Brewing Industrial Energy Efficiency (CTG058) - Carbon Trust

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, small-

pack 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 2

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 1 opportunities

are implemented first, so that the impact of the more innovative opportunities of Waves 2 and 3 is made against

an already reduced baseline carbon emissions level.

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)

Area Description

Sector Carbon Saving

Average Payback (years) (tCO2) (%)

1 Best practice in energy Implement all feasible opportunities 22,300 5.0% Unknown

1 Process optimisation Reduce boil-off 11,200 2.5% Unknown

1 Process optimisation Increase high gravity dilution 11,900 2.7% Unknown

1 Process optimisation Optimise tunnel pasteurisers 14,000 3.1% Unknown

1 Process optimisation Optimising cask washing 3,100 0.7% 5.9

100%

14%

12%

5%

69%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Step change road map for UK brewery sector


Wave (1/2/3)

Area Description


Average Payback (years) (tCO2) (%)

2 Small pack pasteurisation Flash pasteurisation with clean room 53,400 12.0% 2.5

2 Small pack pasteurisation Cold sterile filtration 68,600 15.4% 6.3

2 Pasteurisation Heat pump on refrigeration condenser 29,200 6.5% 2.7

2 Kettle Wort stripping column 21,500 4.8% 2.4

2 Kettle Wort steam injection 18,700 4.2% 3.2

2 Kegs/Casks One way containers Dependent on transport distance

3 CIP Real-time cleaning verification 4,600 1.0% Unknown

3 CIP CIP – novel technologies and low temperature detergents (ECA)

7,500 1.7% Unknown

3 Small pack pasteurisation UV pasteurisation for small pack 68,300 15.3% 6.5

3 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 cost-

effective 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.


Table of contents

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 1

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Sector background ............................................................................................................. 6

1.2 Process operations and energy ......................................................................................... 7

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

2 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

3 Key findings: best practice survey ............................................................................................... 25

4 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

5 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


5.4 Innovative opportunities and significant change .............................................................. 50



6 Key findings and opportunities: keg and cask processing ....................................................... 55

6.1 Keg processing ................................................................................................................ 55

6.2 Cask processing .............................................................................................................. 59



7 Key findings and opportunities: clean-in-place .......................................................................... 64

7.1 Data analysis ................................................................................................................... 64


7.3 Innovative opportunities ................................................................................................... 67



8 Summary of opportunities ............................................................................................................. 72

8.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 72

8.2 General best practice energy efficiency opportunities ..................................................... 73


8.4 Innovative opportunities ................................................................................................... 73

9 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


1 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 1 UK beer consumption and production (1960-2009)1

1 Source: BBPA


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 micro-

breweries 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 1 Mhl), whilst all the exclusive lager producers fall in the large category

(annual production greater than 1 Mhl).

There has also been a shift from drinking in pubs, clubs and bars to taking beer home for consumption. Take-

home 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).

2 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.

3 Source: BBPA

4 Source: BBPA


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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. To separate out the wort from the grist the mash is either sent through a lauter tun or mash filter.

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).

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 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.

4. 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 1 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 6-

15°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.


7. 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.

8. 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).

9. 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 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.

o 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.

15. 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.


Figure 2 Brewing process diagram


1.2.2 Process energy use

Energy consumption in any typical brewery is divided into two parts: electrical energy consumption and thermal

energy consumption. Thermal energy or heat is typically generated using different fuels in a boiler house. Coal

and oil were the traditional boiler fuels but the majority of boilers in the UK now run on natural gas, with fuel oil

used as a backup. Process heating typically accounts for a large share of thermal energy. Electrical energy is

either sourced from grid or generated on-site, for example, in a combined heat and power (CHP) system.

Refrigeration for process cooling typically accounts for a significant amount of electricity. An estimated CO2

emission breakdown by main process areas in percent of total energy consumption is shown in Figure 3 for a

typical brewery.

Figure 3 Brewery CO2 consumption breakdown from a typical 2Mhl brewery5

Brewhouse38%

Packaging35%

Cold Block11%

Waste Water7%

Building services5%

Warehouse4%

Typical site CO2 breakdown

From this information the main energy users can be identified as the brewhouse, packaging and the cold

block. By looking at data gathered during previous studies at several large breweries (2+ Mhl/year) we have

been able to build an approximate model of where both electrical and thermal energy is consumed in these

individual sections of the brewery.

The following diagrams and charts demonstrate what type of inputs each process requires and how much energy

each stage consumes. In each stage the areas that we have focused on may not be broken down into exactly the

same stages that the process diagram indicates. This is down to insufficient metering for each process.

5 Source: Camco data and IEEA data collection


As the charts below indicate, the vast majority of thermal energy is used in brewing operations and

pasteurisation, while electricity consumption is more evenly divided among fermentation, beer conditioning and

utilities.

Brew House

Figure 4: Brew house process diagram

Brew House

2. Mash Tun 5. Whirlpool4. Kettle3. Lauter Tun or Mash Filter

6. Wort Cooler

Vapour heat recovery

1. Milling

Steam

Cold Liquor

Hot Liquor

Deaerated Liquor

Cooling

Electricity

Heat lost through hot spent grain

In Figure 5 below, the wort cooler has been combined with the whirlpool and kettle as a single energy user. The

wort cooler also recovers a lot of heat as hot liquor (water) which is subsequently used to mash in the next batch,

therefore the virgin energy consumed for mashing is not as much as might be imagined as the energy recovered

by the wort cooler reduces the energy input required for mashing in.

Figure 5 Brewhouse energy demands

The largest energy consumer in this area is clearly the kettle and any energy improvements in this area could

have a significant impact to overall brewery SEC (Specific Energy Consumption measured in this report as

kWh/hl).


Cold Block

Figure 6: Cold block process diagram

In Figure 7 below, the centrifuge has been combined with the fermenters, and the beer cooler has been combined with the filtration process. Figure 7 Cold block energy demands

From the data available the electrical energy used in fermentation and filtration are the highest users in this area

and involve multiple processes (maturation involves cooling tanks only). The thermal inputs to filtration and

fermentation are down to the local clean-in-place (CIP) systems. The filters use a considerable amount of hot

caustic solution to regenerate.


Packaging

Figure 8: Packaging process diagram

In Figure 3 the packaging block is shown to be responsible for the second highest energy demand within the

brewery, but how this energy is used cannot be simply mapped out by individual processes as each brewery

operates a different packaging set up and pack type mix.

Packaging in the UK is comprised mostly of non-returnable bottles and cans, and returnable kegs and casks.

Table 1 shows the percentage of beer packed in each of these pack types.

Table 1 UK packaged beer by packaging type

Pack Type Percentage of Packed

volume

Casked 6%

Kegged 44%

Bottled 12%

Canned 38%

The main energy users within packaging are pasteurisation and keg/cask washing. Small pack types (bottles and

cans) are known to be more energy intensive than keg or cask per unit volume of beer packaged. As the UK

produces only small quantities of returnable bottles, bottle washers are not common and so have not been

investigated as part of this IEEA project.


1.3 Sector carbon emissions

1.3.1 Carbon dioxide emissions

In the UK in 2009, 43 Mhl of beer was produced, and 49 Mhl of beer was packed, by the 49 sites covered by the

sector‟s CCA (ie, 6 Mhl was imported in bulk but packaged in the UK). From these sites a total of 446,000 tonnes

of energy-related carbon dioxide (tCO2) was created, either through electricity or direct fuel consumption on site.

From CCA data this gives average specific energy consumption (delivered) of 37.5 kWh/hl and emissions of 10.4

kgCO2/hl

1.3.2 Brewery archetypes

We plotted a scatter graph of the 49 sites included in the BBPA CCA of production versus specific delivered

energy per hectolitre of beer produced, and specific CO2/hl of beer produced. This allowed us to draw a line of

best fit or performance curve through where the sites lay on the graph. By combining this line with a production

dividing line (1 Mhl/year production was close to the average and also a sensible division between smaller and

larger sites); the graph is divided up into four sections, or “archetypes”:

Large sites with higher Specific CO2 (kgCO2/hl product)

Large sites with lower Specific CO2

Small sites with higher Specific CO2

Small sites with lower Specific CO2

Figure 9 CCA brewery archetypes: total CO2 ratio vs. total production with 90% of sites falling between the grey lines


Table 2 CCA brewery archetypes

Number of sites

Production (hl)

UK production

(%)

Carbon emissions

(tCO2e)

UK-wide emissions

(%)

Large sites - Higher specific energy 7 23,249,238 48% 229,170 51%

Large sites - Lower specific energy 7 16,890,668 35% 106,892 24%

Small sites - Higher specific energy 15 4,705,475 10% 76,901 17%

Small sites - Lower specific energy 20 3,362,530 7% 32,680 7%

We can draw the following conclusions from this analysis:

The 14 largest sites account for 83% of the volume of beer packaged and 75% of the total sector carbon

emissions;

Small sites with a high SEC are the next most significant group accounting for 10% of volume and 17% of

sector carbon emissions;

In general, larger sites have a lower SEC; and

Implementing emissions reduction projects in larger sites has the greatest potential to reduce sector

emissions.

1.4 Issues and barriers relating to energy efficiency and change

1.4.1 Authority for change within the UK brewery sector

Of the 49 brewery sites in the UK under the sector‟s CCA, 14 account for 83% of all beer produced and 75% of

sector emissions. These 14 large breweries are solely lager or mixed breweries and replicability of opportunities

within these sites will lead to the highest source of emissions reductions within the sector.

However, a large amount of beer is brewed under license in the UK, with many of these sites owned by

multinational companies based outside the UK, producing the same brand in many locations around the world, as

well as similar beers under different brand names, depending on location and market. Hence, the need to seek

agreement from internationally based head offices for changes of UK based plants creates a significant barrier to

change.

A potential barrier to energy and carbon emission saving opportunities that may affect the recipe of beers or

fundamental packaging methodologies (e.g. reductions in kettle boil-off or different pasteurisation techniques)

could understandably be the manufacturing standards used by non-UK companies that apply to multiple

breweries around the world.

If significant energy saving opportunities can be identified without any negative impact on beer quality or taste,

then the key to enabling these opportunities for the UK industry may be the effective engagement of such

international stakeholders. These companies are all committed to reducing their environmental impact across

each market they operate in.

1.4.2 Heritage and tradition

Many UK brewers rely on brands that claim to have been brewed in the same way for long periods of time. This

builds a brand that the consumer can associate with and trust to deliver quality with a recognisable taste.

Encouraging any changes to the brewing process to save energy could be met with opposition if these changes

might impact on marketability, and any such changes would need to be measured in terms of the impact on


quality and taste. The customer is king and many breweries perceive that their customers have great loyalty to

their beer being produced in the traditional way in the traditional place.

This should not deter this project from investigating opportunities that could lead to large emissions reductions,

but it demonstrates that the Carbon Trust and its partners must engage sensitively with brewing companies to

examine how to mitigate any issues that may arise in this area.

1.4.3 Awareness of best practice

Initial site visits have shown that, on the whole, sites are aware of what is termed „best practice‟ for energy

efficiency. However, this does not mean that all best practice opportunities have been carried out where possible.

Where best practice has not been carried out, it is usually down to lack of available capital, resources or

expertise or the barriers discussed above.

