Industrial Energy Efficiency Accelerator - Guide to the brewing sector pot

Industrial Energy Efficiency Accelerator - Guide to the brewing sector They UK produces 49 Mhl per year and emits approximately 446,000tCO2/yr Current CCA data shows that in the UK there are 14 large breweries or packaging sites (over 1Mhl per annum), a further 35 smaller breweries and circa 700 micro-brewers This Sector Guide describes the IEEA findings for the UK brewing sector The investigation centred on the brewhouse, small pack packaging, kegging/casking and clean-in-place (CIP) as the key areas where significant improvements could be made Executive Summary The Carbon Trust has worked with a range of industry sectors as part of its Industrial Energy Efficiency Accelerator (IEEA), to identify where step-change reductions in energy use can be achieved through detailed investigation of sector-specific production processes The IEEA aims to support industry-wide process carbon emissions reduction by accelerating innovation in processes, product strategy and the uptake of low carbon technologies, substantiated by process performance data and detailed process analysis This Sector Guide describes the IEEA findings for the UK brewing sector The investigation centred on the brewhouse, small pack packaging, kegging/casking and clean-in-place (CIP) as the key areas where significant improvements could be made, and opportunities categorised according to their degree of technical/commercial maturity; that is, their relative ease of implementation and cost-effectiveness: Wave 1: Energy efficiency best practice and process optimisation: On the basis of the best practice survey carried out as part of the investigation, we estimate that a 5% carbon saving (22,000tCO2/year) could be made across the sector, from the consistent application of all feasible best practice opportunities Furthermore, a large number of process optimisation opportunities were identified, relating to the kettle, smallpack pasteurisation, keg/cask processing, and CIP Those that were possible to quantify show that a further 9% reduction (40,000tCO2/year) in carbon emissions could be achieved by optimising and implementing existing best practice process technologies Wave 2: Opportunities on the horizon: Some newer technologies have the potential to make step-change reductions in energy use; these are commercially available but UK take-up has been low due to concerns over quality impacts, lack of capital, and longer than acceptable payback periods Areas of potential are: adding a wort stripping column or direct steam injection to the kettle; kettle vapour heat recovery; using a heat pump to recover energy from refrigeration system condensers; and switching to flash pasteurisation or cold sterile Brewing Sector Guide filtration for small-pack pasteurisation An estimated 12% further carbon reduction (54,000tCO2/year) could be achieved from such measures Wave 3: The future: A number of game-changing technologies have been identified but will require both a time and financial commitment from the industry to bring them to technical and commercial fruition We estimate the key areas with potential to be UV pasteurisation for both kegs and small pack, as well as the development of more precise techniques for monitoring and controlling CIP processes We estimate that a further 5% carbon saving (22,000tCO2/year) could be made across the sector from these measures The cumulative impact of these opportunities, illustrated in the “carbon reduction road map” shown in the figure below, shows that a total sector carbon saving of 31% is achievable, equivalent to 138,000tCO2/yr on sector baseline emissions of 446,000tCO2/yr This is based on a sequenced scenario where all Wave opportunities are implemented first, so that the impact of the more innovative opportunities of Waves and is made against an already reduced baseline carbon emissions level Step change road map for UK brewery sector 100% 14% 90% 12% 80% 70% 5% 100% 60% 50% 69% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% The table below summarises the main areas of opportunity categorised according to the three-wave approach described above, along with their sector-wide carbon saving potential Note that the measures are not necessarily additive; for example, a wort-stripping column and direct steam injection are alternative boil-off reduction technologies, and cannot both be applied Furthermore, the sector saving potential is also affected by previous improvements: for example, if best practice and the optimisation of existing processes has first been carried out, then the incremental benefit of, say, cold sterile filtration will be against an already reduced starting position of energy use and carbon emissions The road map graph above has taken these factors into account Wave (1/2/3) Sector Carbon Saving (tCO2) Area Description (%) Average Payback (years) Best practice in energy Implement all feasible opportunities 22,300 5.0% Unknown Process optimisation Reduce boil-off 11,200 2.5% Unknown Process optimisation Increase high gravity dilution 11,900 2.7% Unknown Process optimisation Optimise tunnel pasteurisers 14,000 3.1% Unknown Process optimisation Optimising cask washing 3,100 0.7% 5.9 Brewing Sector Guide Sector Carbon Saving (tCO2) Wave (1/2/3) Area Description (%) Average Payback (years) Small pack pasteurisation Flash pasteurisation with clean room 53,400 12.0% 2.5 Small pack pasteurisation Cold sterile filtration 68,600 15.4% 6.3 Pasteurisation Heat pump on refrigeration condenser 29,200 6.5% 2.7 Kettle Wort stripping column 21,500 4.8% 2.4 Kettle Wort steam injection 18,700 4.2% 3.2 Kegs/Casks One way containers Dependent on transport distance CIP Real-time cleaning verification 4,600 1.0% Unknown CIP CIP – novel technologies and low temperature detergents (ECA) 7,500 1.7% Unknown Small pack pasteurisation UV pasteurisation for small pack 68,300 15.3% 6.5 Kegs/Casks UV pasteurisation for kegs 13,100 2.9% 1.9 Recommendations We recommend that the brewing industry