacted
on
September
2013
..................................
110
Figure
44:
Comparison
of
C
&
SG
Rate
Structures
.........................................................................................................
111
Figure
45:
An
Schematic
Example
of
DSM
assisted
Load
Shifting
..................................................................................
113
Figure
46:
NREL
System
Advisor
Model
of
10
kW
PV
Array
in
Denver
Colorado
...........................................................
114
Figure
47:
Scenario
A
-­‐
Peak
Demand
Impacted
by
Varying
PV
Capacity
on
an
Average
and
Clear
Day
.......................
115

8. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
8
Figure
48:
Scenario
B
-­‐
Peak
Demand
Impacted
by
Varying
PV
Capacity
on
a
High
Demand
and
Sunny
Day
...............
115
Figure
49:
Scenario
C
-­‐
Peak
Demand
Impacted
by
Varying
PV
Capacity
on
an
Off-­‐and-­‐On
Cloudy
Day
.......................
115
Figure
50:
Annual
Savings
for
Diebolt
between
Iterations
(I)
Current
Schedule
SG
&
(II)
Schedule
C
with
PV
&
DSM
..
118
Figure
51:
Assumptions
&
Abbreviations
in
Further
Financial
Analysis
with
Citations
..................................................
119
Figure
52:
Annual
Accounting
of
BAU
vs.
PV
&
DSM
with
Notations
made
at
8
Years,
15
Years,
&
25
Years
...............
120
Figure
53:
BAU
vs.
PV
&
DSM
:
Net
Projected
Costs,
Net
Projected
Costs,
&
Savings
...................................................
121
Figure
54:
Total
Cost:
BAU
vs.
PV
&
DSM
Savings
at
Intervals
.......................................................................................
122
Figure
55:
Net
Present
Cost:
BAU
vs.
PV
&
DSM
............................................................................................................
122
Figure
56:
BAU
vs.
PV
&
DSM:
Percent
Reductions
in
Gross
Future
and
Net
Future-­‐Discounted
Costs
........................
123
Figure
57:
Two
Stage
Heat
Exchanger
with
15
bbl
Hot
Liquor
Tank
in
Upper
Right
Corner
..........................................
125
Figure
58:
Brewer's
Notes
on
Heat
Transfer
Process
After
Boiling
Wort
.......................................................................
125
Figure
60:
Calculation
for
Single
Stage
Heat
Exchanger
and
Filtration
for
Diebolt
I
......................................................
129
Figure
61:
Calculation
for
Single
Stage
Heat
Exchanger
and
Filtration
for
Diebolt
II
.....................................................
130
Figure
62:
Financial
Analysis
of
Heat
Exchanger
and
Filtration
Retrofit
........................................................................
131
Figure
63:
Illuminating
Engineer
Society
Recommended
Foot-­‐Candle
Ranges
..............................................................
133
Figure
64:
Diebolt
Brewing
Company
Proposed
Lighting
Retrofits
................................................................................
134
Figure
65:
Diebolt
Lighting
Retrofit:
Impact
on
Power
Demand
and
Energy
Consumption
...........................................
135
Figure
66:
Diebolt
Lighting
Retrofit:
Savings
with
Utility
Schedule
C
vs.
SG
..................................................................
136
Figure
67:
NPV
NURB
Surface
of
Lighting
Retrofit
Increments
for
Diebolt
Brewhouse
.................................................
137
Figure
68:
Final
Impact
on
Diebolt
Brewing
Company's
EUI
with
Proposed
ECOs
.........................................................
139

9. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
9
Summary
Tables
of
Each
Section
I
am
a
firm
believer
in
the
people.
If
given
the
truth,
they
can
be
depended
upon
to
meet
any
national
crisis.
The
great
point
is
to
bring
them
the
real
facts,
and
beer.
-­‐Abraham
Lincoln
Summary
Table
1:
Introduction
to
Research
....................................................................................................................
16
Summary
Table
2:
Scope
of
Research
&
Method
of
Analysis
...........................................................................................
22
Summary
Table
3:
Brewing
Processes
..............................................................................................................................
36
Summary
Table
4:
Impact
of
Craft
Brewing
&
Key
Performance
Indicators
....................................................................
46
Summary
Table
5:
Brewhouse
Conservation
Opportunities
............................................................................................
70
Summary
Table
6:
Brewhouse
Conservation
Opportunities
............................................................................................
85
Summary
Table
7:
Conservation
Opportunities
outside
of
the
Brewhouse
...................................................................
109
Summary
Table
8:
Diebolt
Brewing
Company’s
Proposed
Conservation
Opportunities
...............................................
141

10. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
10
Introduction
to
Research
People
who
drink
light
'beer'
don't
like
the
taste
of
beer;
they
just
like
to
pee
a
lot.
-­‐
Ed
Janus,
Capital
Brewery
Craft
Brewing
Milieu,
Impacts
&
Impetus
During
the
past
several
decades
there
have
been
dramatic
shifts
in
the
brewing
industry
as
craft
brewing
has
gained
a
market
share,
introduced
the
consuming
public
to
higher
quality
and
greater
variation
in
beer,
and
presented
an
opportunity
for
innovative
engineering
to
increase
the
energy
and
resource
efficiency
of
these
smaller
production
facilities.
There
are
currently
over
3,500
craft
breweries
licensed
in
the
US,
producing
over
470
million
gallons
of
craft
beer
per
year.
The
gross
sales
of
craft
beer,
a
term
used
interchangeably
with
microbrew,
totals
$14.5
billion
annually
(Brewers
Association
2015).
Within
the
craft
brewery
movement
there
is
currently
a
shift
in
zeitgeist
towards
increased
awareness
of
sustainability,
value
engineering,
and
resource
conservation.
Microbreweries
do
not
have
access
to
the
economies
of
scale
and
efficiency
engineering
of
their
industrial
competitors
and
thus
produce
a
more
resource
intensive
product,
including
their
use
of
electricity,
fossil
fuel,
water
and
other
material
inputs.
With
access
to
research
into
efficient
brewing
processes,
the
evolving
market
will
demand
more
environmentally
friendly
products,
and
integrated
systems
engineering,
craft
brewing
will
be
able
to
reduce
its
resource
impact
and
carbon
footprint
while
maintaining
a
high
quality
product.
Craft
beer
producers
in
the
forefront
of
these
changes
will
see
reel
opportunities
for
substantial
fiscal
savings
by
reducing
energy
and
water
demand.
Craft
brewing
now
makes
up
7.8%
of
total
beer
sales
in
the
US
and
is
currently
increasing
this
share
by
roughly
20%
annually
with
no
signs
of
hitting
a
ceiling
(Brewers
Association
2014).
However,
it
has
not
always
been
this
way.
Prohibition,
post-­‐
prohibition
industrial
scale
brewing,
and
corporate
mergers
and
acquisitions
resulted
in

11. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
11
a
homogenized
market
for
beer
with
only
a
handful
of
large
American
breweries
producing
drinkable
lagers
in
addition
to
some
European
imports.
Beginning
in
the
late
1970s
and
continuing
through
the
1980s,
small
breweries,
some
of
which
now
have
very
recognizable
brands
such
as
Samuel
Adams
Brewing
Company
and
Sierra
Nevada
Brewing
Company,
began
making
a
different
style
of
beer,
something
that
would
come
to
be
known
as
craft
beer
or
microbrew.
These
new
varieties
of
beer
were
fermented
using
diverse
and
flavorful
ale
yeasts,
increasing
the
alcohol
content,
and
introducing
a
palate
of
flavors
not
found
in
generic
beer
through
new
grains,
hops,
and
brewing
techniques.
The
craft
brewery
movement
was
notably
different
due
to
its
small-­‐scale
production,
non-­‐industrial
process,
and
consumption
largely
by
a
local
market.
As
popularity
and
demand
rose,
microbreweries
were
able
to
increase
production
and
grow
in
number.
This
also
brought
about
ever-­‐escalating
electricity,
natural
gas,
water,
and
sewage
use
and
expense.
With
onsite
utility
bills
making
up
only
3-­‐8%
of
a
craft
brewer’s
monthly
expenses,
there
is
not
yet
a
strong
financial
incentive
to
install
energy
efficiency
upgrades
and
conserve
what
is
presently
a
cheap,
but
ultimately
finite,
fossil
fuel
resource
which
composes
the
vast
majority
of
a
brewery’s
onsite
and
upstream
energy
generation
(Olajira
2012
p7
&
Lacey
2010
p8).
Craft
brewing
is
now
poised
for
a
sustainability
transformation
due
to
the
shift
in
climate
consciousness,
trickle
down
technology
and
energy
conservation
controls
from
industrial
scale
enterprises,
and
changing
market
forces.
Indeed,
increased
sustainability
measures
may
present
a
way
for
craft
breweries
to
distinguish
themselves
in
the
growing
market:
Sustainable
breweries…
while
growing,
still
represent
a
small
slice
of
the
total
market,
a
position
that
seems
to
foster
a
healthy
mix
of
solidarity
and
fierce
competition.
To
expand
their
market
share,
they
have
to
work
together;
to
distinguish
themselves
within
the
small
pack,
they
have
to
be
creative.
(Buck
2014
p28).
A
simultaneous
shift
of
producer
objectives
and
consumer
demand
is
pushing
the
market
niche
of
craft
beer
towards
an
ever-­‐increasing
awareness
of
creating
a
greener

12. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
12
product.
Marketing
around
many
products
revolves
around
“conspicuous
consumption”
of
name
brand
products.
In
some
sectors
this
mode
of
branding
in
beginning
to
change
and
now
portions
of
the
market
are
gravitating
towards
a
new
force,
christened
“conspicuous
conservation,”
as
exemplified
by
the
Prius
Effect,
in
which
a
product
accrues
social
cachet
and
added
value
due
to
the
perception
of
increased
sustainability.
Craft
breweries
have
been
successful
in
marketing
specific
microbrews
as
“sustainable,”
despite
the
ignorance
or
omission
of
much
higher
usages
of
energy,
water,
and
other
resources
by
volume,
with
consumers
preferring
beer
that
is
organic,
locally
sourced,
and
produced
with
renewable
energy.
What
is
it
that
makes
a
craft
brewery?
According
to
the
Brewers
Association,
a
craft
brewery
is
small
in
scale
when
compared
to
name
brand
large
corporate
rivals,
producing
less
than
6
million
barrels
of
microbrew
per
year.
Ownership
is
largely
privately
held,
such
as
in
a
limited
liability
company,
amongst
one
or
more
individuals,
usually
giving
primary
ownership
to
the
head
brewer.
Some
craft
brewers
are
pursuing
different
business
models
with
varying
tax
implications,
such
as
employee-­‐ownership
B
Corporations
and
member-­‐owned
for-­‐profit
cooperatives.
It
is
in
the
craft
brewing
sector’s
on
to
promote
sustainable
business
models
and
production
in
order
to
improve
microbreweries’
bottom
line,
invest
in
their
consumer’s
communities,
and
embody
the
value
of
resource
conservation.
From
a
financial
perspective,
the
vast
majority
of
a
brewery’s
energy
goes
into
the
thermally
intensive
process
of
bringing
large
volumes
of
a
sweet
malted
barley
and
water
mixture,
known
as
wort,
to
a
sustained
boil.
A
smaller
portion
of
the
brewing
site’s
energy
takes
the
form
of
costlier
electricity,
largely
used
in
refrigeration
and
mechanized
drives.
A
more
effective
use
of
existing
systems
and
the
installation
of
new
energy
conservation
equipment
holds
large
potential
savings.
For
instance,
it
could
reduce
a
brewery’s
monthly
utility
bills
and
decrease
its
exposure
to
the
price
volatility
of
input
resources
or

13. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
13
potential
penalization
due
to
discharged
byproducts.
Figure
1
from
the
Brewers
Association
of
Canada
shows
the
increase
of
profits
relative
to
percent
energy
savings.
Figure
1:
Profit
Increase
from
Energy
Savings
(Brewers
Association
of
Canada
2010
p54)
In
addition
to
the
possible
financial
savings
from
implementing
sustainability
measures,
a
potentially
more
important
outcome
for
the
brewery
is
that
a
“greener”
product
and
at
the
price
an
affluent
and
informed
consumer
will
pay
for
it.
In
recent
history
growing
numbers
of
the
American
public
have
become
conscientious
consumers
and
seek
green
commodities
in
an
attempt
to
support
a
more
sustainable
society.
An
identifiably
environmentally
friendly
craft
beer
can
integrate
with
a
conscientious
consumer’s
identity
and
therefore
can
command
a
higher
price
point
and
provide
an
ideological
and
economic
justification
for
upgrades
and
efficiency
within
the
brewery.
This
statement
of
sustainability,
even
if
incremental,
is
a
powerful
marketing
tool.
It’s
not
a
binary
choice,
there’s
a
spectrum
of
technologies
to
promote
conservationism
within
a
craft
brewery
while
also
increasing
the
bottom
line
and
engaging
in
social
responsibility.

14. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
14
Specifications,
Units,
&
Factors
Within
the
following
text
many
acronyms
and
units
will
be
used
standardly.
Please
refer
to
Appendix
1
for
a
full
term
glossary.
The
following
should
help
clarify
brewing
industry
standards
and
establish
a
system
of
units
to
this
publication.
The
beer
US
industry
standard
when
speaking
of
liquid
volume
is
barrels
(bbl).
Most
other
nations
use
the
SI
unit
hectoliters
(hl).
1
bbl
=
31.5
gallons
(frequently
1.5
-­‐
0.5
gallons
are
left
off
due
to
assumed
post
production
losses)
1
bbl
=
2
standard
kegs
1
bbl
=
330
standard
12
ounce
cans/bottles
1
bbl
=
1.17
hl
Flows
are
indicated
in
a
number
of
ways.
Liquid
volumetric
flows,
like
from
a
pump,
are
noted
as
gallons
per
minute
(gpm)
and
gaseous
volumetric
flows,
like
from
a
fan,
are
noted
as
cubic
feet
per
minute
(cfm).
Steam,
like
from
a
boiler,
is
typically
measured
in
a
mass
flow
of
pounds
mass
of
steam
per
hour
(lbm/hr)
at
a
specified
temperature
(F)
and/or
pressure
(psi)
thus
it
is
actually
a
unit
of
energy
transfer
over
time
or
power,
which
is
elucidated
in
several
paragraphs.
Mass
will
almost
always
be
expressed
in
pounds
mass
(lbm).
However
it
is
a
global
standard
when
speaking
of
greenhouse
gases
(GHGs)
like
carbon
dioxide
(CO2)
or
refuge
methane
(C2H4)
to
use
the
SI
units
of
kg.
One
kilogram
of
CO2
is
a
very
abstract
notion
for
most
people.
One
study
by
the
Carbon
Trust
equates
1
kg
of
CO2
as
the
amount
a
small
tree
is
able
to
sequester
every
3
months
(Canadian
Brewing
Industry
Program
for
Energy
Conservation
2011
p140).
Another
way
to
visualize
it
is
through
the
following
set
of
equations,
atmospheric
assumptions,
and
the
ideal
gas
law,
providing
a
more
palpable
quantity
for
visualizing
1
kg
of
CO2
as
filling
the
space
of
40
basketballs.
1
kg
=
(1000
g)(1
mole/44
g)
=
22.7
moles
Ideal
gas
law
(PV
=
nRT)
assumptions
27°C
(300K)
and
1
atm
Volume
of
1
kg
of
CO2
=
(22.7
moles)(.0821)(300K)/(1
atm)
=
559
liters
of
CO2
=
~20
cuft
20
cuft
=
~40
basketballs
with
radius
6”
1
kg
of
CO2
=
~40
basketballs

15. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
15
Energy
comes
in
incredibly
elusive
forms
and
units.
When
speaking
about
‘primary
energy’
it
is
standard
practice
in
the
US
to
use
the
British
thermal
unit,
btu
or
kbtu
(1000
btus).
Primary
energy,
also
known
as
source
energy,
is
a
concept
of
total
raw
energy
content
required
from
an
energy
source
(fossil
fuel,
renewable,
or
nuclear)
converted
including
aggregate
losses
into
an
energy
carrier
(electricity,
enthalpy,
mechanical,
etc.)
to
accomplish
a
specified
amount
of
work.
This
work
is
called
secondary
energy
and
is
what
is
recorded
as
onsite
energy
usage
such
as
therms
for
natural
gas
and
kilowatt-­‐hours
(kWh)
for
electricity.
To
integrate
upstream
energy
losses
and
find
primary
energy
the
National
Renewable
Energy
Laboratory
(NREL)
factors
are
used
(Deru,
M.,
P.
Torcellini
2007
p9).
Power
demand
and
generation
potential
is
expressed
in
kW
or
(k)btu/hr
depending
upon
the
context.
NREL
Electricity
primary
energy
factor
=
3.365
NREL
natural
gas
primary
energy
factor
=
1.092
1
kWh
of
electricity
=
3,412
btu
(secondary)
=
11,481
btu
(primary)
1
therm
of
natural
gas
=
10,000
btu
(secondary)
=
10,920
btu
(primary)
1
kbtu/hr
=
0.29
kW
Frequently
the
impact
of
CO2
as
a
GHG
is
used
a
reference
for
how
equivalently
additional
harmful
emissions,
such
as
C2H4
and
N2O,
are
or
as
a
unit
to
note
hypothetical
reductions
in
global
warming
potential
by
avoided
emissions.
This
measure
is
known
as
a
carbon
dioxide
equivalency
(CO2e).
NREL
with
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
has
created
CO2e
emissions
from
multiple
energy
carriers
which
take
into
account
primary
energy,
fugitive
emissions,
and
all
downstream
losses
(Deru,
M.,
P.
Torcellini
2007
p11
&
p21).
The
near
ten
times
magnitude
difference
between
the
two
carriers
for
roughly
the
same
primary
energy
is
fascinating
and
must
come
down
to
a
kWh
delivering
substantially
less
secondary
energy,
the
efficient
combustion
and
sequestration
of
specific
GHGs,
excluding
CO2,
in
generation
from
multiple
fuels
in
addition
to
renewables.
1
kWh
of
electricity
=
0.69
kg
CO2e
=
1.50
lbm
CO2e
1
Therm
of
natural
gas
=
5.30
kg
CO2e
=
11.7
lbm
CO2e

16. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
16
To
compare
between
separate
breweries,
countries,
and
scales
of
production,
and
the
energy
and
resource
impact
of
a
specific
process
or
conservation
measure,
several
key
performance
indicators
(KPIs)
need
to
be
established.
These
metrics
essentially
provide
a
ratio
between
two
inputs,
products,
and/or
byproducts
to
assess
the
efficiency/quality/intensity
of
one
parameter
as
determined
by
the
other.
For
the
purposes
of
this
investigation,
usually
quantities
of
electricity,
natural
gas,
brewing
resources,
wastewater,
or
CO2e
will
be
compared
to
the
total
number
of
barrels
produced
in
a
period
of
time.
Please
refer
to
Appendix
2
for
the
KPIs
of
electricity,
natural
gas,
water,
and
emissions
intensities
in
(kWh/bbl),
(therm/bbl),
(bbl
wastewater/bbl
beer),
and
(kg
of
CO2e/bbl),
respectively,
in
tabular
form
as
reported
by
cited
source.
In
addition,
the
KPI
of
total
primary
energy
used
in
the
production,
called
energy
use
intensity
(EUI),
is
measured
in
(kbtu/bbl).
As
calculated
later
in
this
report,
one
number
to
keep
in
mind
is
that,
on
average,
an
American
craft
brewery
has
an
EUI
of
573
kbtu/bbl.
Frequently,
energy
efficiency
measures
will
produce
a
percent
savings
or
better
yet
an
identifiable
potential
reduction
in
EUI,
also
measured
in
kbtu/bbl.
This
record
keeping
and
comparison
to
industry
benchmarks
or
private
goals
can
detail
gains
or
losses
in
efficient
resource
and
byproduct
management.
Summary
Table
of
Introduction
to
Research
Summary
Table
1:
Introduction
to
Research

17. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
17
Scope
of
Research,
Method
of
Analysis,
&
Barriers
Waste
equals
food,
whether
it's
food
for
the
earth,
or
for
a
closed
industrial
cycle.
We
manufacture
products
that
go
from
cradle
to
grave.
We
want
to
manufacture
them
from
cradle
to
cradle.
-­‐William
McDonough
Holistic
Assessment
This
report
attempts
to
serve
as
a
guide
to
possible
resource
conservation
measures
that
can
be
deployed
in
very
small
to
semi-­‐industrial
craft
breweries.
The
approach
used
was
to
analyze
the
entirety
of
the
brewing
process,
all
the
energy
and
material
inputs
and
waste
products,
and
review
existing
literature
and
case
studies.
A
comprehensive
Lawrence
Berkeley
National
Laboratory
(LBNL)
study
into
brewing
efficiency
found
that
the
production
of
beer
nationwide
entails
the
use
of
67
trillion
btu
of
primary
energy
annually
(Galitsky
2003
p9).
While
the
LBNL
study
is
a
great
source
of
vetted
information,
it
is
good
to
remember
that
it
is
slightly
out
of
date
and
that
its
data
includes
industrial
brewing.
At
the
time
of
the
study,
industrial
brewing
made
up
95%
of
the
market
and
is
notably
for
being
more
energy
and
resource
efficient
by
volume
than
craft
brewing.
Craft
brewing
is
a
slim
minority
of
this
67
trillion
btu;
however
it
is
substantially
less
efficient
with
its
resource
usage
by
retail
volume
produced.
When
it
comes
to
systems
thinking
in
brewing,
Paul
Brodie,
a
mechanical
engineer
specializing
in
brewery
thermodynamic
efficiency,
said
that
“[T]he
principles
and
philosophy
of
Systems
Engineering
should
be
understood
and
embraced
to
allow
energy
reduction
in
the
brewing
industry”
(Brodie
2014
p29).
This
holistic
approach
allows
for
streamlining
production,
closing
waste
heat
and
material
loops,
and
the
consideration
of
upstream
and
end
of
the
pipe
solutions.

18. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
18
Defining
the
System
by
Establishing
its
Boundaries
As
with
any
engineering
or
physics
analysis,
an
internal
system
with
defined
boundaries
is
often
employed
to
note
material
and
energy
flows
into
and
out
of
a
given
process.
This
tool
is
incredibly
useful
in
assessing
the
efficiency
of
the
brewing
process
as
it
allows
isolation
of
a
specific
procedure,
such
as
cooling
boiled
wort
down
to
a
fermentable
temperature,
to
establishing
the
extents
of
the
whole
brewing
process,
to
attempting
a
full
life
cycle
assessment
(LCA).
This
point
was
addressed
directly
in
the
conclusion
of
an
article
on
a
life
cycle
assessment
specifically
on
land
use
impacts
from
the
beer
production:
For
most
indicators,
most
of
the
impacts
were
caused
in
the
cultivation
[of
grain]
phase.
However,
major
impacts
were
also
found
far
down
the
supply
chain
(e.g.,
wood
pallets
used
for
glass
transportation).
As
is
common
in
LCA,
the
choice
of
system
boundaries
was
shown
to
influence
the
overall
result
considerably.
(Matilla
2011
p285)
Where
a
boundary
is
drawn
becomes
a
very
tricky
and
frequently
agenda
driven
choice;
are
the
inputs
of
growing
the
barley
taken
into
account
or
is
a
boundary
drawn
around
the
electricity
used
to
refrigerate
the
beer
after
bottling,
or
after
retail,
or
up
to
the
point
of
consumption?
Take
for
instance
the
problem
of
trying
to
account
for
how
much
water
it
takes
to
make
a
beer
and
the
multiplicative
effects
in
water
intensity
when
redefining
boundaries
of
the
system.
If
you
place
the
system
boundaries
on
the
fresh
water
intake
and
sewage
out,
craft
brewing
has
roughly
a
10:1
units
of
fresh
water
input
to
beer
ratio
(Galitsky
2003
p8).
So
for
each
12
ounce
can
or
bottle
there
is
roughly
120
ounces,
a
little
less
than
one
gallon,
of
water
used
to
clean
the
brewhouse
equipment,
containers,
and
lost
through
evaporation
and
unintentional
runoff.
But
look
upstream
and
draw
a
system
boundary
around
beer’s
primary
ingredient,
barley.
Consider
the
water
used
to
irrigate
the
barley
fields.
While
no
easy
feat,
The
Water
Footprint
Network
estimated
it
takes
an
astounding
298:1
units
of
fresh
water
exclusively
for
agriculture
for
one
unit
of

19. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
19
produced
beer
(Patterson
2014
p111).
With
this
shift
in
the
system
parameters,
that
single
innocuous
12
ounce
microbrew
has
over
28
gallons
of
embodied
fresh
water.
This
same
compounding
effect
applies
to
energy
used
on
site,
embodied
energy
in
the
material
inputs,
upstream
and
downstream
emissions,
wastewater,
and
other
streams
when
the
boundaries
of
the
system
are
redefined.
This
is
the
concept
of
embodiment.
It
is
an
abstract
KPI
which
attempts
to
describe
the
total
amount
of
a
valuable
input
resource
or
byproduct
that
goes
into
or
results
from
the
creation
of
the
desired
product.
For
example,
digging
a
hole
to
plant
several
post
in
concrete
might
appear
like
a
minimal
amount
of
expended
manual
energy;
the
official
unit
of
manual
work
is
‘elbow
grease.’
But
that
80
lbm
(36.4
kg)
bag
of
dry
Portland
cement
started
off
as
mined
lime
stone,
was
transported,
pulverized,
run
through
an
intensely
hot
fossil
fuel
fired
kiln
where
it
was
reduced
to
lime,
then
finally
packaged
and
shipped
for
retail.
That
unexceptional
bag
of
cement
had
over
38,000
btus
of
embodied
energy
and
also
has
the
embodied
emissions
of
5.8
kg
CO2e
(Building
Green
2014
p1-­‐14).
It’s
easy
to
look
at
everyday
products,
including
a
nice
cold
brew,
and
fail
to
see
the
staggering
amount
of
resources
involved
in
their
production.
Conventional
System
Energy
Inputs
When
talking
about
energy
transformation
within
a
process
of
the
whole
system
of
brewing
it
is
appropriate
to
review
types
of
energy,
their
usefulness
or
quality,
and
their
environmental
impact.
Traditionally,
two
energy
carriers
come
into
the
system,
electricity
and
refined
natural
gas,
but
in
much
unorthodox
cases
fuel
oil
is
also
used.
Electricity
is
high
grade
energy
able
to
convert
the
vast
majority
of
its
potential
into
useful
work
when
using
efficient
devices.
Natural
gas
is
a
mixture
of
hydrocarbons
containing
medium
grade
chemical
energy
when
combusted
releasing
high
temperatures
of
roughly
3,600°F
depending
upon
application
and
has
more
substantial
losses.
Lastly
due
to
the
Second
Law
of
Thermodynamic,
as
a
result
of
any
useful
work
or
change
in
enthalpy
due
to
electricity
or
combustion
of
natural
gas
within
a
brewery,

20. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
20
there
is
a
secondary
byproduct
which
is
residual
or
rejected
heat.
These
distinctions
are
important
because
when
it
comes
to
finding
cost
effective
opportunities
for
energy
efficiency
it
often
comes
down
to
making
the
most
effective
use
of
high
quality
energies
and
efficient
extraction
of
heat
from
medium
grade
sources
before
considering
low
grade
heat.
In
addition
to
considering
the
quality
of
electricity
and
natural
gas,
economics
much
also
be
taken
into
account.
While
natural
gas
combustion
is
a
medium
quality
energy
source,
it
is
able
to
deliver
roughly
three
times
as
much
energy
for
the
same
price
with
the
general
assumption
of
$0.10/kwh
and
$1/therm.
Thus
it
is
standard
to
use
natural
gas
and
not
electricity
in
simple
heating
operations.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
price
of
electricity
has
been
increasing
over
the
past
decade
and
that
the
cost
of
natural
gas
is
highly
volatile
due
to
mismatches
in
supply
and
demand.
1
kWh
of
electricity
/
$0.10
=
34,121
btu
/
$1.00
1
Therm
of
natural
gas
/
$1.00
=
100,000
btu
/
$1.00
Integrating
Conservation
into
a
Business
Model
When
looking
at
the
system
of
energy
and
material
input
and
waste
outputs
from
the
brewing
process,
it
is
critical
to
think
of
sustainability
as
reduction
and
reuse
of
each
stream.
In
many
cases
the
concept
of
looped
circuits
within
the
system
is
an
effective
way
of
taking
an
output
arrow
and
plugging
it
back
into
the
inputs
thereby
reducing
both
demand
and
waste.
Every
brewery
purchases
material
inputs
at
cost
and
on
the
far
end
pays
to
dispense
of
liquid
and
material
waste;
what
if
the
expenditures
and
energy
of
purchased
items
were
supplanted
with
production
outputs?
The
vast
majority
of
breweries
purchase
food
grade
compressed
CO2
for
carbonation,
anti-­‐oxidation,
and
cleaning
despite
onsite
fermentation
itself
producing
near
food-­‐grade
CO2
that
is
vented
into
the
atmosphere.
There
are
breweries
in
more
remote
locations
that
instead
of
using
spent
grain
to
feed
livestock,
the
more

21. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
21
conventional
reuse
option,
process
it
onsite
and
create
a
biofuel
or
gas
that
is
compatible
with
their
existing
heat
source
boiler.
Heat
exchangers
are
readily
deployable
to
extract
heat
from
a
cooling
process
and
use
it
to
preheat
in
inlet
stream.
This
method
of
analysis,
while
intuitive,
does
often
require
research
into
ROI,
precedent
or
pilot
programs,
and
an
upfront
capital
investment.
Closing
loops
can
hold
great
financial
gains
by
potentially
eliminating
both
a
purchase
and
disposal
cost.
As
a
way
of
integrating
an
intent
towards
sustainability
while
also
remaining
profitable,
some
small
breweries
are
creating
business
models
based
on
the
Triple
Bottom
Line
concept
as
seen
in
Figure
2.
In
this
system
an
enterprise’s
financial
bottom
line
isn’t
the
only
definition
of
success.
The
two
other
parameters
are
social
equitability
and
environmental
impact.
A
business
following
the
Triple
Bottom
Line
is
therefore
prompted
to
make
choices
that
do
not
incur
detrimental
impacts
to
society
and
environment
in
the
name
of
profit.
In
this
system
there
are
not
shareholders,
not
stakeholders,
which
creates
greater
accountability
and
implies
interests
beyond
profit
margins.
Figure
2:
Ven
Diagram
of
the
Triple
Bottom
Line
Model
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Triple_Bottom_Line_graphic.jpg>

22. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
22
Summary
Table
of
Scope
of
Research
&
Method
of
Analysis
Summary
Table
2:
Scope
of
Research
&
Method
of
Analysis

23. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
23
Brewing
Process
Mother's
in
the
kitchen
washing
out
the
jugs,
Sister's
in
the
pantry
bottling
the
suds,
Father's
in
the
cellar
mixing
up
the
hops,
Johnny's
on
the
front
porch
watching
for
the
cops.
-­‐Prohibition
Song
Scale
of
Production
When
talking
about
craft
breweries
it’s
critical
to
understand
two
key
words:
capacity
and
production.
Capacity
is
a
volumetric
measurement
in
barrels
(bbl)
of
a
brewery’s
maximum
batch
size.
This
is
often
determined
by
the
brewing
vessels
which
act
as
a
volumetric
bottleneck,
usually
the
gross
volume
of
mash
tons
or
brew
kettles.
Production
is
indicated
by
how
much
volume
of
beer
is
produced
per
year
(bbl/yr).
According
to
the
Institute
of
Brewing
there
are
four
designations
of
craft
breweries
by
capacity:
Brewpubs,
Microbreweries,
Regional
Brewers,
and
Large
Brewers.
”Brewpubs”
offer
onsite
consumption
only.
These
outfits
are
generally
small
and
run
by
one
or
two
dedicated
individuals.
Facilities
are
generally
minimal.
If
they
distribute
via
kegs
to
local
restaurants
and
bars
they
might
be
classified
as
a
“nanobrewery.”
A
local
example
of
a
Brewpub
is
Wild
Woods
based
in
Boulder.
“Microbreweries”
are
categorized
by
production
of
less
than
15,000
bbl/yr.
They
make
up
the
most
number
of
craft
breweries
but
not
the
most
grossing
sales
category.
They
distribute
statewide
and
might
own
their
own
canning
or
bottling
line.
A
local
example
of
a
microbrewery
is
Dry
Dock
Brewing
Company
(~12,000
bbl/yr)
located
in
Aurora.
“Regional
Breweries”
are
the
largest
craft
brewery
producers
and
range
from
15,000
–
500,000
bbl/yr.
These
breweries
have
higher-­‐end
facilities
which
likely

24. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
24
includes
a
bottling
or
canning
line.
They
distribute
to
surrounding
states
with
some
minimal
retail
in
distant
states.
A
local
example
of
a
regional
brewer
is
Great
Divide
Brewing
Company
(~40,000
bbl/yr)
out
of
Denver.
“Large
Breweries”
are
the
outfits
producing
more
than
500,000
bbl/yr.
These
are
the
most
established
brands
and
are
more
likely
to
be
distributed
nationally,
possibly
by
constructing
a
second
brewery
in
a
distant
state.
Their
facilities
are
industrial.
These
breweries
dominate
in
gross
craft
brew
sales.
A
local
example
of
a
large
brewer
would
be
New
Belgium
(~950,000
bbl/yr)
in
Fort
Collins.
Off
Site
Inputs
Brewery
Inputs
On
April
23,
1516,
the
Reinheitsgebot
was
decreed
to
be
the
law
of
the
land
in
Bavaria,
Germany.
Also
known
as
the
Bavarian
or
German
Purity
Laws,
this
law
dictated
that
beer
could
only
be
brewed
from
April
23
through
September
29
and
was
restricted
to
being
comprised
of
only
three
ingredients:
barley,
hops,
and
water
(Buck
2014
p26).
The
intent
of
the
law
was
to
exclude
other
grains,
like
wheat
and
rye,
from
being
turned
into
beer,
a
process
that
had
historically
created
bread
shortages
in
the
winter
months.
In
essence
this
first
piece
of
brewery
related
legislation
was
an
attempt
to
maintain
social
sustainability
500
years
before
the
concept
was
coined.
The
following
section
will
attempt
to
outline
each
step
of
the
modern
day
conventional
craft
brewing
process.
This
includes
any
mechanical
equipment
involved,
material
and
energy
inputs,
duration,
state
of
the
production,
and
specific
potential
impacts
by
process.
While
the
mechanics
of
the
apparatus
change
depending
upon
the
sale
of
production,
the
sequencing
is
fairly
regimented.
To
help
map
out
the
brewing
sequence,
Figure
3
depicts
a
simplified
series
of
pieces
of
equipment
and
associated
processes
with
each
stage:
hot
water
and
crushed
grain
are
steeped,
filtered
then
boiled,
and
finally
cooled,
fermented,
and
packaged.

25. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
25
Figure
3:
Simplified
Brewing
System
<http://www.jwsweetman.ie/img/brewingprocess.png>
Water,
so
frequently
overlooked,
is
the
primary
ingredient
in
beer.
It
provides
the
solution
within
which
carbohydrates
and
proteins
dissolve,
passive
enzymatic
reactions
occur,
and
an
ecosystem
of
yeast
flourishes
then
collapses.
Most
craft
breweries
are
within
a
municipality’s
infrastructure
and
thus
are
using
pretreated
fresh
water
in
their
beer
production
that
then
indicates
the
likely
use
of
municipal
wastewater
as
well.
Other
breweries
outside
a
city’s
limits
will
be
on
regulated
well
water
that
likely
implies
the
use
of
an
onsite
septic
system.
Some
larger
breweries
use
reverse
osmosis
and/carbon
filtering
to
remove
impurities
or
additives
like
fluoride
or
chlorine,
which
can
affect
flavor
and
the
health
of
the
yeast.
These
more
volatile
ions
can
also
be
vented
off
in
a
boiling
process.
Additionally,
sometimes
the
brewer
adds
mineral
components
to
mimic
a
certain
regional
style
with
a
particular
water
structure.
The
most
notable
ingredient
in
craft
beer
is
of
course
barley
and
other
grains
that
are
the
source
of
the
requisite
carbohydrates.
While
corn
is
the
most
frequently
used
grain
in
industrial
scale
brewing
in
the
US
and
rice
elsewhere
in
the
world,
craft

26. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
26
breweries
stick
to
the
time-­‐honored
use
of
barley
as
the
foundational
grain
in
beer.
Craft
breweries
pride
themselves
in
making
a
range
of
unique,
high
quality,
and
distinctive
brews.
What
makes
a
pilsner
different
than
a
porter
is
largely
attributed
to
the
grain
bill,
a
ratio
of
barley,
wheat,
rye,
oats
and
others,
and
how
each
type
is
processed
prior,
such
as
hulled,
malted,
roasted,
or
smoked.
As
with
all
industrial
agriculture,
barley
cultivation
has
a
substantial
carbon
footprint
and
water
appetite.
The
Food
Climate
Research
Network
report
states,
Carbon
dioxide
emissions
from
barley
production
will
arise
from
the
use
of
energy
to
drive
on-­‐
farm
machinery
and
for
the
production
and
transport
of
fertilisers
[sic],
seeds
and
other
inputs.
Nitrous
oxide
is
also
emitted
both
during
the
fertilisers
[sic]
manufacturing
process
and
through
natural
soil
processes.”
(Garnett
2007
p28).
The
report
then
goes
on
to
say
that
the
manufacturing
of
fertilizer
and
its
byproduct
N20
contribute
roughly
1%
of
total
GHG
emission
in
the
UK.
(Garnett
2007
p29)
While
dependent
upon
recipe
and
desired
final
specific
gravity,
which
indicates
likely
final
ethanol
content,
generally
between
1-­‐4
lbm
of
barley
is
used
per
gallon
of
beer
with
an
alcohol
by
volume
(ABV)
of
between
3-­‐13%.
With
anywhere
from
75-­‐120
lbm
of
barley
are
used
per
barrel
of
craft
beer,
it
easy
to
see
the
water
used
for
irrigation,
the
fossil
fuels
used
for
industrial
farming
equipment,
and
the
applications
of
energy
and
emissions
intensive
nitrogen-­‐rich
fertilizers
quickly
adding
up.
After
the
grain
in
harvested,
it
is
frequently
malted
at
an
offsite,
usually
industrial,
location.
This
purpose
is
to
unlock
the
bundle
of
potential
chemical
energy,
largely
in
the
form
of
proteins,
which
make
up
raw
grain.
Malting
is
the
process
by
which
grain
germinates
with
water.
The
seed’s
own
biological
mechanisms
then
transform
the
complex
endosperm
into
more
simple
carbohydrates,
starches,
and
enzymes
used
to
sprout
and
create
a
seedling.
This
process
is
interrupted
prior
to
sprouting
via
heat,
leaving
a
large
portion
of
the
non-­‐fermentable
proteins
transformed
into
carbohydrates,
including
both
fermentable
monosaccharides,
such
as
maltose,
and
non-­‐fermentable
polysaccharides,
such
as
starches.
The
grain
is
then
put
through
a
kiln
where
the
water
content
is
reduced.
This
process
can
be
continued
to
roast
the
grain,

27. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
27
producing
more
useable
carbohydrates
and
creating
a
darker,
more
malty
and
complex
flavor
profile
used
in
such
beers
as
stouts
and
porters.
Energy
inputs
and
emissions
vary
dramatically
in
this
process.
The
United
Kingdom
Food
Climate
Research
Network
study
shows
that
the
malting
of
grain
for
beer
in
the
UK
accounts
for
.055%
of
total
national
GHG
emissions
(Garnett
2007,
p31).
The
malted
grain
is
then
shipped
via
the
black
box
of
transportation
networks
and
eventually
is
delivered
to
the
brewery.
Here
the
barley
is
loaded
directly
into
grain
silos
using
conveyors
or
grain
elevators
in
larger
craft
breweries
or
left
packaged
in
50
lbm
sacks
for
smaller
set
ups
or
specialty
grains.
It
is
static
at
this
point
and
stable
until
brewing
begins.
The
Brewhouse
The
brewhouse
is
the
facility
where
water,
grain,
hops,
heat
and
its
extraction,
and
yeast
are
combined
to
ferment
and
create
the
final
product,
craft
beer.
Large
breweries
can
have
around
the
clock
operations,
while
regional
breweries
might
brew
every
working
day
and
micro
and
nanobreweries
have
specific
brewing
days.
These
three
scales
of
brewing
imply
very
different
systems
with
the
largest
potentially
replicating
a
near
steady
state
series
of
processes
and
the
smaller
breweries
defined
by
a
linear
start
to
stop
frame.
As
with
most
engineered
processes,
the
less
starting
and
stopping
thus
more
continuous
in
operation,
the
more
efficient
the
plant
and
thus
energy
economies
of
scale
are
uncovered.
The
brewing
process
can
be
expressed
as
a
series
of
thermodynamic
processes
performed
on
a
fluid
which
take
place
in
multiple
containment
vessels
where
heat
is
generally
added
or
extracted.
The
most
common
type
of
vessel
in
the
brewing
industry
is
the
iconic,
stainless
steel,
conical-­‐base
tank,
which
usually
has
an
integrated
double
skin,
known
as
a
jacket,
or
an
internal
coil
by
which
the
fluid
is
heated
or
cooled.
For
the
entirety
of
the
brewing
process
the
United
Kingdom
Food
Climate
Research
Network
study
shows
that
the
mashing,
lautering,
and

28. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
28
fermenting
of
beer
accounted
.096%
of
total
UK
GHG
emissions
(Garnett
2007,
p41).
Figure
4
depicts
the
linear
sequence
of
processes
in
the
brewhouse
and
postproduction.
Figure
4:
Linear
Brewing
Sequence
(Brodie
2014
p7)

29. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
29
The
first
step
in
the
brewing
process
is
milling
the
malted
grain,
thus
cracking
any
remaining
husks
and
the
outer
layers
and
exposing
the
carbohydrates
inside.
This
cracked
grain
is
known
as
grist.
The
process
is
simply
grinding
the
malted
barley
and
other
grains
through
a
set
of
rolling
pins
to
produce
a
flakey
and
coarse
mixture.
Larger
or
new
facilities
often
employ
wet
milling
to
eliminate
the
airborne
dust
produced
in
the
process.
Most
craft
breweries
use
a
traditional
dry
mill.
This
grist
is
then
fed
into
the
mash-­‐tun.
The
mash-­‐tun
is
a
large
vessel
where
the
grist
and
warm
water
are
allowed
to
soak,
creating
a
sweet
and
malty
liquid
known
as
wort.
Prior
to
the
grist
being
added,
the
mash-­‐tun
is
filled
with
warm
water.
The
water
is
either
warmed
directly
in
the
mash-­‐tun
via
a
conventional
steam
jacket
encasing
the
vessel
or
is
pulled
from
an
unconventional
hot
liquor
tank,
which
acts
as
a
reserve
vessel
of
water
maintained
at
a
certain
temperature
for
multiple
applications.
Once
the
water
is
at
the
desired
temperature,
the
grist
is
added
and
mashing
begins.
There
are
three
different
methods
of
mashing:
decoction,
involving
an
added
pre-­‐partial
mash
boil
step;
infusion,
keeping
the
mash
at
a
flat
temperature
then
stepped,
slowly
bringing
the
mash
up
in
temperature.
Four
naturally
occurring
enzymes
in
malted
barley
are
each
activated
in
different
temperature
zones
and
have
the
highly
desirable
ability
to
hydrolyze,
chemically
break
down,
non-­‐fermentable
starches
to
fermentable
sugars.
This
mixture
is
slowly
churned
mechanically
and
kept
at
(or
sequenced
through
a
range
of)
temperatures
between
130-­‐180°F,
the
band
of
enzymatic
activity,
for
30-­‐90
minutes
depending
upon
desired
extraction
efficiency.
According
to
the
LBNL
study,
decoction
mashing
is
estimated
to
take
12-­‐13
kbtu/bbl
while
infusion
mashing,
keeping
the
wort
at
single
lower
temperature
is
much
more
efficient
at
8-­‐10
kbtu/bbl
(Galitsky
2003
p5).
After
the
grist
has
been
sufficiently
soaked
and
a
sugary
wort
has
been
produced,
lautering
takes
place
which
includes
a
number
of
ways
to
separate
the
spent
grain
from
the
work.
In
larger
breweries,
this
takes
place
in
a
separate
vessel
known
as

30. Aaron
Blaise
Treeson
Barley
to
Boiler
30
a
lautering-­‐tun.
In
smaller
breweries,
the
mash-­‐tun
has
been
integrated
with
lautering.
In
either
instance
the
vessel
has
a
false
bottom
used
to
strain
out
the
grain
from
the
wort.
While
the
wort
is
pumped
into
the
brew
kettle,
the
remaining
grain
is
often
rinsed
a
single
time
or
recirculating
with
170°F
water,
known
as
sparging,
which
is
intended
to
extract
any
residual
sugars
and
is
eventually
reintegrated
with
the
wort
which
by
this
stage
is
liquid
with
some
suspended
grain
sediment.
In
all
but
the
smallest
of
breweries,
the
brew
kettle
is
a
separate
vessel
used
to
bring
the
wort
to
a
full
boil
for
an
extended
duration.
The
wort
boiling
process
serves
many
functions
from
sterilizing
the
wort
of
unwanted
microbes,
stopping
enzymatic
activity,
vaporizing
unwanted
volatile
compounds,
coagulating
any
proteins
and
sediment,
and
allowing
hops
additions.
Traditionally
this
process
takes
place
at
212°F
and
usually
takes
place
between
1-­‐2
hours.
This
brew
kettle
brings
the
wort
to
a
sustained
boil
by
a
constant
supply
of
heat,
conventionally
through
an
encasing
steam
jacket
which
is
supplied
by
a
natural
gas
fueled
steam
boiler.
The
boil
traditionally
lasts
for
such
an
extended
period
of
time
to
remove
off-­‐flavors
and
integrate
desirable
flavors.
In
this
period
hops,
the
main
non-­‐grain
flavorant,
are
incorporated
in
stages.
Hops
added
at
the
start
of
the
boil
undergo
isomerization,
the
transformation
of
one
molecule
into
another
via
heat,
resulting
in
soluble
alpha
acids
which
are
bittering
agents.
Hops
added
near
the
end
of
the
boil
do
not
undergo
this
process
and
are
intended
to
contribute
to
a
beer’s
aroma.
Additionally
the
surface
of
the
brew
kettle
is
at
a
much
higher
temperature
than
212°F
which
allows
the
Maillard
reaction
to
convert
simple
sugars
and
amino
acids
into
melanoidin
polymers,
creating
non-­‐fermentable
malty
flavor
and
color
(Wallaert
2004
p16).
While
hops
and
melanoidins
are
impart
desirable
flavors
in
the
beer,
a
wide
variety
of
volatile
organic
compounds
(VOCs)
that
have
been
formed
in
the
wort
are
vented
via
a
long
duration
boil.
These
VOCs
include
S-­‐
methylmethionine
(SMM),
dimethylsulphide
(DSS),
2-­‐acetylthiazole,
myrcene,