By sending out a best practice survey to the whole sector we aimed to understand the level of remaining best

practice implementation potential, including the key opportunities still outstanding for the sector and the main

reasons they have not already been implemented (see Section 3 for the summary of the best practice survey

results).

1.4.4 Sector inclusion

The UK brewery sector is made up of three main types of site: large lager and mixed breweries; small ale-only

breweries; and micro-breweries that do not participate in the CCA. The way in which each type of brewery makes

beer is similar, but the technology used can be very different.

While looking for opportunities for this project care has been taken to include areas of focus that have an effect

on all parties involved. This has been carried out to reduce the likelihood of disenfranchisement and maximise

the potential benefits of having the whole sector involved.

1.5 Focus processes

Through choosing the following processes to focus on we aimed to direct the project into the investigation of the

highest energy using processes with the potential for improvement, as discussed and agreed in initial sector

stakeholder meetings.

Kettle. As shown in Figures 3 and 5, the kettle is the biggest energy user on site, so we have looked into

how much energy is required to boil several different types of beer. By looking at multiple breweries we have

been able to see what effect different kettle technologies have on the energy demand of the brewery process

and have used this information for building business cases for alternative approaches.

Small pack pasteurisation. The second biggest area of energy use in the brewery is in packaging. Within

this area the pasteurisation of the beer is the largest user of heat and a considerable user of water and

electricity. We have monitored two distinctive types of small pack pasteurisation:

o Flash, where the beer is heated up to pasteurisation temperature and then brought back down in a

plate pack heat exchanger and then bottled; and

o Tunnel, where the beer is bottled or canned and then raised in temperature by spraying hot water

over the containers to bring the whole package up to pasteurisation temperature.

Currently, the use of flash pasteurisation is relatively rare in the UK due to a number of perceived product

quality issues. By looking at these two types of pasteurisation we have been able to build a case study of

the two systems, showing the cost involved with each and the implications for moving from one technology to

the other. This has also been used to quantify savings from using alternative pasteurisation techniques such

as ultra-violet light.


Kegging and casking. The third area that we have focused on is in kegging and casking. After our initial

site visits we identified that the way in which kegs are cleaned was different at each site and there was no

common approach. The monitoring programme aimed to understand what the different heat loads within the

keg cleaning process are and recorded exactly how much water, electricity and compressed air is used to

process each keg at different sites. By calculating these utilities benchmarks we assessed the potential

savings from alternative technologies in both the keg cleaning and flash pasteurisation for kegging.

Cask cleaning has been largely been ignored over recent years as the ale industry has been in decline

against lager. Resurgence in ale from the cask means that this area needed to be revisited and so we have

tried to understand how much energy is used in cleaning a cask and to define standards for current best

practice.

Technical difficulties acquiring data from kegging plants during the analysis period resulted in the data being

limited to electrical, heating and water demands for two of the sites monitored. The compressed air recorded

was not reliable and so has not been included in the analysis.

The implication of the decline in casking means that we were unable to find no real innovative technologies

in the market place.

Clean in Place (CIP) within breweries is a significant energy and water consumer. Camco carried out an

extensive analysis of CIP as part of the Dairy Sector IEEA project. It is believed that much of this information

and knowledge is transferable to the brewing sector, therefore metering of CIP was not carried out under the

scope of this project. Where data already exists we have sought to establish benchmarks of key parameters

for comparison.

1.6 Regulatory drivers

Climate Change Agreement

The UK brewery sector is covered by a Climate Change Agreement, under which its members receive an 80%

(65% from April 2011) discount on the Climate Change Levy, which is a surcharge on energy bills. The CCA

requires companies to reduce their carbon emissions according to an agreed series of milestone targets or risk

losing the discount. The scheme provides an incentive to improve energy efficiency: if the milestone reduction

target is not achieved, the CCL discount is lost on all eligible energy and fuels purchased. As a consequence, the

brewery sector has performed well, reducing energy consumption by 16% since the start of the scheme in 2001.6

The brewing sector has met its final targets, resulting in the discount being received up to March 2013. The

Government has recently announced that Climate Change Agreements will continue until 2023, albeit with a

reduction in the discount from 80% to 65% up to April 2013.

EU Emissions Trading Scheme

The EU ETS is an emissions reduction framework based on the cap-and-trade principle. First implemented in

2005 across the EU, it covers selected energy intensive industries such as cement and steel production, as well

as all combustion plant above a certain size threshold (20MW). If a site meets one of these criteria then it must

join the EU ETS, even if it is also covered by a CCA. Sites in the EU ETS are assigned an emissions “cap” and

they must buy emissions permits to hit the cap if they are not able to reduce their emissions internally. Large

brewery processing sites are covered by the EU ETS on the basis of their boiler plant, which typically will be

above the size threshold.

Phase 3 of the EU ETS runs from 2013 to 2020.

6 Source: BBPA


F-Gas Regulations

HFC refrigerants are affected by EU Regulation 842/2006 which covers certain fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-

Gases) commonly used in refrigeration equipment. HFCs are potent greenhouse gases, with global warming

potential of around 2,000 times that of CO2. In the past, refrigeration and air-conditioning systems have leaked

potent HFCs into the environment. Some brewery sites use separate refrigeration plants with HFCs for areas

such as cold storage.

The F-Gas regulations require operators of air-conditioning and refrigeration plant to prevent refrigerant leakage

and carry out regular leak tests; recover HFC refrigerants during maintenance and plant decommissioning;

maintain accurate records and ensure that equipment is appropriately labelled and operated and maintained by

suitably trained personnel.

Ozone depleting substance regulations (R22 phase out)

The phase out of HCFCs for maintenance of existing refrigeration and air-conditioning systems began at the end

of 2009, as required by EU Regulation 2037/2000 on ozone-depleting substances. The regulation banned the

use of virgin HCFCs for maintenance from the end of 2009 and recycled fluid from the end of 2014. This is of

crucial importance for many companies and means that all users of R22 and other HCFC systems, if they have

not already, need to consider alternative refrigerants or the purchase of new equipment. Other clauses in the

regulation also affect the use of existing HCFC systems.

It is important that R22 users have plans in place for the phase out of HCFCs as it is not recommended to rely on

the 2014 recycled fluid phase-out date, as this date could be brought forward as part of the review process. The

amount of fluid being recycled has in fact turned out to be very small to date, so there is no guarantee that

sufficient supplies of recycled R22 will be available between 2011 and 2014.

An alternative in some refrigeration plant is to use drop in replacement gases, but in nearly all cases these have

a degrading effect on refrigeration plant energy efficiency.

IPPC

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) has been in place since 2005 and is a regulatory system that

employs an integrated approach to control the environmental impacts of certain industrial activities. It involves

determining the appropriate controls for industry to protect the environment through a single permitting process.

This UK Guidance for delivering the PPC (IPPC) Regulations in this sector is based on the Best Available

Techniques (BAT) reference document BREF produced by the European Commission7. For the brewery industry

the relevant reference document is (BREF 08.2006) Food, Drink and Milk Industries. The key environmental

issues managed by the permitting system are:

Energy use

Water use

Effluent management

Waste handling

Accident risk

7 Further information on the European IPPC Bureau and the BREF document may be found at http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/


Hygiene

The system covers operators who are treating and processing vegetable raw materials which are intended for the

production of food products with a finished product production capacity greater than 300 tonnes per day. To gain

a permit, operators have to demonstrate that the techniques they are using, or are proposing to use, are on the

BAT list.

1.7 Other business drivers

Brewery processing is energy and water intensive and the introduction of carbon-related costs as well as rising

utility prices means there is ongoing pressure to reduce utility usage. This is compounded by the squeeze on

product sales prices applied by the major customers – supermarkets – who are in a position to dominate the

supply chain and who often require their suppliers to take the pain of product discounts and promotions in the

stores. Cost minimisation is a powerful driver.

Another driver is corporate responsibility where, in addition to meeting any regulatory requirements, a brewery

company wishes to demonstrate to investors, environmental organisations, the local community and the wider

public its commitment to being proactive on climate change: for example, by setting voluntary carbon reduction

targets; producing product carbon footprints; or investing in environmental initiatives which reduce energy use

and carbon emissions.

1.8 Industry progress on energy saving

Beer brewing and processing into consumable products is complex and energy intensive. The internal and

external pressures on the industry to reduce costs have led to the brewery sector being progressive in terms of

energy efficiency. This in turn means that good practice in energy management is already quite widespread

(although there is still potential for improvement, as described in Section 3), and that many of the cost-effective

technology opportunities for reducing energy consumption – such as improved controls, or more efficient motors

and drives - have already been implemented at some sites. The good practice survey (Section 3) shows that

there are still significant opportunities available, and perhaps the best way to address this is to raise awareness

of what is possible at a site level.


2 Methodology for monitoring and analysis

2.1 What metering/data gathering was done and why

The monitoring design and associated data gathering carried out as part of this project concentrated on the first

three of the four focus areas described in Section 1.5. The objective of the monitoring exercise was to deploy

additional meters to supplement the information that could be collected from the existing sites‟ SCADA systems

to build up a more detailed understanding of the following process energy consumptions:

The kettle/wort copper

Small pack pasteurisation

Keg/cask processing

Virtually all breweries in the UK have these processes as part of their facilities, meaning the opportunities

identified in these areas will have the widest possible potential for replication across the UK brewing industry (for

further details, see the metering rationale in Appendix 1).

2.2 The kettle

For the kettle we wanted to understand how much energy is used to process the wort. For each type of beer, a

target % boil-off or evaporation is predetermined and then the wort is heated for a time period to produce this

reduction. We measured the energy going into the kettle and the level of wort in the kettle during the boiling

process to determine how efficiently this energy was used to achieve the required evaporation.

With data from three different wort heating systems (three different breweries), we were able to approximate the

potential savings to be made through using alternative technologies. That is, by understanding the relationships

between boil-off and energy consumption for different kettle types, we were able to quantify the benefits from

technologies that claim to reduce evaporation energy requirements.

2.3 Small pack pasteurisation

The heat energy used in small pack pasteurisation is used to raise the temperature of the beer up to a set level

so that pasteurisation can occur. We measured the heating energy, electrical energy for pumping and water

consumed over a period of time then divided it by the bottle count on a bi-daily basis to get a specific metric for

tunnel pasteurising systems.

We did not meter a canning line as there were more systems running bottle pasteurisers in the sites that we

visited than canning lines, so bottle pasteurisers were targeted.


2.4 Keg/cask processing

To look at how energy savings could be made with kegs and casks we first needed to know how much energy is

used in keg and cask processing. For casks, the process varies from site to site and so we compiled a list of five

different sites showing how much heat, water and - where possible - electrical energy and compressed air is used

to process each cask. From this list we were able to identify the key differences and best practices available, to

determine the savings that could theoretically be made if all cask sites moved to that option.

This process was also carried out for kegs. Both of these figures were then used to work out the emissions

savings associated with alternative packaging technologies.

2.5 CIP

CIP was not specifically metered during the monitoring process since much CIP monitoring had been done under

the IEEA dairy sector project. However one ale production site did have comprehensive data available for heat

and water input to CIP. Lessons from the dairy sector IEEA project were applied to existing CIP data provided by

the brewing sector project partners. In the dairy sector IEEA project, the heat input for CIP detergent tanks in

several systems was measured over a two week period at two dairies. This heat input was then divided by

production over this period to give a specific heat consumption figure based on production. Although this figure

was obtained for a different industry, dairy processing plants and breweries share common CIP problems, both

sending fluids through multiple tanks and processes which have to be cleaned to a high level.

