Energy and Water Use and Minimisation for Breweries. Gary Freeman, Conor Donoghue and Gordon Jackson

Transcription

1 Energy and Water Use and Minimisation for Breweries Gary Freeman, Conor onoghue and Gordon Jackson

2 Content Background: Our energy and water history The way forward: Some highlight technologies that may be currently employed In-place cleaning Cleaning chemical efficiency Crossflow microfiltration of beer Product carbon footprint reduction Biogas production

3 Year Specific Energy Consumption (SEC) Benchmark Results Number of breweries Specific Energy Consumption (SEC) Average Standard deviation Median ecile [MJ/hl] [MJ/hl] [MJ/hl] [MJ/hl] % reduction in world-top energy usage (top 10% performance)

4 Specific Water Consumption

5 Opportunities in CIP Water and energy hand in hand savings Get the mechanical aspects right Recovery and re-use of high resource chemicals

6 Effect of Sprayhead esign Static Sprayball Rotary Sprayhead Ref.: O. Müller, Brauindustrie 2003(1) Rotary Jethead

7 Sprayhead Selection Large vessels would need more than one static type sprayball Jet heads operate at higher pressure and over a larger volume - Mechanical scouring effect higher - Potential for reduced water / detergent requirement - However, there is a minimum time limit to complete surface clean cycle Sometimes lower flowrate but longer time; equivalent water usage - epending on process, saving is between 0% and 30% for rotary devices Rotating devices require confirmation that fouling does not prevent movement - Increased complexity and capital expenditure In general, protect spray devices with filters

8 Vessel Cleaning Mechanical aspect to cleaning action is very important Ensure turbulent flow down vessel walls Burst Rinsing: alternate flow / no flow - Potential for 20-50% reduction in rinse water volumes (ref: Agius et al, World Brewing Congress 2008) - Assists drainage Ensure all surfaces are exposed to cleaning action Sometimes spray device itself is contamination source! If you don t wet it you won t clean it Ref: Steinecker GmbH

9 Nanofiltration for etergent Recovery membrane filtration process (polymeric) exclusion of large molecules i.e. most of the dissolved soil recovery of small molecules (~ <200 molecular weight) i.e. the detergent cross flow employed to maximise run length pressure drop may be in excess of 15 bar CROSS FLOW ( retentate stream) P R E S S U R E R O P SOIL SOIL PERMEATE (recovered detergent) SOIL

10 Nanofiltration for etergent Recovery 90% of detergent recovered Some transmission of soil so purging required Working life of membranes 1 to 2 years Flowrate typically ~75 litres/h per m 2 of membrane Applicable to both acidic and alkaline detergents Membranes more cost effective now, detergent prices increasing attractive pay back times economy of scale

11 Opportunities in Crossflow Beer Filtration Technological advancements Clean brewing Legislator / regulator issues

12 Crossflow Beer Filtration Now established as an alternative to filter aid filtration Performance improvement over the years PES Cleaning regimes Pore size optimisation

13 Pre-Filter Beer Sample: Particle Size istribution Volume in Size Class ( µm3 / ml) Particle iameter (microns)

14 Fouling of Crossflow Membranes by Beer Molecular gel layer in depth pore plugging cake formation surface adsorption Yeast Macromolecules fine particles

15 Particle Size istributions in a Beer Permeate over a Crossflow Filtration Run 10 Scatter intensity from size class Permeate (filtrate) late run Permeate (filtrate) mid run Permeate (filtrate) early run Rough beer Particle diameter (nanometres)

16 Crossflow Filtration for Improved KPIs? Reduced water usage depends on run length Reduced detergent usage run length, beer quality Reduced energy usage run length carbon footprint is reduced No filter aid!

17 Opportunities in Carbon Footprinting Standardisation of methodology atabases emonstrating improvement

18 Example: Carbon Footprint of Fat Tire Amber Ale (New Belgium Brewing Company) Report freely available on internet Ale packaged into non-returnable glass bottle Two biggest contributors: Glass (21%) In store refrigeration (25%)

19 Glass Lightweighting Incentivised in the UK by funding support from Government agency WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) But should this funding have been necessary? Essentially performed by an iterative design process Enabled bottle suppliers to provide lightweighted bottles in their standard ranges Brewing company can employ very similar designs for different brands Removed approximately 10% from typical bottle mass Conservatively 10M (2008) purchase cost savings in UK But there are other cost and environmental savings

20 Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Packaging Consider Material / Mass / Recycling Glass (500 ml) 152 gco2 e / pack for virgin glass 76 gco2 e / pack for recycled glass Aluminium (500 ml) 296 gco2 e / pack for virgin metal 15 gco2 e / pack for recycled metal PET (500 ml) 10 gco2 e / pack for virgin plastic Have we recycling facilities? Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

21 Opportunities in Biogas Production Technology advancement Reduced carbon footprint Security of co-product handling Collaboration with other parties

22 Biogas Generation Common for liquid effluent More potential for brewery / food coproducts economy of scale, work with local food producer? wet waste is efficient usage, compare incineration fertiliser is a co-product

23 Other Technologies High Efficiency Motors Variable Speed rives Large applications (capex, power loss) Compressed air Leak detection Full system appraisal (mapping, power usage measurement etc.) Logistics Life Cycle Analysis N.B. Lightweighting of packaging

24 Thank you for listening Process Engineer Environmental Advisor Project evelopment Manager