takes the following, tiered approach to energy and carbon efficiency improvement: Implement remaining best practice techniques and technologies: investigation has shown a considerable potential for sector-wide savings by ensuring the consistent application of sustained best practice management techniques and available technologies Optimise existing processes in the brewhouse, packaging and CIP: further, low cost savings can be achieved through improvements to operating practices and production methods and by refinements to existing process technologies Collaborate with equipment suppliers on technology trials and pilot projects: to assess the potential impact of less proven technologies and techniques on product quality and to support the progression to costeffective equipment design BBPA and Carbon Trust support: should be sustained to ensure that the UK brewing sector has access to the information, case studies, partnerships and innovation support funding that will enable it to achieve the significant carbon emissions reduction potential identified as part of this IEEA project Brewing Sector Guide Table of contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 1.1 Sector background 1.2 Process operations and energy 1.3 Sector carbon emissions 15 1.4 Issues and barriers relating to energy efficiency and change 16 1.5 Focus processes 17 1.6 Regulatory drivers 18 1.7 Other business drivers 20 1.8 Industry progress on energy saving 20 Methodology for monitoring and analysis 21 2.1 What metering/data gathering was done and why 21 2.2 The kettle 21 2.3 Small pack pasteurisation 21 2.4 Keg/cask processing 22 2.5 CIP 22 2.6 Engagement with the sector 22 2.7 Participating host sites 22 2.8 Data gathering 23 2.9 Metering approach 23 2.10 Best practice checklist 24 Key findings: best practice survey 25 Key findings and opportunities: the kettle - wort stabilisation 27 4.1 Key differences between the sites investigated 27 4.2 Data to support analysis 28 4.3 Best practice process optimisation opportunities 35 4.4 Innovative wort stabilisation opportunities 37 4.5 Summary of findings 40 4.6 Barriers to implementation 40 Key findings and opportunities: small pack pasteurisation 41 5.1 Process description 41 5.2 Data analysis and modelling 43 5.3 Process optimisation opportunities 47 Brewing Sector Guide 5.4 Innovative opportunities and significant change 50 5.5 Summary of findings 53 5.6 Barriers to implementation 54 Key findings and opportunities: keg and cask processing 55 6.1 Keg processing 55 6.2 Cask processing 59 6.3 Summary of findings 62 6.4 Barriers to implementation 62 Key findings and opportunities: clean-in-place 64 7.1 Data analysis 64 7.2 Process optimisation opportunities 66 7.3 Innovative opportunities 67 7.4 Summary of findings 69 7.5 Barriers to implementation 70 Summary of opportunities 72 8.1 Overview 72 8.2 General best practice energy efficiency opportunities 73 8.3 Process optimisation opportunities 73 8.4 Innovative opportunities 73 Sector roadmap and next steps for the UK brewery sector 78 9.1 The step change roadmap 78 9.2 Elements of the roadmap 79 9.3 Next steps for the UK brewery sector 81 Appendix 1: Metering rationale 84 Appendix 2: Good practice checklist 87 Appendix 3: Kettle technologies and business cases 99 Appendix 4: Small pack technologies and business cases 104 Appendix 5: Keg/cask technologies and business cases 112 Appendix 6: CIP technologies and business cases 115 Brewing Sector Guide Introduction 1.1 Sector background Beer has been a staple part of British food since the early 12th century; it is a much-loved part of British culture, and the industry supports around 400,000 jobs, as well as sustaining many other UK businesses The British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) is the leading trade organisation representing the UK beer and pub sector Its members account for 96% of beer brewed in the UK and own more than half of Britain's 53,000 pubs Until the 16th century beer was brewed in the home, on farms, in wayside taverns and, later, in the great monasteries Its commercial mass production is estimated to have started in the early 16th century; with records of production available from 1750 They show that UK beer production peaked in 1979 at 67.5 million hectolitres (Mhl) but since then the production has declined gradually to its current level of less than 49 Mhl per year These declines are synchronous to the changes in consumption trends There have been marked declines following recessions at the beginning of 1980s and 1990s, the decline in heavy industry and, more recently, following consumer trends towards wine and other drinks Figure UK beer consumption and production (1960-2009)1 Source: BBPA Brewing Sector Guide Against the background of declining production, there has been a rationalisation within the industry The earliest record of number of breweries is in 1690, which shows around 48,000 breweries in existence at that time In the past thirty years, the number of industrial breweries has reduced from 140 to 49; however the number of microbreweries has gone up in this period Current CCA2 data shows that in the UK there are 14 large breweries or packaging sites (over 1Mhl per annum), a further 35 smaller breweries, and circa 700 micro-brewers Heineken UK (formerly known as Scottish & Newcastle), is the market leader, with more than a quarter of UK beer sales The next three largest companies are also foreign-owned companies; Molson Coors UK; AB-InBev UK; and Carlsberg UK On the other hand, Irish-based Diageo is famous for its Guinness brand and is a major multinational3 There are some changing trends in beer consumption that are worth noting Data from the BBPA CCA 2010 report shows that the volume of ale and stout, the traditional British beers, has been slowly replaced by lager, changing the proportion of ale and stout to lager from 99:1 to 25:75 over the last 50 years Climate Change Agreement (CCA) data for the brewery sector shows that the majority of exclusive ale producers are relatively