Although the cleaning requirements for milk and beer are different owing to the differing viscosities and chemical

properties the nature of CIP systems and their operational parameters are similar in both industries in that both

run caustic and acid cleaning solutions, at similar temperatures to lines and vessels. The notable difference for

the brewing industry is that a lot of hot water product pushes and line flushes are used between batches and

optimisation represents a significant area for water and subsequently heat savings.

This dairy analysis will be used in conjunction with available brewery energy data to gain an understanding on

CIP costs and produce some indicative figures for energy saving opportunities. Relevant technologies have been

analysed and potential energy savings and project costings have been carried out where the available data

permits.

2.6 Engagement with the sector

During the study there was continual engagement with the sector laying out the progress with the investigations

and the direction that we were intending to follow. This was initially done through agreement with the five

companies providing sites for metering, agreeing which site would be the most suitable, and then through regular

update emails, project steering group meetings and a final workshop, in which a wider industry group (including

technology companies, equipment suppliers and academics) participated in a discussion on the benefits and

barriers relating to the opportunities identified.

2.7 Participating host sites

Five companies volunteered five sites as hosts for the IEEA Stage 1 project investigation. Out of these sites there

are three large sites with lower SEC, one large site with higher SEC and one small site with higher SEC. This

group is therefore representative of archetypes that represent 93% of sector volume and carbon emissions.


When choosing the most suitable sites to work with there were a number of considerations to take into account.

By working with larger sites the opportunities highlighted can be rolled out over the largest proportion of the

market (in terms of beer production volume and emissions). But working with smaller sites can often prove fruitful

as small organisations are often much more free to implement and trial new technologies than larger companies.

Selecting two sites with similar production volumes, but different SECs allowed us to compare directly the effects

that different innovative technologies may have on energy consumption at higher and lower energy intensity

sites.

From these five sites, three were selected for additional metering in order to give a clearer picture of the energy

consumption in the focus areas and the potential for savings through the adoption of new and innovative

technologies. The information already available from the site SCADA systems for the other two sites was deemed

adequate, allowing the data gathering budget to be used in the most efficient manner.

2.8 Data gathering

Data on process energy performance was gathered in the following ways:

Historical CCA data from UK breweries;

Meetings with site engineers over the course of the metering programme;

Data collected during the metering programme itself; and

An energy good practice check list that was sent out to industry members.

2.9 Metering approach

Having focused the metering strategy on the kettle, small pack pasteurisation, keg and cask processing, a

monitoring plan was devised to collect process performance data whilst minimising disruption to the day-to-day

running of the site. The approach involved looking at the individual processes that needed to be understood in

more detail, highlighting the data needed to build this picture.

The first step was to assess the range of information already being recorded on the sites‟ SCADA systems, to

identify data gaps and to specify the data collection hardware to be installed in order to build up a complete set of

data. The appropriate metering technology was then specified and installed by the Carbon Trust‟s IEEA meter

data services contractor and either connected to the sites‟ SCADA system or operated independently of site

systems, with the data from both sources combined for analysis after the end of the monitoring period.

Ease of metering

Collecting identical data sets from the target sites was not possible, as the data that could be extracted from the

SCADA systems, or the variables to be metered, varied from site to site, depending on the age and installation of

the systems. Older SCADA systems have limited memory and so the number of variables that were monitored in

such cases was limited, reducing the amount of data that could be combined with any additional metering for

analysis.

Typical metering devices installed at the three sites: Steam meters

Cold and hot water flow meters

Compressed air flow meters

Temperature sensors

Pressure sensors

Level sensors

Electricity meters


Data Integrity

The metering devices were installed between December 2010 to February 2011 and data collection from new

metering came online in a phased manner from early February through to early March. The target minimum data

collection duration was a two-week period, since brewery operations normally run 24/7 with little variation and a

representative data set should be achieved over that period.

Through data collected from all of these sources process energy models were compiled that enabled the review

of energy consumption during the monitoring period and the identification of any irregularities during process

runs.

It should be noted, that at the time of writing, not all data had been analysed due to various operational delays

relating to meter installation, therefore the breadth and depth of the data set, whilst representative, is not as

comprehensive as originally planned. Where any assumptions have had to be made as a result of this we have

indicated them clearly.

2.10 Best practice checklist

During the project a survey of energy best practice in energy efficiency was sent to industry members. The aim of

this survey was to gain an understanding of how widespread the take-up of good practice was across the

industry, and also to raise awareness of energy related issues and the IEEA programme itself. The survey

comprised a checklist of around 150 questions, divided into the following sections:

Compressed air

Building and lighting

Cooling and refrigeration

Boilers and steam distribution

Vacuum

Waste water treatment

Process energy

Energy management practices

Whilst best practice is not directly in the scope of the IEEA project this exercise allows companies to benchmark

themselves against the industry and drive forward best practice, and allows us to highlight potential areas for

improvement later in this report.

The results of the IEEA investigations are shown in the following sections:

Section 3: summary results from the best practice survey

Section 4: key findings for the kettle process

Section 5: key findings for small pack pasteurisation

Section 6: key findings for keg and cask processing

Section 7: key findings for clean-in-place

Whilst Section 8 provides a summary of innovative energy saving opportunities relating to these process areas

and Section 9 some recommendations on next steps for the sector.


3 Key findings: best practice survey

The pie chart below illustrates how, for the 10 companies that responded to the survey, a quarter of the

measures classed as „best practice‟ have not yet been carried out, but could still be implemented. There could be

good remaining potential for energy savings within the industry simply based on the implementation of further

low, or no-cost measures. Whilst this is not the focus of the IEEA programme, energy managers within the

industry should make sure that they have not overlooked any of these measures that may apply to their sites.

The full analysis of survey responses from the 10 different sites (all separate companies) is shown in Appendix 2,

which also provides the full list of best practice measures.

Figure 10 Summary of responses from the best practice survey

Some examples of the reasons that were chosen for „not possible‟ responses were:

Payback deemed too long

Not relevant to our specific processes / operation

Impact on production downtime

Lack of people skills

Lack of available capital budget


Process change control restricted to group level

From the collated responses there were several opportunities that half or more of the respondents thought were

possible, and were either easy to implement or could lead to substantial savings. These opportunities included,

for example:

Installing a flue gas economiser to use the waste heat from the boiler flue gas for preheating the boiler feed

water saving between 4 – 6 % on annual fuel bills

Improving boiler burner efficiency through oxygen trim with flue gas analysis (2-3% fuel savings for out of

spec burners)

Install VSDs on air compressors

Whilst the survey provides a useful indication, the true value of such opportunities will only be assessable on a

site-by-site basis, through more detailed analysis of the relevant process area.


4 Key findings and opportunities: the kettle - wort stabilisation

Stabilising wort through boiling in the kettle has been a largely unchanged process for the last few hundred years

in the brewing industry. Only recently has this process been challenged and the real underlying process

requirements identified which affect the flavour and quality of the wort.

In summary, the main aims of the boiling process are:

Isomerisation of hops (unless using pre-isomerised hops)

Sterilisation of the wort

Removal of volatile compounds

Boiling sterilises the wort to stop spoilage during fermentation, breaks down the hops, and the gas bubbles

formed during boiling help strip the wort of unwanted volatile compounds. This process is very energy intensive

due to the large amount of heat going into the system to evaporate the wort to the prescribed level (boil-off).

4.1 Key differences between the sites investigated

Percentage boil-off

The breweries that we visited for this project had boil-offs of around 3.5% to 7.5%. In one of the breweries visited

there was one beer with a boil-off of 10% - 12%, but since this was a unique brewing process not representative

of the UK brewing industry, it has not been included for analysis in this project.

Gravity

The gravity at which the beer was brewed varied from no final dilution to up to 49% final gravity dilution. Brewing

at higher gravity, and blending after the kettle or fermentation stage, reduces the amount of wort that needs to be

boiled and hence energy consumption. When beer is brewed with a 49% end dilution only 51% of the final

packaged beer needs to pass through the kettle, roughly halving the required energy necessary.

Vapour heat recovery

Vapour heat recovery for the kettle was found on one of the host sites. The technology involves passing the

vapour from the kettle boil-off and condensing it through a vapour condenser where the heat is extracted to a hot

water tank storage tank. This hot water is then used for a pre-heater to increase the temperature of wort entering

the kettle. This technology typically works well with high percentage boil-off sites, since there is more vapour

produced and hence more energy to capture. Therefore the lower the boil-off the lower the financial return on

investment for such a system and it is not typically viable for boil-offs below 4%.


For the IEEA site where there was vapour heat recovery, the size of the system was actually quite small and was

primarily designed to remove odour from the vapour that drifted to the local town rather than to recover a

significant amount of energy.

Internal / external calandria

Wort heating is carried out through passing the wort through a heat exchanger known as a calandria. The

calandria can either be placed externally, outside the kettle, or placed in the centre of the kettle. The advantage

of an external type is that it can be easily inspected for maintenance but there is an efficiency advantage for the

internal variety as all of the heat exchanger is emerged in the wort, reducing heat losses as well as reducing

pumping needs.

Heat source – steam or high pressure hot water

The calandrias (kettle heat exchangers) at the IEEA sites monitored were supplied with steam or high pressure

hot water (HPHW, 140ºC). Steam systems are more common and typically easier to maintain than HPHW

systems, but there are no flash steam losses from trapping and condensate recovery in a HPHW system, which

theoretically makes them more energy efficient. Flash losses are explained in the pasteurisation section of this

report (Section 5).

4.2 Data analysis

The diagram below shows a simplified wort kettle and shows the four variables that were recorded to support the

analysis of the specific energy used on each brew:

Wort input temperature

Temperature of wort in the kettle

Fill level

Heat input

Figure 11 Simplified kettle diagram

Heat in, temp

Fill level

Temp of

wort

The variables have been plotted for a single boil in Figure 12 below to demonstrate a boil profile. This particular

kettle uses a dynamic boiling system where the wort is heated under pressure and then the kettle depressurised

causing vigorous boiling and flashing. At first, a consistent heat input can be seen which raises the wort

temperature to boiling point. When the temperature gets to around 100ºC a number of sequential heat inputs can

be seen through the evaporation phase, where the level of the wort starts to reduce until 3.5% of the wort has

been evaporated. A traditional kettle shows a similar profile, but with a more consistent heat input.


The total energy input over the duration of the boil has been used to work out the specific energy per hectolitre of

beer processed.

Figure 12 Kettle level, temperature of the wort in the kettle and heat input for a brew at Site 1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1 7

13 19 25

31

37

43

49

55

61

67

73

79 85 91 97

103

109

115

121

12

7

13

3

13

9

14

5

15

1

15

7

16

3

16

9

17

5

181

187

193

199

205

211

217

22

3

22

9

23

5

Ke

ttle

te

mp

era

ture

(blu

e in

Deg

C)

and

Ke

ttle

leve

l (re

d in

hl)

He

at in

pu

t (g

ree

n in

KW

)

Time (minutes)

Kettle level, kettle temperature and heat input over one brew for a standard product at one brewery

Heat input into kettle (kW) Temperature of wort in kettle (C) Level of kettle (hl)

4.2.1. Kettle energy balance

Based on a mixture of monitored and calculated data, we have derived a loss bridge for the kettle heat input. The

following diagrams shows loss bridges (energy balances) for the boiling process at two of the monitored

breweries. Delays in metering installation resulted in monitored data for the third site not being available in time

for this report.

Figure 13 below shows that is a 4% unaccounted for loss in the kettle, with the remaining energy being roughly

split 50:50 between heating up the wort to boiling point, and evaporating the necessary amount to achieve the

required boil-off level. Figure 14 shows a 3.5% under-measurement which is most likely due to the steam meters

not reading true.

Overall however there is a good correlation between the calculated and empirical data, suggesting that it is

credible for us to estimate the specific energy for other sites based on calculation from their boil-off percentage

and other kettle parameters.


Figure 13 Loss Bridge for the kettle process in Site 1

Figure 144 Loss Bridge for the kettle process in Site 3


The other important fact when looking at the energy used per specific volume of packed beer is the high gravity

(HG) dilution rate. This is the percentage of fresh water that is added after the wort has been boiled in the kettle.

This can be before fermentation or prior to filling.

All of the beer brewed in the IEEA host sites visited boiled-off some fraction of their wort in the kettle; however,

the energy per hl needed to raise the wort temperature to boiling point will be similar across these sites. The

differentiating variables are the amount of wort that is boiled-off and the end dilution rate. A beer with 50% HG

dilution rate will only need half the heat energy per packed volume to a beer with a 0% HG dilution rate. Figure 15

shows the boil-off and HG dilution of the main products at three of the IEEA host sites monitored. Both of these

parameters have an effect on the overall specific energy consumption for packaged beer, as shown in Figure 16.

Figure 15 Specific heat breakdown of the kettle at three breweries

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

HG dilution rate (%)

Recorded boil off (%)

Figure 16 shows that the higher the brewed gravity (the HG dilution rate) and the lower the boil-off, the lower the

specific energy per unit of packed product. The losses associated with the kettle have been shown to have up to

a minimal effect on the specific energy consumption (4% maximum, shown in Figure 13) and so the important

factors remain boil-off and HG dilution. How both of these factors affect the specific energy is discussed in

Section 0 below.

HG

dil

uti

on

rate

Boil-o

ff rate


Figure 16 Specific heat from boiling in packaged beer

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

Spec

ific

heat

in t

he k

ettl

e fo

r pa

ckag

ed b

eer

(kw

h/hl

)

4.2.2 Specific 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 for that product we can calculate the energy needed to

evaporate the liquid from the wort. These two figures were then compared to the energy actually used in the plant

as steam or high temperature hot water.

The results shown in Figure 17 show that the amount of energy used for boiling the wort of the main product at a

modern brewery is approximately 5.3 kWh/hl (average for the main product at one site over a month). The

variance demonstrated for one product is explained below in Section 4.2.3.

Figure 17: Specific energy recorded for wort heating of one product at one site over a month

The range for other products over the same period was from 4kWh/hl to 8kWh/h with the majority of the brews

having specific energy consumptions between 5 and 6kWh/hl. The high gravity dilution rate at which the beer

shown in Figure 17 was brewed was 49%, so the overall specific energy for the wort stabilisation process,

5.3

kWh/hl


allowing for dilution, is around 2.6kWh/hl of packaged product. This is for a brewery that has an average boil-off

in the kettle of 3.6%.

The more energy intensive breweries that we visited for this project had boil-offs of around 7% with a high gravity

dilution rate of 10% and so the specific energy per hectolitre of packaged product relating to wort

stabilisation/dilution would be higher at 7.8kWh/hl.

This demonstrates the energy saving potential of high gravity brewing, where this is allowed by site conditions

and the product requirements.

4.2.3 Energy variance between boils

The key variables we expect to lead to energy input variances between boils are laid out below. For each case

we have compared two of the breweries where in-depth data was available to show our rationale for quantifying

the difference in how the kettles are controlled:

Wort input temperature – was measured to be consistent at the two breweries analysed. Both consistently

show a variation in kettle entry temperature of only 2ºC (between 75ºC and 77ºC). This was consistent

across a broad range of products.

Figure 18: Wort entry temperature per brew for multiple products at one brewery

The volume of the batch – the two monitored sites showed variable kettle volumes, usually due to the kettle

being topped up with fresh process water to correct any wort strength inconsistencies.

Figure 19: Maximum fill level for the kettle per brew

for one product over a month for two sites

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Ke

ttle

leve

(hl)

Number of brews in a month of one product

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Ke

ttle

leve

l (h

l)


Brewery A Brewery B


Heat losses from the system – should remain consistent for the same kettle, boiling the same product over

a month.

The effectiveness of the heat exchange – varying degrees of heat exchanger cleanliness will have an

impact on energy transferred into the wort

Specific energy input to the wort – the variance of which is shown in Figure 20 and Figure 21 below

Taking into account the above factors we plotted specific energy data for a single product type at both breweries

over a month-long period to see if there was a significant variance in heat input for the entire wort heating and

evaporation process. The first site used a dynamic pressure boiling system, internal calandria and a time-based

boil. The second site used a calorific-controlled boil (that is, only the amount of heat input necessary to achieve

the required boil-off level was input to the kettle).

As can be seen from Figure 20 there is a significant variation in specific energy for evaporation input per brew of +/-50% from the average specific heat energy. As evaporation accounts for approximately half of the energy going into the kettle (the other half is for preheating), this gives a total energy variance of up to +/-25% per brew.

Figure 20 Specific energy recorded for wort heating of one product at one site over a month for a site with timed boils

Because the rate of heat input and boil time are constant the specific energy of the boil varies according to other

inconsistencies such as brew volume. For example, if the boil was based around the actual volume of beer

starting in the kettle the energy delivered would be on a quantified basis.

The second brewery monitored controlled its kettle based on calorific input (heat energy input level as a function

of product volume and desired boil-off), rather than timed controls (boiling the wort for a fixed time and then

testing for volatile removal level). The variance in specific energy for one product using a calorific controlled boil

over a month is shown in Figure 21 below. The amount of energy input per hectolitre of product is visibly much

more consistent.

Note that the different average specific energy shown in Figures 20 and 21 are not material here, since kettle

configuration and boil-of level vary between the two sites. The relevant finding is that a calorific (or specific heat

input) controlled boil gives a more consistent specific energy compared to time control, and offers a potential

energy saving through the avoidance of over provision of heat.


Figure 21: Specific energy recorded for wort heating of one product at one site over a month for a site with heat

input controlled boils

3.1

3.12

3.14

3.16

3.18

3.2

0 20 40 60 80

kWh

/hl


Another possible cause of the inconsistency seen in Figure 20 could be burn-on, which reduces the efficiency of

the calandria (fouling). However the kettles monitored were both cleaned weekly and if there had been burn-on

then within each week a consistent pattern of increasing energy consumption would have been seen, which it

was not. As we did not have alternative data to identify the burn-on status of the kettle we cannot make any

further judgements on this possible variable, but it seems unlikely from the data collected.

For the site that has a varying heat input (Figure 20), the boils with the least specific energy are currently deemed

acceptable, inferring that the boils with higher specific energy are using more energy than is necessary. It is

therefore reasonable to assume that moving to a system that operates on calorific controlled boils will reduce the

variance in heat input, and result in an overall reduction in energy consumption though the avoidance of over

provision of heat.

If a kettle with a timed boil-off could be re-programmed to provide heat on a calorific controlled approach, then

the amount of energy needed for evaporation could potentially be reduced by as much as 25% from the average

for a site where the boil off is around 3.5%. For sites with a higher boil (say 7% boil off) the fraction of total kettle

energy needed for evaporation will be higher at 64% as more energy is needed to drive off more wort compared

to the pre-heat energy, so the potential saving by moving from a time-based to calorific controlled boil-off will be

greater.

4.3 Best practice process optimisation opportunities

4.3.1 Areas of opportunity

There are several methods in which the energy necessary to carry out these processes can be reduced. All of

the following opportunities have been carried out in one form or another by international brewers and have been

proven to work without detrimental effects to the quality of the beer. We recommend that if any of these


opportunities have not yet been implemented then they should be investigated; their savings potential has been

estimated in Section 4.3.2 below.

Calorific kettle heating: As described above, controlling the heat input to the kettle based on specific energy

per hectolitre of wort in the kettle allows for more accurate control of kettle energy input and process

consistency. For the specific example identified during the monitoring exercise, if the kettle with the timed

boil-off had been re-programmed to provide heat on a volume based or specific calorific approach, then the

amount of energy used for evaporation could potentially be reduced by as much as 30% from the average. As

the loss bridges in Figure 13 and Error! Reference source not found. show, as about half of the energy

used in the kettle is used for boiling, the equivalent energy reduction for a site could be between; equivalent

to around 10% of total site energy usage (this saving will ultimately depend on the level of boil-off in the kettle

which depends on product type and whether high gravity brewing is used).

Reducing boil-off and using a sparge ring: The processes needed to stabilise the wort are heating and

volatile stripping. The heat can be provided by heating the wort to 99.9ºC as boiling does not increase the

temperature for sterilisation or hop isomerisation. The stripping of volatiles can then be performed through

sparging air or another stripping gas through the wort instead of relying on the steam bubbles generated

through a boil. This can be done in conjunction with boiling, gradually reducing the boil and increasing gas

sparging while controlling the product characteristics in line with the recipe requirements. This concept differs

from the opportunities discussed in Section 4.3.2 regarding reduced boil-off, as it uses air as the stripping gas

rather than steam.

Low pressure boiling: The have been a number of systems introduced to the market which use a vacuum

pump to lower the static pressure on the kettle and reduce the boiling temperature to extract volatiles from the

wort while reducing the total energy needed for the process. Evaporation rates as low as 2.6% have been

cited using this technology. This will give similar savings to the direct steam injection savings quantified below

(2.5% equivalent boil-off).

Vapour heat recovery: The technology involves passing the vapour from the kettle boil-off and condensing it

through a vapour condenser where the heat is extracted to a hot water tank storage tanks. This hot water is

then used for a pre-heater to increase the temperature of wort entering the kettle. This technology typically

works well with high percentage boil-off sites since there is more vapour and so more energy to capture.

Therefore the lower the boil-off, the lower the financial return on investment for such a system and it is not

typically viable for boil-offs below 4%.

Isomerised hops: The use of pre-isomerised hops allows the boil-off of the wort to be reduced as the

process of breaking down the hops has already been completed prior to insertion into the kettle. As one of the

key reasons for boiling the wort is to isomerise the hops this allows the amount of energy needed for the boil

to be reduced. There will still be some energy needed (outside the brewery) to pre-isomerise the hops, but

this will be only to heat a small volume of liquid to boiling point, with no evaporation needed, so there will be a

net reduction in energy use.

Reduction in steam pressure: Through reducing the steam pressure that is delivered to the calandria the

burn-on of wort onto the heat exchanger (calandria) will be reduced and the efficiency of the heat exchangers

increased. This will also result in a reduction in CIP as the amount of burnt-on material adhered to the heat

exchanger will be less, saving further energy and water. The flash steam losses in the condensate system will

also be reduced (explained in detail in the pasteuriser section of Section Error! Reference source not

found.). The penalty to pay for reducing steam pressure is an effective de-rating of heat exchanger capacity.