small in size (annual production below Mhl), whilst all the exclusive lager producers fall in the large category (annual production greater than Mhl) There has also been a shift from drinking in pubs, clubs and bars to taking beer home for consumption Takehome sales now account for 47% of the total sales volume as against 10% in the 1970s Change in the packaging mix is consistent with the growth in take-home sales; the percentage of returnable bottles, kegs and casks is steadily declining matched by the percentage of non-returnable bottles and cans increasing The volume sold in cans has doubled in the last 30 years.4 From the perspective of energy and water consumption, the UK brewing industry has seen some encouraging trends Even though, for lager, lower fermentation temperatures and cold-conditioning periods result in higher requirements for refrigeration and thus electricity consumption, and specific energy consumption (SEC) in manufacturing is higher for small-pack products, BBPA data shows that the overall SEC for the industry has fallen by 53% since 1976 Overall water consumption has declined by 49% over the past 30 years and total carbon emission for the industry has dropped by 55% from its 1990 level These achievements are discussed in detail further in this report 1.2 Process operations and energy 1.2.1 Process overview Brewing is the production of alcoholic beverage through fermentation Brewing specifically refers to the process of steeping, and extraction (chemical mixing process), usually through heat The brewing process uses malted barley and/or cereals, un-malted grains and/or sugar/corn syrups (adjuncts), hops, water, and yeast to produce beer Brewing has a very long history, and archaeological evidence suggests that this technique was used in ancient Egypt Descriptions of various beer recipes can be found in Sumerian writings, some of the oldest known writing of any sort Most brewers in the UK use malted barley as their principal raw material The main ingredient for the brewery process (barley grain) goes through malting process (this process is usually done in a dedicated maltings facility separate to the brewery) Climate Change Agreements between industry trade associations and the Government allow industry members to claim an 80% discount on the Climate Change Levy In return companies must hit energy/carbon saving targets and report on progress Source: BBPA Source: BBPA Brewing Sector Guide First the grain is steeped in water This prompts germination which generates α-amylase and β-amylase among other enzymes These enzymes are used later to help the starch in the grain be broken down to sugar Before the malted grain is delivered to the brewery it is usually roasted or dried in a kiln, with longer roasting periods resulting in a darker and stronger tasting beer The first step in brewing involves milling the malted grain to increase the surface areas available so that a high yield of extracted substances can be obtained This is either done wet or dry The crushed malt (grist) is then mixed with heated water in the mash tun (a large vessel) During mashing natural enzymes within the malt break down much of the starch into sugars which play a vital part in the fermentation process This process usually involves the mash being heated to several specific temperatures (break points) and resting at these temperatures where different enzymes break down the starch into the desired mix of sugars The sugar and starch solution that is created in the process is called the wort Before the mash is filtered the temperature is raised to 75ºC to deactivate enzymes To separate out the wort from the grist the mash is either sent through a lauter tun or mash filter o o A mash filter is comprised of a series of plates where the mash is compressed to remove as much wort as possible The remaining mash is sparged but less water is needed as the mash filter provides a larger cross section of mash with less depth to penetrate than in a lauter tun o A lauter tun is a large vessel up to several meters wide and tall which has a slotted bottom (like a giant sieve), which allows the wort to fall through while retaining the spent grain grist behind To extract any remaining available sugars fresh water is sprayed onto the mash after the initial wort has drained through the slotted base (sparging) In some cases the lauter tun is combined with the mash tun to form a mash vessel In this case, the wort run off is directed through a series of slotted plates at the bottom of the tun The mash floats on top of the wort This tends to be the slowest wort separation system although it is the lowest cost in terms of capital outlay The next step involves the wort being heated in a wort copper or kettle; wort stabilisation involves the boiling and evaporation of the wort (about a 4-8% evaporation rate) over a to 1.5 hour period The boil is a strong rolling boil and is the most energy-intensive step of the beer production process The boiling sterilises the wort, coagulates grain protein, stops enzyme activity, drives off volatile compounds, causes metal ions, tannin substances and lipids to form insoluble complexes, extracts soluble substances from hops and cultivates colour and flavour During this stage hops, which extract bitter resins and essential oils, can be added Hops can be fully or partially replaced by hop extracts, which reduce boiling time and remove the need to extract hops from the boiled wort If hops are used, they can be removed after boiling with different filtering devices in a process called hop straining In order to remove the hot break or trub (denatured proteins that form a solid residue), the boiled wort is clarified through sedimentation, filtration, centrifugation or whirlpool (being passed through a whirlpool tank) Whirlpool vessels are most common in the UK After clarification, the cleared hopped wort is cooled Heat exchangers for cooling are of two types: single-stage (chilled water only) or multiple-stage (ambient water and glycol) Wort enters the