Adding adjunct after the kettle: If adjunct is needed then it should be added on the hot side of the wort

cooler. This will save on the energy needed to boil-off the fraction on the adjunct added since the adjunct

material will not need heating. The reduction in kettle energy consumption is in proportion to the reduction of

liquid volume in the kettle.


4.3.2 Impact on the UK brewing sector

Due to the variations in brewing techniques across companies, sites and product types it is difficult to estimate

with any accuracy the overall impact potential of the above measures across the UK brewing sector. The

following opportunities have been quantified using data from the monitored sites to act as a baseline for the

current industry position.

From the monitoring and analysis carried out on the data collected on kettle energy use we have shown that the

energy used can be accurately modelled to within 7 % in terms of specific energy consumption (see loss bridges

in Figure 13 and Error! Reference source not found.). The figures below demonstrate the effect of changing

the key wort stabilisation variables and give an indication of the potential savings available for these changes.

Reduction in boil-off: For every 1% that boil-off can be reduced in the kettle, the specific energy needed to

boil the wort can be reduced by 0.63 kWh/hl, which results from less energy being used for the latent heat of

evaporation, through evaporating 1% less of the total beer volume. For a gas-fired 2Mhl per year brewery this

works out as approximately 1.85p/hl reduction in the heat costs or a total site energy cost reduction of

£37,000 per annum. If we assume that ale brewers use an average boil-off of 7.5% and that the bigger lager

and mixed brewers have an average boil off of 5%, bringing the entire sector down to a common baseline

boil-off of 3.5% would yield a sector carbon emissions reduction of around 2.5%. Through this reduction in

heating fuel, the equivalent average carbon emissions reduction per site would be 337tCO2 per year, for a

notional 2Mhl site.

Increase in high gravity brewing: For a kettle where the input temperature is 75ºC and there is a 3.5% boil-

off (similar to one of the breweries monitored as part of this project), we have looked into what difference a

change in the final gravity dilution of the beer will have on specific kettle energy consumption. Through

increasing the final gravity dilution less wort has to be processed (heated and evaporated) in the kettle for the

same amount of beer packaged.

Across the sector, it appears that lager brewers already have reasonably high HG dilution rates of 35% to 50%.

The ale brewers we spoke to appear to have lower rates, on the order of 10%, and the biggest opportunity for

change exists here. However, if the large breweries were able to make a further incremental increase in HG rate

then a significant impact could be made across the sector.

For every 10% increase in the final gravity dilution of the beer at an ale brewery the specific kettle energy can be

reduced by 0.73 kWh/hl. If we extrapolate an increase from 10% HG dilution to 50% HG dilution this equates to a

sector carbon saving of approximately 1.4% (just for the smaller, mostly ale-producing sites).

For a 2Mhl brewery this equates to a £31,000 annual energy cost saving and an annual carbon reduction of 275

tCO2. If the brewery had a higher boil-off of around 7% (similar to the higher boil-off brewery that we monitored),

this saving would be 0.73 kWh/hl, with a total annual site energy cost saving of £44,000 and annual carbon

reductions of 390 tCO2.

If the same were carried out for the larger breweries, by moving from an average HG dilution of 42% at the larger

sites monitored to 50% HG dilution, the savings would be 5,800 tCO2 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 2.7%.

4.4 Innovative wort stabilisation opportunities

4.4.1 Opportunity areas

We have investigated a number of innovative opportunity areas with the potential to reduce kettle energy

significantly:

Using a stripping column

Using a steam injection atomiser


Continuous brewing

Sequential mashing

These are described below; further details on the first two opportunities are described in Appendix 3, together

with their outline business cases. Insufficient data was available to quantify the savings and hence provide

business cases for continuous brewing and sequential mashing.

Wort stripping column: The concept involves applying alternative wort boiling technology that offers major

energy savings while producing very high quality wort, and so improving final beer quality. The technology

also assures an efficient and flexible elimination of unwanted volatile compounds in the wort (such as DMS –

dimethyl sulphides).

The device is placed "in line" between the wort cooler and the settling tank and sends the wort through a

packed bed, with steam sent up through the bed in the opposite direction. This packed bed increases the

surface area of the wort, while subjecting the liquid to high temperature steam, ensuring that volatiles can be

removed effectively.

With a maximum evaporation rate of 2% claimed by manufactures the amount of energy used in the wort

boiling process is dramatically reduced, especially for the breweries that currently operate at higher boil-off.

Note that energy is still needed to pre-heat the wort.

Figure 22 Illustration of where a stripping column would sit in the wort processing line

Wort steam injection: The technology is a specifically designed steam injection system that produces very

effective mixing through promoting a supersonic shock wave in the mixing zone. The wort is atomised and the

mixture of high surface area and the high temperature of the steam allow for elevated removal of volatiles and

unwanted flavours from the beer. Through removing these compounds faster the total amount of energy

needed in the boil is reduced. This technology can be retrofitted to existing wort coppers and takes the place

of heat exchanger based calandrias.

Up to 50% energy reduction in comparison to using calandria based technology is cited by manufacturer with

no burn-on of material as there is no heat exchange surface. This technology also requires energy to pre-heat

the wort, so the savings relate to the reduction in evaporation energy.

Other innovative opportunities

Below are more innovative opportunities to do with the wort stabilisation process where, due to their early

developmental stage, it has not been possible to develop outline business cases.


Continuous brewing: Continuous brewing involves sending the wort through from the grist stage through to

the filling process in one continuous process. At present beer production is a batch process, where each

batch is limited to the size of the vessel in which it is being processed.

Sequential mashing: Sequential mashing involves sending the mash down through multiple vessels while

transferring the wort from vessel to vessel in the opposite direction. This process involves increasing the

extract potential of the wort, using less water, therefore using less energy to heat the mash to the temperature

required for enzyme reactions to take place.

4.4.2 Potential impact on energy consumption

The effect of on the energy needed to carry out the wort stabilisation process on both of the brewery types

investigated is shown in the graph of Figure 23 below. We compare the existing baselines to the technologies

and improvements that have the potential to deliver the largest reductions, for both a low and high boil-off

brewery archetype using supplier data. Many of the optimisation opportunities would improve site energy

performance to somewhere in between these two extremes. These figures take both boil-off and final gravity

dilution into account to calculate the specific heat requirements for final packaged beer.

Direct steam injection into the wort has been carried out in the UK but all of the previous examples of wort

stripping columns to reduce evaporation have been carried out outside the UK in Russia, Belgium, China and

Peru to name a few locations.

Figure 23 Wort kettle: innovative opportunities

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low boil off brewery High boil off brewery

Spe

cifi

c e

ne

rgy

(kW

h/h

l)

Existing specific energy

Using wort steam injection

Using a wort stripping column

Figure 23 shows the effect the first two innovative opportunities have on the energy used at a brewery. Clearly

the opportunity for saving is greater at sites with higher boil-off rates. Implementing these opportunities could

result in a sector-wide CO2 saving of between 4.2% for the wort steam reactor, and 4.8% for the wort stripping

column assuming a 50:50 split of more modern breweries with low boil-off rates, and older, less energy-efficient

breweries.

The payback period for these opportunities depends on the boil-off rate at the brewery. Those that operate their

kettles with a boil-off of less than 4%, as well as brewing at high gravity, will find it difficult justify the adoption of

these technologies. However the payback at the other end of the spectrum is more favourable, with breweries

operating an 8% boil-off with final gravity brewing (0% final high gravity dilution) yielding a payback of less than


three and a half years. These paybacks should improve as the technologies become more mainstream and unit

costs reduce.

4.5 Summary of findings

Table 3 below summarises the savings. The first two opportunities should be regarded as best practice process

optimisation opportunities and the second two more innovative options.

Table 3 Kettle opportunities

Area Description Sector

Applicability (%)


(tCO2 pa)


(%)

Average Site Cost Saving

(£)

CAPEX (£)

Average Payback (years)

Kettle Reduce boil-off 100% 11,200 2.52% £56,000 Unknown Unknown

Kettle Increase high gravity dilution

100% 11,900 2.66% £60,000 Unknown Unknown

Kettle Wort stripping

column 100% 21,500 4.8% £152,000 £360,000 2.4

Kettle Wort steam

injection 100% 18,700 4.2% £130,000 £420,000 3.2

4.6 Barriers to implementation

Changing traditional brewing methods: Tradition has been a very strong influence in how beer is made

with many sites taking pride in producing beer in a similar manor for many years. Opportunities that involve

changing this tried and tested method raise concerns that the reputation for consistency may be damaged,

leading to loss of confidence in the brand.

Scalability of small-scale test results: Brewers may agree that beer made with new technology on a pilot

scale tastes just as good, or even better at times but confidence is lacking that this can then be produced on

an industrial scale with sufficiently mitigated risks, as there may be no reasonable way to go back.

Available capital: Lack of available capital resources has been cited as a reason why breweries do not take

up utility saving technologies. For example, modernising a brewhouse or replacing packaging equipment

could be a multimillion pound investment which may not be justifiable on utility savings alone.


5 Key findings and opportunities: small pack pasteurisation

5.1 Process description

Pasteurisation involves reducing the number of dangerous and potentially spoiling microbes within beer to a level

that will extend the shelf life and make the product safe for consumption within the best before dates. In most

cases in the UK this is done thermally through heating the beer to around 70ºC and then bringing the

temperature down again to near or below ambient to stop thermal flavour spoilage. To measure the process,

pasteurisation units (PUs) are calculated by multiplying the product temperature by the time spent at that

temperature. The greater the PUs inputted the greater the deactivation / kill rate.

Currently the two primary technologies employed for this in the UK are in-pack pasteurisation, where the entire

filled and sealed beer can or bottle is brought up to pasteurisation temperature, and flash pasteurisation, where

the beer is heated and cooled in a continuous process using a heat exchanger before being filled into a clean

bottle in controlled conditions to avoid contamination.

The main energy involved is needed to heat the beer (and in the case of tunnel pasteurisation the container as

well), cool the beer, as well as pumping the product and heat transfer fluids.

5.1.1 Tunnel Pasteurisation

Bottles and cans enter the tunnel pasteuriser en masse on

a wide in-feed conveyor and are typically propelled through

the tunnel on either a walking bed or conveyor belt. The

pasteuriser is divided up into a number of heating, holding

and cooling zones to gently change the temperature of the

container and its contents, avoiding thermal shock and

ensuring, as far as possible, equal heating throughout.

Figure 25 shows a tunnel pasteuriser heating profile; the

water spray temperature in each of the zones and the

respective product temperature at each point.

Pasteurisation Units (PUs) – a measure of pasteurisation

level - are also monitored.

Figure 24 Tunnel pasteuriser illustration (www.krones.com)


Typically a tunnel pasteuriser would fall into the

category of „low temperature long time‟ (LTLT)

pasteurisation.

If all the heating and cooling had to be done with

external energy input, then the process would

require a large amount of energy, so typically a

tunnel pasteuriser has pumps that exchange the

water between heating and cooling zones in

order to increase heat regeneration (ie, the hot

containers leaving are heating the cold

containers entering).

Figure 26 shows an example of a single bed, eight zone pasteuriser. It can be seen that the pre-heat and pre-

cool zones use pumps to exchange heat and therefore improve process thermal efficiency. However it is also

clear to see that there is still a large amount of heating and cooling done with raw heat input. In the case of

cooling, temperatures are often maintained in each zone by inputting cold fresh water to displace the hot water.

In this case water-to-drain losses can be very high.

Figure 26 Example tunnel pasteuriser heating and cooling zones (barry-wehmiller-company.com)

The number of zones, the number of regenerative zones, the management and control of the system and the

operational demands and profiles all have a profound effect on the energy efficiency of a tunnel pasteuriser.

5.1.2 Flash

Pasteurisation

5.1.2 Flash Pasteurisation

A flash pasteuriser typically uses a three-stage regenerative plate heat exchanger (PHE) arrangement to heat the

beer to pasteurisation temperature, where it is pumped at a certain flow rate through a holding tube before being

cooled back down to filling temperature.

Figure 27 shows the key elements of the pasteuriser; the PHE and the holding tube which is the pipe running

back and forth above it.

Figure 26 shows an example of the heating and cooling profile of a flash pasteuriser. The bright beer arrives at

the pasteuriser where it is heated in the regenerative zone of the PHE by the outgoing hot beer. The heat source

for heating up to pasteurisation temperature is typically from the site‟s steam or high pressure hot water system.

The beer then passes through the holding tube where it is held at the pasteurisation temperature before being

regeneratively cooled and then trim-chilled to the desired filling temperature.

The defined beer input and output temperatures, as well as the heat transfer rate of PHE, each affect how much

energy is theoretically required for the process.

Figure 25 Example tunnel pasteuriser heating profile (www.krones.com)


Modern PHEs enable a regeneration of up to around

94% in the optimum circumstances and minimise the

required heat input, but if the desired beer output

temperature is more than a few degrees above the

input temperature then the requirement for cooling is

negated but the heat input goes up accordingly as the

capacity for effective regeneration is reduced.

5.2 Data analysis and modelling

Both tunnel and flash pasteurisation were modelled

and metered to understand the associated energy

consumption between the two technologies.

From the five host sites involved in the project only

one used flash pasteurisation and only on two of five

lines (8% of production). Through industry discussions

we deduce that this broadly represents the sector,

with very few sites carrying out flash pasteurisation for

small pack. For the purpose of quantifying

opportunities we have therefore assumed that 10% of

small pack beer packed in the UK is flash pasteurised

with the remaining 90% tunnel pasteurised. This split

has been used for all of opportunities involving

pasteurisation when trying to quantify the CO2

savings for the sector.

Figure 278 Flash pasteurisation heating profile

Figure 26: Example flash pasteuriser (www.khs.com)


5.2.1 Tunnel Pasteurisation

Tunnel pasteurisation was modelled from the average of data collected at three of the IEEA host sites. The heat

consumption for pasteurisation was modelled by taking the steam consumption over a period, whilst the electrical

consumption was based the variously sized motors used by the processes including recirculation pumps and

conveyor motors.

The graph below shows the average specific heat energy consumption of the three different tunnel pasteurisers

at the three IEEA host sites.

Figure 29 Average specific energy consumption of three tunnel pasteurisers

Note that it was discovered as part of the data collection exercise for Site 3 that two cold water valves had been

passing cold water into the central hot section of the pasteuriser, meaning that additional steam was continuously

inserted into the pasteuriser to keep the temperature at the required level. This at least partly explains the high

specific heat consumption at Site 3 in comparison to the other two sites. Pasteuriser imbalance is a common

occurrence and so even though this machine (at Site 3) was running with such a high heat consumption it will be

included into the average for quantifying opportunities.

There is a large range in the heat performance for each of the pasteurisers and so an average of the three will be

used for quantification of opportunities moving away from tunnel pasteurisation to alternative technologies. This

gives an average specific heat consumption of 11.2 kWh/hl.

When the electrical loads from the recirculation motors and conveyor pumps are added to this the total specific

energy is 11.8kWh/hl of beer pasteurised. Figure 30 below shows a minute-by-minute profile for heat and water

input to one specific tunnel pasteuriser.


Figure 30 Heat and water input for a tunnel pasteuriser at Site 1

Through looking at detail at the profile for Site 1 we are able to draw some useful conclusions. Line

stoppages/unbalances cause regular inputs of fresh cooling water (every 10 minutes or so). This cold water influx

was then balanced out with a large amount of steam added a few minutes later. This shows that the system is

constantly hunting for the right temperature, and overshooting both of the cooling and heating inputs, leading to

excess energy use.

The specific heat energy consumed by the pasteuriser at Site 2 was recorded as 10.1 kWh/hl which was 20%

higher than Site 1. Figure 31 below shows the production status for the tunnel pasteuriser at Site 2 showing

operational (green), rebalancing (yellow) and stops (red) for one day. One reason why this site‟s pasteuriser had

a higher specific energy could have been the large number of stop-starts.

Figure 31 Production for Site 2 pasteuriser over a day

This could be caused through either the control system of the pasteuriser not being set up correctly, or through

periodic line stoppages (for example, lack of product entering or downstream build-backs), which would account

for both the cold and hot sides becoming unbalanced.

Better operational scheduling and line efficiency – the impact

When a tunnel pasteuriser is running between products or unloading / loading with product due to line stoppage

the machine will be out of balance as the heat cannot be recycled. This results in extra cooling being necessary

for the cold sections at the end of the pasteuriser and extra heat being needed for the hot section at the

beginning.


5.2.2 Flash pasteurisation

Because of unreliable metered data, flash pasteurisation was modelled theoretically in three combinations to

demonstrate the effect of differing on- and off-temperatures for the heat exchanger.

The first is based on flash pasteurisation for a filler that can only take beer at low temperatures, meaning that

the on- and off-temperature of the pasteuriser will be the same. The beer passes through a 90% regeneration

heat exchanger meaning that 10% of the temperature rise from 0ºC to 70ºC will be provided by heat, and

10% of the decrease in temperature will be covered by refrigeration.

The second option shows what would be possible if the beer could come off 7ºC higher than the on-

temperature, and therefore have no need for the cooling circuit.

If the filling temperature was higher (nearer 14ºC) the heating energy would increase as the regeneration

section of the pasteuriser would have to reduce.

These three options and the monitored average for tunnel pasteurisation are presented in Figure 32 below.

5.2.3 Comparing tunnel and flash pasteurisation

Figure 32 shows the comparison of the average tunnel pasteurisation figure compared to the modelled flash

pasteurisation scenarios.

The flash pasteurisation metered data collected during the monitoring period was unreliable and irremediable

within the project time so a theoretical model was used instead. Through detailed monitoring carried out with

flash pasteurisation in the dairy industry one of the key findings was that a proportion of potential operational time

was used for start-up, shut down and circulation when no product is being processed. Where we have calculated

theoretical energy consumptions for flash pasteurisation, we have corrected by a similar factor to ensure that the

energy estimates are not overly optimistic.

Figure 32 Energy breakdown for flash and tunnel pasteurisation

The specific energy consumption figures shown in Figure 32 are used as the baselines to quantify opportunities

in this report. Based on the analysis, the conversion from tunnel to flash pasteurisation should provide an energy

saving of 75% - 85% per unit of beer pasteurised.


5.3 Process optimisation opportunities

5.3.1 Tunnel pasteurisation optimisation

The energy used in tunnel pasteurisers is mostly heat as large amounts of water are circulated around and often

diluted with colder water when the machine is out of balance. At this point fresh heat needs to be added to the

system. There are a number of simple opportunities to optimise operation as well as a great retrofit potential.

Optimisation opportunities

Optimisation using water and energy metering: Installing a water and steam / heat meter on a tunnel

pasteuriser and recording high frequency readings through a SCADA system or similar enables the

consumption profiles of the system to be identified and investigated. This metering allows the identification of

periods when the pasteuriser is out of balance, when faults arise that cause step changes in the energy and

water performance and to track steady incremental changes in performance over time.

Better operational scheduling: When a tunnel pasteuriser is running between products or different sizes, or is

forced to unload due to a line stoppage or build-back, the machine will go out of thermal balance as the heat

exchange between incoming and outgoing packs cannot be made. This results in extra cooling water being

necessary for the cooling zones at the end of the pasteuriser during run-out and extra heat being needed for

the heating zones during run-in. Steady-state operation of a tunnel pasteuriser plays a key role in utility

efficiency. The two key areas where this can be controlled are to minimise the impact of intermittent line

stoppages, and to manage product changeovers effectively.

Insulation of pipes, valves and surface areas: Significant standing heat losses can often be attributed to poor

insulation of pasteurisers and their associated pump and pipe work. The tunnel pasteuriser environment is

wet, hot and steamy, so can be hostile to many forms of insulation if maintenance is poor or inappropriate

material selections are made. Nonetheless, insulation of heat exchangers, steam valves, pipe work and any

significant hot surface areas can be an economical solution to reduce energy loss.

Maintenance of pumps, valves and control systems, operational practice: Poor maintenance is often cited as

a cause for excessive energy and water use in tunnel pasteurisers, typical failure points can include; ball

valves causing overflows, inoperable controls which are unnoticed or manually overridden, leaks, drain and fill

valves left open, worn pump impellors and blockages causing out of balance operation.

The reality is that after the brewhouse, a tunnel pasteuriser is probably the most energy and water intensive

process to operate in a typical UK brewery, so extra care and vigilance will always pay off.

Use flash steam condensers on heat exchangers: Most pasteurisers are heated by steam using direct steam

injection or localised hot water heat exchangers. If heat exchangers are used there is an inherent inefficiency

due to flash steam losses created by the reduction in pressure as the hot condensate reduces in pressure

passing through a steam trap. The higher the steam pressure at the heat exchanger, the higher the flash

losses. Figure 33 shows the theoretical flash losses at both 2.5 and 5.0 bar gauge.

If the flash steam could be condensed directly to produce useful heat for the pasteuriser rather than lost to

atmosphere, then energy saving could be made. Based on the calculated figures this could be as much as

10% is other losses are taken into account.

This same logic equally applies to other steam using equipment if a use for the flash can be found. For high

pressure steam applications there are a number of high pressure condensate recovery systems commercially

available, specifically designed to alleviate this problem.


Figure 33 Theoretical flash losses across steam traps

Retrofit opportunities

Increasing thermal regeneration: Figure 34 below shows an example of a retrofit upgrade to improve the

regeneration on a tunnel pasteuriser. In the first example (upper profile) the pasteuriser only has two

regenerative zones: pre-heat and pre-cool, where the water from each respective section is pumped across

so that, in effect, the hot packs coming out of the holding zone heat the cold packs coming in and vice versa.

This provides a limited improvement in efficiency but in this circumstance the first and second heating

sections would still be heated by steam and typically the three cooling sections would have their temperature

maintained by purging with fresh water.

The second example (lower profile) is more representative of best practice, with a higher number of

regenerative zones, which reduce the required heat input as well as the water for cooling. In reality, the final

cooling section will still typically need an amount of fresh water to maintain a stable discharge temperature.

Figure 34 Example regeneration zone improvement project carried out by Barry Wehmiller (barry-wehmiller-

company.com)


Use of a cooling tower for final cooling zone water cooling: A final addition to the above scheme can be

the addition of a cooling tower to cool and re-circulate the final cooling water. This means that purge water is

no longer required to maintain a stable out-temperature in most operational circumstances. This is primarily a

water saving measure.

Intelligent water exchange during imbalance: Some modern tunnel pasteurisers have a further

improvement over and above a high number of regenerative zones. They have a series of automatically

controlled valves that, as well as allowing the direct exchange of water between regenerative zones, allow for

the intelligent exchange of different temperature water between other zones as well, to maintain temperature

balance whilst minimising the input of water and heat.