heat exchanger at approximately 96-99ºC and exits cooled to pitching temperature Pitching temperatures vary depending on the type of beer being produced Pitching temperature for lagers run between 615°C, whilst for ales are higher at 12-25°C Certain brewers aerate the wort before cooling to drive off undesirable volatile organic compounds A secondary cold clarification step is used in some breweries to settle out trub, an insoluble protein precipitate, present in the wort obtained during cooling Brewing Sector Guide Once the wort is cooled, it is oxygenated and blended with yeast on its way to the fermentation vessel During fermentation, the yeast metabolizes the fermentable sugars in the wort to produce alcohol and carbon dioxide (CO2) The process also generates significant heat that must be dissipated in order to avoid damaging the yeast Fermenters are cooled by coils or cooling jackets In a closed fermenter, CO2 can be recovered and later reused Fermentation time will vary from a few days for ales to closer to 10 days for lagers The rate is dependent on the yeast strain, fermentation parameters and the taste profile that the brewer is targeting At the conclusion of the fermentation process the beer is cooled to stop the action of the yeast, then the yeast is removed through settling or through a centrifuge (although with real ale: some yeast is retained and after the ageing it is added with the beer into the barrel) Beer aging, conditioning or maturation is the final production step The beer is cooled and stored in order to settle remaining yeast and other precipitates and to allow the beer to mature and stabilize Different brewers age their beer at different temperatures, partially dependent on the desired taste profile Beer is held at conditioning temperature (-1ºC to 10ºC) for several days to over a month, and then chill-proofed and filtered (the process for real ale is different to lager as the yeast is not filtered out of the beer) 10 With the beer at a temperature of -1ºC, a kieselguhr (diatomaceous earth or mud) filter is typically used to remove any precipitated protein and prevent the beer from clouding when served at a cool temperature With real ale the beer is not filtered so that the yeast is still ‟live‟ when it goes out in the cask 11 In high gravity brewing (high alcohol content), specially treated de-aerated water is added after the filtration stage to achieve the desired final gravity The beer‟s CO2 content can also be trimmed with CO2 that was collected during fermentation or from external supplies if enough CO2 is not recovered on site 12 After being blended the beer is then sent to the bright (i.e filtered) beer tanks before packaging 13 Beer that is destined for bottles or cans is sent to the fillers where a vacuum or counter pressure filler will be used to fill the bottles or cans Other beer will go to the flash pasteuriser and be filled at a later stage in, casks, kegs or sometimes directly into tankers (for real ale the beer is not pasteurised as this would kill the yeast) 14 The beer must be cleaned of spoiling bacteria to lengthen its shelf life One method to achieve this, especially for beer that is expected to have a long shelf life, is pasteurisation, where the beer is heated to 75°C to destroy biological contaminants (this is not carried out with real ale as the process would kill the yeast in the beer) Different pasteurisation techniques are tunnel or flash pasteurisation: o o 15 Flash pasteurisation involves the beer being heated for a short amount of time and then being bought down in temperature in a heat exchanger prior to filling In-pack pasteurisation is the pasteurisation of beer that has already been packed in bottles or cans, by bringing the whole packed beer container up to temperature by heating with hot water This is typically done in a tunnel pasteuriser Finally, the packaged beer undergoes any secondary or retail packing processes and is ready to be shipped The diagram below shows these 15 process steps, with annotation as to where cold liquor (cold water), hot liquor (hot water) and de-aerated water are added and where heating and cooling take place Brewing Sector Guide Figure Brewing process diagram 10 Brewing Sector Guide 113 New marketing opportunities: The secondary packaging can be very visibly branded The one-way keg offers opportunities for the party- and low-volume segments Some long-distance markets become viable again Extra advantages to end users: 10 minutes after transport its ready to dispense and a more constant quality beer Enhanced quality: Lightweight: incl beer 21.5 kg (meets the lifting requirements of the EU) Fresh beer for one month after connecting Shelf time of at least months Most of the technology can be recycled For products travelling over 90 km (180km round trip) these new packaging products can have a small CO2 footprint than their metal counterparts Are there any limitations to the technology? The main sticking point for these newer returnable kegs are that there are several different designs out on the market at present, all with different shapes and filling valves This disparity across the market is stifling industrial take-up and progress towards a unified standard needs to take place before the industry can compete effectively with metal containers The strength of the product is not as high as with metallic kegs The kegs are for one use only and so an effective recycling procedure needs to be in place to ensure that the is dealt with effectively What is the development stage of the technology? This technology is a fully commercial product that is provided by a manufacturer that offers comprehensive after sales care and support Barriers to overcome Specific studies on a brewery by brewery basis need to be done to ascertain the savings available, depending on the average distance that beer travels from each site A culture change in necessary for landlords to have faith in this type of packaging A recycling system must be put in place for this system to make sure that the