PU controls: An intelligent PU controller on a tunnel pasteuriser will vary the operating parameters (speed,

temperatures, etc.) within defined parameters to ensure that over pasteurisation is not occurring and that the

input of water and heat are minimised.

Smaller water reservoirs: Through reducing the size of the water reservoirs for each zone of the pasteuriser

the amount of heating, cooling and water needed during start up, refilling and when it is out of balance can be

reduced. This is typical of more modern machines

The relevance and quantification of the above opportunities at a particular site will be dependent on site-specific

process conditions and its energy consumption baseline.

5.3.2 Flash Pasteuriser optimisation

Improving heat exchanger regeneration efficiency:

There are two principal areas to consider for improving

the thermal regeneration efficiency of flash

pasteurisers: upgrading to more efficient heat

exchangers with lower approach temperatures; and

optimising the temperature profile across the heat

exchanger.

Heat exchangers are typically sized as a compromise

between surface area (and therefore achieved

approach temperature, which limits the level of

regeneration), and capital cost. As energy costs have

increased significantly in recent years and many

brewery heat exchangers are quite old, a review with a

supplier could highlight opportunities to re-plate or

optimise and so reduce the heating and cooling energy

required.

Optimising the temperature profile can be achieved in a

number of ways. Firstly, the beer out temperature, relative to the beer in temperature governs the amount of

both heating and cooling input required by the process. As the required beer out temperature is increased

the cooling requirement is decreased. If the heat exchanger has an approach temperature of 3ºC (that is,

how close the regenerative section can get to the temperatures of the approaching and leaving fluid), then the

optimum temperature for the beer out would also be 3ºC higher than that of the entering beer as this would

mean no extra cooling input was required.

If the desired beer out temperature was lower, then cooling would be needed. If however the desired beer

output temperature was greater than the 3ºC above the temperature of the entering beer, then more heat

input would be required. This is because, as the output temperature rises, the temperature difference across

Figure 1 Flash pasteuriser heating profile


the regenerative cooling reduces, so the regenerative heat also reduces and the heat input required to

achieve the pasteurisation temperature increases.

Therefore in circumstances where the beer out temperature desired is more than 3ºC or 4ºC above that of the

entering beer, for example if the filling temperature is high, the site should consider adjusting the off-

temperature to optimise the heat exchange, or alternatively consider using free heating (from a cooling tower

or similar) to preheat the entering beer to a few degrees below the desired out temperature. Both of these

steps will serve to minimise the heat input to the pasteuriser, but the second could potentially be a source of

cold liquor generation if the temperature difference was sufficiently large.

Circulation of pasteurisers and hibernation: Findings in the IEEA dairy sector project showed that up to

14% of the energy for pasteurisation is used during extended periods of circulation (periods longer than 10

minutes). During hibernation the cooling section is turned off and the heating is reduced by about 90% (some

heat losses through circulation). The heating and cooling load will therefore be reduced be approximately

95%.

Pasteuriser holding tube insulation: In many cases the holding tubes of pasteurisers are not insulated.

Insulating the holding tubes is a cost effective way to reduce heat losses. Some tests carried out in the dairy

industry also highlighted an associated improvement in pasteuriser temperature stability.

Avoiding bottle condensation / minimising bottle warmer energy: Bottle condensation caused by

moisture condensing out of the air due to low pack temperatures is sometimes cited as a problem for clean-

filled bottles, making labelling difficult. In hot climates this is a problem due to the high dew point and the

solution is usually a bottle warmer which is very energy intensive. In the UK it is unlikely that a bottle warmers

are needed, however condensation is a problem or a bottle warmer is in place, the following steps could be

considered to reduce energy consumption: fill at the highest temperature possible; take steps to condition the

surrounding air; and avoid the addition of excess moisture to the local air from plant such as tunnel

pasteurisers; or to scavenge the low temperature (~40ºC) water needed for a bottle warmer from other parts

of the site.

Higher filling temperature: The fillers for flash pasteurisation have historically run at low temperature to

reduce fobbing. Modern fillers are capable of running at up to 14ºC, negating the risk of condensation and

removing the need for a refrigeration side to the pasteuriser (flash only). The most energy efficient solution

would be to have a heat exchanger with the highest regeneration and have the filler fill at the temperature at

which the beer leaves the cooling regeneration section.

o Example of an older flash pasteuriser system: Beer going onto the pasteuriser at 2ºC, being heated

to 63ºC in the first regeneration section, further heated to 70ºC through steam or hot water and

then cooled to 9ºC in the regeneration section and then being cooled to 2ºC with a cooling section.

o Example of an energy efficient flash pasteuriser system: Energy consumption can almost be

halved by moving from a beer on and off temperature of 2ºC with a regeneration of 90%, to a beer

on temperature of 2º and an off temperature of 6ºC with a regeneration of 94%. This would involve

no cooling section and a larger regeneration section but a reduced specific energy for

pasteurisation.

5.4 Innovative opportunities and significant change

These cover the use of alternative heat sources for pasteurisation and alternative pasteurisation technologies.

The UK industry on the whole uses tunnel pasteurisation currently, although flash pasteurisation and cold sterile

filtration are what might be considered mature technologies. In this section, as well as a looking at alternative

heat sources, we cover the benefits of a fundamental technology shift away from in-pack pasteurisation for small

pack pasteurisation.


Use of alternative heat sources

Flash pasteurisation

Cold sterile filtration

UV pasteurisation

Pulsed electric field pasteurisation

5.4.1 Use of alternative heat sources

Use of heat from more efficient alternative sources could be an effective way to reduce the cost and emissions

associated with heating a tunnel or flash pasteuriser. Waste heat recovery from other processes e.g. excess hot

liquor, using a hot water heat pump or CHP waste heat could all be potential heat sources. The localised use of a

hot water storage tank would probably be needed in order to ensure a steady and synchronised heat supply. We

are not aware of any commercial brewery applications of this opportunity.

Heat pump on main refrigeration plant: A high temperature hot water heat pump is a mechanism for the

recovery of waste heat from existing centralised site refrigeration systems to generate hot water which can

subsequently be used to heat brewing processes including pasteurisers, CIP and bottle washers. It takes low

grade heat from the hot pressurised refrigerant gas which would normally be discharged to atmosphere at

around 30°C, and using a secondary high pressure compressor system, upgrades it to a condensing

temperature which can heat up water via a heat exchanger to a maximum of around 80°C.

Using a buffer tank and pumps, the hot water is distributed around the factory, (in a similar fashion to that of a

regular chilled water system – but hot) and is used as a heat source for processes.

In the food and drink sector in the UK there are currently a handful of examples of hot water heat pumps but

these are limited to food manufacturers that have a requirement for large volumes of 50°C – 60°C wash-down

water.

The first example of a heat pump using refrigeration condenser heat as a low temperature source in a milk

processing facility is currently being installed in the North West of England. We are not aware of any brewery

examples.

Currently steam raised by firing a boiler is normally used as a heating medium in breweries and has an

efficiency of 60% - 80% for useful output. A heat pump producing 80°C water has a COP of around 5; or in

other words, an efficiency of around 500% heat output to electrical energy in. When the relative costs of fuel

and electricity are taken into account, as well as the different carbon intensities of the different energy

sources, a significant saving in carbon emissions and costs can be achieved compared to steam-based

heating.

5.4.2 Alternatives to tunnel pasteurisation

Flash pasteurisation: Although there are a few sites in the UK which operate flash pasteurisers the move

from tunnel to flash pasteurisation is quite significant. There are multiple processes which need to be taken

into account, the most noticeable being the filling process.

Unlike tunnel pasteurisation the beer and the bottles/can must be cleaned/pasteurised before filling and so

filling must take place in either a clean room or shrouded environment, with a positive pressure clean air

supply to stop any risk of potentially spoiling organisms entering the packaging during filling. However the

experience of some breweries with flash pasteurisation is that a more basic level of air quality control in the

packing environment is sufficient to maintain clean conditions. For this project the business cases have been

based on the average tunnel pasteurisation energy consumption figure against theoretical energy of flash

pasteurisation.


One of the concerns of flash pasteurisation is that it can leave the bottles with condensation, which can ruin

packaging materials such as labels and crates. Therefore we have modelled this opportunity for both filling at

0ºC and filling at 14ºC, as there are now fillers being capable of filling beer at higher temperatures.

Cold sterile filtration: Cold sterile filtration involves sending the beer through a filtration process that

removes the organisms that can be harmful or spoil the beer. After passing through the filtration unit the beer

is then filled. Further details on this product can be found in the business case in Appendix 4.

UV pasteurisation: UV pasteurisation involves passing the beer through a UV light sources which can

reduce the number of microbes in the beer to similar, if not lower levels to that of tunnel or flash

pasteurisation. Further details on this product can be found in the business case in Appendix 4.

Pulsed electric field pasteurisation: Pulsed electric field pasteurisation involves pulsing high voltage fields

through the beer which actually stretches the bacteria and microorganism to destruction. This is still a young

technology and the actual energy needed to pasteurise beer to acceptable levels is unknown with a

suggested specific energy consumption ranging from below that of flash pasteurisation, up to that of tunnel

pasteurisers.

The table below shows the specific energy and emissions for different pasteurisation systems. Tunnel

pasteurisation is by far the highest energy user of any of the options, using over four times as much energy as

flash pasteurisation per unit of packaged product.

Table 4 Pasteurisation and sterilisation energy

Flash pasteurisation with a shroud

around the filler (0

oC)

Flash using a new filler

(7oC)

Flash with a higher filling temperature

(14oC)

Tunnel pasteurisation

energy breakdown

Cold sterile

filtration

UV Pasteurisation

Total primary energy (kWh/hl)

2.81 1.73 3.39 12.72 0.07 0.13

Total CO2 emissions (kgCO2/hl)

0.69 0.46 0.91 3.33 0.01 0.03

For cold sterile filtration the energy needed is just that of the pumping (1 bar pressure drop over the filter). For UV

sterilisation the energy necessary is 1kJ/litre. Combining this with the added pumping energy (the same for flash

pasteurisation) the total specific energy for UV pasteurisation and cold sterile filtration are several times lower

than either tunnel or flash pasteurisation.

Table 5 Alternative pasteurisation options

Flash Pasteurisation Cold sterile filtration UV Pasteurisation

Total CO2 sector saving 12% 15% 15%

Annual saving for a 2 Mhl site moving from tunnel pasteurisation £295,000 £374,000 £372,000

Payback with a clean room / shroud (years) 3.3 0.9 1.1

Payback with a new filler (years) 8.5 6.3 6.5



Optimising tunnel pasteurisers: As described in this section the majority of pasteurisation in the UK brewery

sector occurs in tunnel pasteurisers. Therefore optimisation of this technology poses a significant initial

opportunity. For the three sites where pasteurisation was monitored the average specific heat energy

consumption was 11.2 kWh/hl of beer packed. The best performing of the sites had a heat specific energy of

8.6 kWh/hl. If the average specific heat could be reduced to this level and we extrapolate this small pack

pasteuriser potential across the sector this would equate to a sector saving of 14,000tCO2, or 3.1% of the

total sector emissions.