associated waste is disposed or re-used in an environmentally sound manner Without this the, argument for one way containers fall down Who are the technology providers? KeyKeg CypherCo Brewing Sector Guide Costs: 20 litre: ~£8.40 30 litre: ~£10 Comparison to returnable kegs Processing a metallic keg has been shown to cost close to £0.62/hl (excluding compressed air) For the 30l variety of one way keg this will work out as £0.19 114 Brewing Sector Guide 115 Appendix 6: CIP technologies and business cases A6.1 Real time cleaning verification What is the technology? A previous EU-funded research project with Birmingham University called „ZEAL‟ covering real time cleaning verification has estimated savings at a 50% energy reduction, while reducing CIP times, chemical and water use It is unknown to what extent the sector applies to this 50% reduction in general workshop participants were unaware of the savings of this opportunity we will estimate that 80% of sites could achieve this reduction What is the technology? Real time cleaning verification is a concept where a CIP system can be finely tuned so the amount of cleaning necessary is not exceeded This is accomplished through a thorough understanding of what the term „clean‟ encompasses for each site and then monitoring the contents of the cleaning fluid until it matches with the previously defined criteria Where is the technology currently used? This concept is currently a research project at Birmingham University in collaboration with worldwide manufacturers What is the advantage over current practice? At present CIP systems are set to run for timed amounts or volumes, or react to the conductivity of the flow None of these systems uses a closed loop control that actually reacts to the amount of material that has been removed during the cleaning process or how much remains Brewing Sector Guide 116 Are there any limitations to the technology? Designing a system that can guarantee the internal composition of a pipe system is virtually impossible So, with a finely tuned system comes an element of risk that some areas that are not measured would still be unclean after the cleaning process This would need further detailed trials in a variety of environments to ascertain limitations and appropriate fail safes to be developed What is the development? University collaborative research project Barriers to overcome? If the results from the project are a success then this technology can be trialled at a volunteer site and compared against an established CIP system The biggest barrier to overcome will be to prove robust, consistent, failsafe performance Who are the technology providers? The University of Birmingham: they are working on a project to define what „clean‟ is in the food and drink processing industry They have been working with Cadbury and others on an EU-funded project called ZEAL and have managed to improve their CIP systems to great effect They are currently looking for future partners to take on the next ZEAL and would be keen to work with a brewing industry partner to understand their CIP system and optimise it at the same time Brewing Sector Guide 117 Business case The predicted values are: reduction in cleaning time up to 70% and in water consumption up to 40% (depending on factory and process line considered) - Birmingham University quote CIP - Real time cleaning, verification and validation - ZEAL Carbon Emissions Original process intensity 0.95 - 0.47 Specific energy saved 0.47 Carbon intensity saved 0.13 Sector applicability % high and low Sector carbon dioxide saving (absolute) Sector % carbon dioxide saving Site Financials Site Capex (2,000,000 hl/yr site) Cost Saving Payback - kWh/hl kgCO2/hl 0.47 0.13 kgCO2/hl 0.47 0.13 - kWh/hl 0.26 0.26 New process intensity 0.95 kWh/hl 0.13 kgCO2/hl 80% 50.0% 50.0% % % 4,590 - 4,590 tCO2 per annum 1.0% - 1.0% % per annum Unknown £40 £k £k per annum years Unknown £40 - Brewing Sector Guide A6.2 118 Low temperature detergents What is the technology? Low temperature detergents that operate at lower temperatures than current caustic solutions offer significant savings as a large proportion of the energy involved is used for heating up the infrastructure Normally a CIP system works at a temperature of 70 80ºC If at 80ºC then a using a solution that can work at 40ºC will reduce the site CIP heat demand by 38% and if it can be reduced to 25ºC the heat reduction will be 82% These low temperature CIP systems have been trialled in the UK brewing sector but are not wide spread and so we will model the applicability of these opportunities at 80% One type of such CIP technology is ECA or electro chemically activated detergent that produces an anolyte and cathalyte out of a sodium chloride (salt) solution or other compounds such as sodium carbonate The anolyte is a steriliser that removes bio-film and biological compounds and the catholyte solution has many of the properties of a detergent Running the 25ºC system on a 2Mhl site will save £66,000 a year and reduce the UK brewery sector emission by 1.7% Where is the technology currently used? This technology has already been adopted in several breweries in the UK and overseas What is the advantage over current practice? Through reducing the temperature at which the CIP solution can operate the amount of heat energy needed to bring the brewery infrastructure up to temperature reduces Moving to 25ºC will reduce the heat energy needed for CIP by 82% Other advantages include: Shorter CIP cycle times as the time needed to heat up the system is no longer needed Less energy consumption in terms of heat Less water usage Are there any limitations to the technology? This technology needs to have dosing points installed at regular intervals along the lines and tanks to which it is being applied This technology is only capable of removing biological compounds and not mineral deposits Acid will still be required to remove any scale or burn on material This can be an issue for chlorine based solutions as contact with acid and the anolyte can cause chlorine gas to form This issue has been solved through using alternative solutions rather than sodium chloride Brewing Sector Guide 119 What is the development? This is a fully commercial product with multiple providers Barriers to overcome? More examples can case studies need to be made available to the industry and systems need to be trialled in the brewhouse in conjunction with acid de-scaling Who are the technology providers? Ecolab Advanced Oxidation SPX, Radical waters Business case The predicted values based on a reduction of CIP temperature from 70ºC to 25ºC or 15% of the original CIP heat energy CIP - Low temp detergent and integral sterility Carbon Emissions Original process intensity 0.95 - 0.17 Specific energy saved 0.78 Carbon intensity saved 0.21 Sector applicability % high and low Sector carbon dioxide saving (absolute) Sector % carbon dioxide saving Site Financials Site Capex (2,000,000 hl/yr site) Cost Saving Payback - kWh/hl kgCO2/hl 0.78 0.05 kgCO2/hl 0.17 0.05 - kWh/hl 0.26 0.26 New process intensity 0.95 kWh/hl 0.21 kgCO2/hl 80% 50.0% 50.0% % 7,512 - 7,512 tCO2 per annum 1.7% - 1.7% % per annum Unknown £66 Unknown - £66 £k £k per annum years Brewing Sector Guide A6.3 120 Ultrasonic cleaning What is the technology? Ultrasound has historically been used for to clean difficult to reach areas, or internal surfaces of components that would be difficult to reach Components are placed in baths of cleaning solutions and then sonotrodes agitate the solution at an ultrasonic frequency which creates cavitation on the surface of the components, dislodging dirt and other contaminants Cavitation is when the fluid pressure drops below the vapour point of the liquid and a bubble of gas is formed This bubble then collapses and forces a high pressure jet onto the surface which aids in dislodging material The concept of using ultrasonics in the brewing industry is that this technology can be applied to pipework, tanks and solid metal objects, dislodging material from the inner surfaces and reducing the loads on CIP By attaching ultrasonic actuators to either sections of pipework, solid metal components, or putting inside tanks a low ultrasonic source would stop the build-up of material adhering to the inner surfaces This is not a substitute for standard CIP but a system that would work in tandem with it, reducing the load of the primary method Where is the technology currently used? Ultrasonics is used in a number of industries The use for ultrasonic transducers to be attached to pipes and metal work for internal cleaning is still a relatively new concept most work has been carried out at the experimentation level only Attaching actuators to tube in shell heat exchangers has been shown to reduce the fouling within the chemical industry but has not yet been tested in the food and drinks sector within the UK An alternative approach is using tube actuators that resonate inside tanks and silos and reduce the fouling build up on the walls, further reducing the CIP loading What is the advantage over current practice? Currently the only way in which pipe work and heat exchangers are cleaned in the brewing industry is through CIP This involves pumping large amounts of hot caustic and acid solutions around the system to break up and dislodge any material that has adhered to the inner surfaces The demand of these CIP runs is determined through the most difficult areas to clean, which usually have a complex topology where a low flow rate zone would result in a build-up of solids If the amount of solid deposits in these „problem spots‟ could be reduced then the amount of water and energy used for CIP could be reduced Brewing Sector Guide 121 There is also a potential that ultrasonics could be used during production to reduce the rate of fouling and therefore reduce the required frequency of CIP Ultrasonic cavitation not only dislodges material from solid surfaces but also kills bacteria and other microbes that are present on these surfaces, through the shock wave that is caused as the bubble collapses (there is no damage to solid surfaces) Are there any limitations? The ultrasonic transducers that clamp onto the outside of pipework and heat exchangers work best when the subject they are connected to is one solid body with minimal internal damping Plate pack heat exchangers would not work well as they contain numerous rubber gaskets between the metallic plates that would damp out the ultrasonic vibration The ideal heat exchangers would be the shell and tube type However reduced heat transfer rates would be sacrificed for lower cleaning energy and water use There are several other disadvantages from using a shell and tube exchanger that would only make this a possibility if the saving from CIP were deemed sufficient The size of the exchanger would have to increase as would the space around it due the way that they are opened and extended to double their length There would also be issues around the classification of shell and tube exchangers as pressure vessels which may lead to increased regulatory problems under the pressure system regulations If this system was used in conjunction with UV pasteurisation then the UV tubes could be cleaned using this system as they are comprised of solid state materials What is the development stage? The technology is fully developed and available as a commercial product, but as of yet is new to the brewing industry and therefore new to the specific contaminants that need to be dislodged This type of technology would involve bespoke design for each plant and so individual analysis of each pipe system would be necessary For cleaning tanks new technology has just become available in the shape of long round bars that resonate in all directions These would be placed inside tanks and would keep the inner surfaces clean and bacteria free with occasional pulses of ultrasound This is a new commercial product Barriers to overcome Experimentation would have to be done to determine the transducers needed to act as an effective anti-fouling method The sector would have to change their primary heat exchangers to a solid state variety If this was not practical then the technology would be limited to pipework and other solid body sections of the brewing system Trials would then have to take place in which the amount of liquid and energy (heat) used would be reduced in parallel with introducing a clamp on ultrasonic system and determining if the finished clean was similar enough to pass standards Who are the technology providers? MPI Interconsulting: Offers products, R&D services and consultancy in high power ultrasonics, a range of top quality ultrasonic cleaning and sonochemistry equipment and special equipment development for new applications Brewing Sector Guide 122 Bio Sonics: A new company that specialises in ultrasonic components for the cleaning of tanks and other components Business case (Only for transducers for attaching to heat exchangers) CAPEX Equipment: €15,000 per heat exchanger Installation (10% estimates): €1,500 OPEX per year 40W: £25 per heat exchanger per year The savings for cleaning certain areas alone are not fully understood and so further research needs to be done when the products are more commercially available and have been proved in other industries Brewing Sector Guide A6.4 123 Ice pigging What is the technology? Pigging is widely employed in the hydrocarbon industry where solid plugs or „pigs‟ are used to clear and clean pipes The technique is beginning to be adopted in the food and pharmaceutical industries and can be used for more than just cleaning as the technique is effective for both product recovery and separation But conventional pigging is limited in the pipe geometries to which it can be applied Ice pigging is a novel and innovative new pigging technique that has significant advantages over conventional solid pigs The ice pig plug is formed from thermodynamically stable ice slurry combined with a freezing point depressant which is capable of cleaning a product from ductwork and/or separating products in different phases of the production cycle The unique non-Newtonian flow characteristics of the pig allow it to negotiate a wide variety of obstacles successfully (even plate pack heat exchangers), while maintaining the cleaning efficiency and in many cases a sharp product interface Where is the technology currently used? The Ice Pig has been trialled and is now in use in the water industry where Bristol Water use a flatbed lorry mounted device to clean out mains water piping (pictured above) The technology has been successfully trialled on a small scale in the food sector and it is ready for licensing in other sectors What is the advantage over the current best practice? Ice pigging allows for much higher product capture (product recovery) at the end of each run as the sharp interface of the ice acts as a solid plug, contaminating only the small volume abutting the pig face The ice pig also has superior cleaning abilities to fluid washes The high shear forces within pig mean the ice crystals effectively dislodge material as they scrape past The same cleaning effect can be achieved with a much reduced amount of water, reducing both water (and effluent costs) as well as the amount of heating and chemicals required The ice pig can also be used as a simple product separation device This is particularly advantageous in situations where there is a need to separate one product from another, but there is no need to fully clean/sterilize between products (for example, for different beer batches) Another advantage of ice pigging is that it reduces downtime; this is particularly important where lines are running at full capacity The technology can be applied to existing plant plants with minimal engineering modifications or be introduced at the design stage of new plants Ice Slurry Butter The energy used to heat the entire pipework in current CIP systems would be removed/reduced and the amount of fluid passed around the system would also be reduced, saving on pumping costs The amount of water used and sent to drain would be significantly lower than at present, saving on water and effluent costs Brewing Sector Guide 124 Additives can be mixed with the pig to deliver a range of results Abrasive materials can be added to scour the inside of the pipe The pig can be made alkali (caustic) or acid and if the pig ever becomes lodged in a certain inaccessible location the solution is merely to wait for it to melt Are there any limitations? Ice pigging cannot be used to clean tanks and so a separate system would have to be in place, working alongside ice pigging to clean the entire factory There are some products (such as chocolate) that are difficult to treat with this technology What is the development stage? Ice pigging technology is at a stage where it can be effectively demonstrated at any site where the pipe topology is suitable Bristol University are now at a stage where they are looking to license the technology to an international equipment provider who can provide the support necessary to make this a saleable product within the food and drinks industry The technology is currently at a pre-commercial state having been proven with several prototypes currently in use in different industries including the food and drink sector Barriers to overcome Equipment manufacturer acquiring licence: a suitable equipment manufacturer would need to acquire the technology under license from the university to develop a commercial product This would also provide a support network for the product which is not currently possible from Bristol University Technology commercialisation: a control system would also have to be developed for integrating the technology into the CIP systems and processes that exist in most breweries A robust set of brewery validation trials will also be required before this technology can be evaluated in terms of its practical applicability and potential cost-effectiveness to the brewing industry Freezing Point Depressant: the use of salt as a freezing point depressant within the ice pig may involve the need for a flush after each cleaning run to eliminate the salt from the system Other temperature depressants are available and so the right one most suited to the brewing industry would have to be selected Who are the technology providers? Bristol University - The technology has been developed by Prof Joe Quarini and team in the Department of Mechanical Engineering Brewing Sector Guide A6.5 125 Whirlwind pigging What is the technology? Whirlwind pigging is a process where a vortex (whirlwind) is generated in a pipe system which cleans the inner surfaces of the pipes through gaseous displacement and through adding cleaning additives to the „whirlwind‟ A laminar air stream is blown through the pipework, recovering 60 – 80% of the product A whirlwind is generated within the airstream which clears the remaining product This is done by a blower system and does not involve compressed air (which is very energy inefficient) This typically reduces the remaining product to less than 5% At this point a small amount of water or cleaning agent (caustic or acid) can be introduced into the airflow, enhancing the cleaning effect from the turbulent flow This generates an inner surface which is fully clean Heated air is introduced completely drying the pipework By warming the whirlwind airflow any traces of water droplets on the inner surfaces are dried ready for production to restart in a short period of time Where is the technology currently used? The whirlwind technology is currently used to recover product and clean with wine, spirits, juice drinks, drink additives, soups and sauces, perfumes and soaps as well as food pastes and spreads It is particularly relevant to high-value products where the value of additional product recovery due to the whirlwind technology makes it commercially attractive It has been used at a whisky distillery where its main benefit is to reduce product wastage The technology is currently being trialled in the construction and utilities sectors What are the advantages over current practice? Product recovery: The initial vortex that is formed can push the majority of the product out of the pipe system without having to use contaminants such as water or detergent This product would normally not be recoverable and in the cases of more expensive products this can offer a valuable cost saving Heat, water and effluent reduction: This system uses less heat and water for CIP and less chemical cleaning agents than conventional CIP Are there any limitations? The technology cannot be used to clean plate pack heat Brewing Sector Guide 126 exchangers or large tanks and silos Separate cleaning systems would have to work side by side with the whirlwind pig To date the only pipe diameters that have been successfully pigged are 0.5 inch to inch pipes Any pipe sizes outside of this level will require additional testing before they are deemed suitable What is the development stage? The technology has been proven to work in the sectors identified above The whirlwind system is a commercial product with a procurement process that starts as an initial assessment and carries through with after sales service Barriers to overcome The whirlwind concept should prove very efficient at cleaning through pipework using less energy than is currently used with traditional CIP systems, but it will be unable to clean through plate pack heat exchangers tanks Removing plate packs from pasteurisation would allow the technology to be utilised further and be more effective Coupling this technology with UV pasteurisation would overcome the problems associated with navigation of the plate packs and reduce the number of separate systems needed to CIP, but proper trials will be required before this technology can be evaluated in terms of its practical applicability and potential costeffectiveness to the brewing industry Who are the technology providers? Aeolus Technologies: A company formed specifically to commercialise and develop the whirlwind technology for use in industry Brewing Sector Guide 127 The Carbon Trust receives funding from Government including the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Department for Transport, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government and Invest Northern Ireland Whilst reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that the information contained within this publication is correct, the authors, the Carbon Trust, its agents, contractors and sub-contractors give no warranty and make no representation as to its accuracy and accept no liability for any errors or omissions Any trademarks, service marks or logos used in this publication, and copyright in it, are the property of the Carbon Trust or its licensors Nothing in this publication shall be construed as granting any licence or right to use or reproduce any of the trademarks, service marks, logos, copyright or any proprietary information in any way without the Carbon Trust‟s prior written permission The Carbon Trust enforces infringements of its intellectual property rights to the full extent permitted by law The Carbon Trust is a company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales under Company number 4190230 with its Registered Office at: 6th Floor, New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF Published: August 2011 © The Carbon Trust 2011 All rights reserved CTG058 ... heat energy per boil To calculate the energy needed for a boil we take the input temperature into the kettle and calculate the energy needed to bring the wort to boil For the theoretical boil-off... heating The reduction in kettle energy consumption is in proportion to the reduction of liquid volume in the kettle Brewing Sector Guide 4.3.2 37 Impact on the UK brewing sector Due to the variations... across the UK, equivalent to a further 1.3% sector carbon saving That is, the total sector potential from increased levels of high gravity brewing could lead to a total sector carbon saving of around