These machines are very energy intensive and moving to alternative technology is one of the fastest ways to

reduce the energy consumption and utility consumption in a brewery. The technologies investigated in this

project all use considerably less energy than tunnel pasteurisation per hectolitre of beer packaged. From an

average tunnel pasteurisation benchmark (attained from the specific energy of three breweries monitored in

this project) we have worked out the potential savings for breweries and the sector as a whole from moving

away from tunnel pasteurisation to alternatives.

From moving from tunnel to flash pasteurisation there are options on the filling temperature which will slightly

change the energy consumption (depending on how much cooling or extra heating is needed for the off

temperature out of the pasteuriser - see Table 4), of the process but on average there will be a four to eight

times decrease in the primary energy needed, with a potential total sector carbon saving of 12%.

If cold sterile filtration can be used (with a low filling temperature for filling) the primary energy consumption

can be reduced to around 0.6% of that of tunnel pasteurisation. This energy savings works out as around

£375,000 per year for a 2Mhl/yr brewery if moving from tunnel pasteurisation and would result in a total sector

carbon saving of 15% if implemented across the estimated 90% of breweries that still run tunnel

pasteurisation.

UV pasteurisation involves using slightly more energy than cold sterile filtration but the order of savings are in

the same region, using just 1% of the energy used in tunnel pasteurisation, simply powering the pumps and

UV lamps needed to pasteurise the beer. There are however some primary concerns over the technology

and potential effects on beer quality still to be understood. For our 2Mhl/yr brewery the savings using UV

pasteurisation technology would be around £370,000 per annum if moving from tunnel pasteurisation with a

potential total sector CO2 saving of 15%.

In all cases moving from tunnel pasteurisation involves reaping substantial savings in terms of energy

reduction. The more challenging aspect is to work out the payback as this depends on the required quality

standards for each site, affecting the choice of filling conditions from shrouding the existing filler (the cheaper

option at ~£125,000) to purchasing an entirely new filler at over £2,000,000 for a 2Mhl/yr brewery. The

change in payback for the clean room/new filler option is shown in Table 5.

Table 6 Summary of pasteuriser opportunity business cases

Area Description

Sector Applicabili

ty (%)

Sector Carbon Saving (tCO2)


(%)


(£)

CAPEX (£)

Average Payback (Years)

Process optimisation

Optimise tunnel pasteurisers

45% 14,000 3.2% £150,000 Unknown Unknown


Flash pasteurisation with a clean room

45% 53,000 12.0% £300,000 £725,000 2.5


Cold Sterile Filtration with a new filler

50% 69,000 15.4% £350,000 £2,200,000 6.3



Ultraviolet Pasteurisation for

small pack with a new filler

50% 68,000 15.3% £350,000 £2,300,000 6.5


Clean filling conditions: The difficult part for opportunities regarding small pack is that by moving away from

tunnel to flash pasteurisation the filling conditions usually have to become cleaner. This can require a shroud

over the existing filler, a clean room for the filler or an entirely new filling machine, although there is anecdotal

evidence that a lower standard of air cleanliness is sufficient.

A clean room and foam cleaning system amount to £125,000 whereas a set of two new filling machines (one

for can and another for bottles) will cost in the region of £2,000,000 including installation. Depending on which

option is necessary, the paybacks of the opportunities as shown above in Table 6 can vary greatly.

The key barriers to be overcome aside from financing appear to be uneasiness over potential impact on

product shelf life and failure rates. Host companies feel that these techniques are in essence less reliable.

Converts do however cite improvements in product flavour quality due to reduced thermal damage.

Condensation: The main other issue that is regularly brought up is that flash pasteurisation can lead to the

bottles being filled at low temperatures and then picking up condensation before being labelled and packed.

This condensation can cause problems with label application as well as causing cardboard boxes weaken

through dampness.

Bottle warmers have been cited as a solution but the energy needed to run the warmer often removes the

savings from moving to flash pasteurisation in the first place. If this is a genuine problem in UK climatic

conditions (yet to be demonstrated), this can be solved either through filling at higher temperatures with new

fillers (up to 14ºC) or by controlling the amount of moisture in the packing hall through air handling systems.

There have also been developments in labels that work on damp bottles as seen currently in other cold fill

beverage industries such as soft drinks.


6 Key findings and opportunities: keg and cask processing

To investigate the energy used for processing and cleaning kegs and cask two approaches were taken: kegging

plants were metered for compressed air, water, electricity and heat consumption to obtain specific metrics that

could be used for quantifying alternative packaging technologies; whereas for cask cleaning the approach was to

work through from first principles the amount of energy, water and consumables used to clean each cask and

compare several different sites.

We have then used this analysis to compare the current approach of reusable packaging to new single use

keg/cask technologies, as well as identifying process improvement opportunities and technologies.

6.1 Keg processing

The majority of returnable kegs in the UK are made of steel or aluminium and comprise a solid outer shell with a

valve on the top, connected to a spear that runs down through the centre of the keg.

Figure 36 Beer keg cut open to reveal interior

When kegs return to site they have to be cleaned to a specification where fresh beer can be pumped into the keg

and then remain fresh for several months after filling. This involves two processes with the beer being


pasteurised in a flash pasteuriser and the kegs being thoroughly cleaned. The most common set up for this

cleaning is the keg to be cleaned on the outside, washed internally and then sterilised with steam:

1. The keg is washed externally

2. Pre-rinse water is then inserted into the keg

3. After the pre-rinse has drain out of the keg (usually to drain) a heated detergent mixture is added

4. The detergent is drained and a final rinse is put through to clear out any remaining detergent

5. The final rinse is drained out and usually recovered to be used as the pre-rinse for another keg in the

line

6. The keg is filled with steam and held at pressure and temperature to sterilise the internal surfaces of the

keg, valve and spear

7. The steam is let out and fresh beer is filled into the keg

8. The keg is ready to be sealed

In order to quantify the potential savings from alternative packaging we needed to know how much energy is

used to process kegs. For the total keg plant we measured the heat input against production over an eight day

period to demonstrate the relationship between heat necessary and when kegs are actually being processed.

This is demonstrated below in Figure 37.

Figure 37 Heat and electrical demand against keg production over 8 days for kegging plant at Site 2

For a site where half hourly production was not available (but weekly production information was) we also plotted

the heat, electrical demand and water input to the keg plant to understand how much energy and resources were

consumed per hl of beer that was packaged over the monitored period. This is shown in Figure 38.

In both of these cases the electrical load is seen to carry on at a reduced level during periods of no production.

This is could be down to baseload demands such as lighting and air handling which will happen 24/7 for

maintenance or any other work not relating to production in the keg processing plant.


The data was collated over this period to produce a breakdown of the average utility consumption between the

two sites with a total cost per hl based on the following averaged utility prices:

Cost of heat in the boilers (£0.03/kWh)

Cost of electricity (£0.07/kWh)

Cost of water (£1.00/m3)

Cost of effluent (£1.80/m3)

Figure 38 Utility consumption at Site 3 for the kegging plant

6.1.1 Keg pasteurisation

The beer that is packed into kegs is currently pasteurised through flash pasteurisation. The energy for flash

pasteurisation has been taken from the small pack pasteurisation section of this report and taken away from the

total energy going to the kegging plant to give the figure for processing and cleaning the keg only.

An opportunity exists to pasteurise the beer using UV pasteurisation and for this the same parameters have been

used for small pack when looking at the savings associated with moving from flash to UV, only here using the

quantities of beer that are filled into kegs (44% of UK production).

Table 7 Breakdown of average utility consumption per hl for the keg cleaning and filling process at two sites

Keg Processing

Total primary energy 8.4 kWh/hl

Total specific CO2 2.1 kgCO2/hl

Total cost to process a keg 0.42 £/hl

Keg Cleaning & Filling

(minus flash pasteurisation energy) Specific heat (post pasteurisation) 4.0 kWh/hl

Specific electrical energy (post pasteurisation) 0.6 kWh/hl


Specific water 0.7 hl/hl

Total primary energy 5.6 kWh/hl

Total specific CO2 1.4 kgCO2/hl

Total cost to clean and fill a keg 0.34 £/hl

Alternative packaging opportunities

Metal kegs and casks have dominated the market for the last several decades for large pack distribution of lager

and ale. This involves filling a reusable metal container with beer, sending it out to the customer and then

shipping back the empty containers to be cleaned before they are filled again and so the process repeats itself.

The process of cleaning these containers is quite energy intensive as it involves cleaning all of the kegs/casks to

the worst case scenario. The containers are cleaned using a combination of water, detergent and steam. The

other main source of energy consumption for containers is the energy needed to transport these containers to the

point of use.

In order to reduce the energy for kegging and casking these two sets of variables need to be reduced. One

method of doing this is for one way packaging. New packaging systems for beer now offer all the physical

advantages of classical metal kegs and casks (ability to hold pressure, drop-proofness, ease of filling), with the

light weight of a one-way plastic container.

The historical apprehension of one-way containers going to land fill have stifled the market but recent

developments in recycling may have the potential to change the future dynamic.

The key to these alternative technologies reaching market is that they need to be both cost and environmentally

beneficial when compared to existing returnable kegs.

6.1.2 Process optimisation opportunities

Low temperature detergents and sterilants

The heat used in cleaning and sterilising the kegs accounts for 77% of the energy of the variables monitored

(compressed air usage was not shown due to lack of confidence in the monitored results). If cleaning and

sterilisation could be done at a lower temperature then this heat input would not be necessary.

Through reducing the cleaning and sterilisation temperature to ambient the keg cleaning costs (not including

compressed air) could be reduced from 34p to 22p per keg, reducing the annual costs of a 2Mhl/yr brewery by

£120,000 (1Mhl through the kegging plant and the other 1Mhl through small pack).

If all of the sector were able to carry out this conversion the sector could reduce its carbon emissions by 4.8% or

21,000 tCO2 per annum.

6.1.3 Innovative opportunities

One-way keg packaging: The concept is for kegged beer to

be sent in one-way packaging in place of steel and aluminium

kegs as is currently practiced with the majority of the UK pub

market.

The packaging involves a pressurised PET ball that houses a

flexible inner bag. This system allows the traditional system of

using gas at pressure to force the beer out of a keg and up

through the lines. The entire package is inserted into Figure 39 KeyKeg one way kegs


cardboard outer packaging.

For products travelling over 90 miles the manufacturers claim that the new one way packaging products have a

smaller carbon footprint than their returnable metal counterparts.

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 energy used to make a 30 litre one-way keg is equivalent to approximately 0.53 kg of CO2. This works out at

1.7kgCO2 per hl which is currently more than is used to process the kegs in a brewery (currently not counting

compressed air). We can therefore conclude that the carbon savings are not to be found in the brewery but out

on the road/sea/air where the reduced weight allows more beer to be carried on each load and eliminates the

need for empty kegs to be returned. Transport emissions can therefore be more than halved, provided that

alternative backhaul loads can be found.

Based on initial calculations we

estimate that for a 30 tonne

load on an articulated lorry the

difference in carbon emissions

between manufacturing a new,

recyclable plastic one-way keg

and delivering it, versus

processing and delivering a

standard keg breaks even at a

return journey distance of

around 180km from the brewery

(i.e. 90km each way). Beyond

this distance, the one-way keg

offers better net carbon savings

compared to a steel keg. Figure

40 shows the breakdown in

carbon emissions for each keg

type at the breakeven point.

6.2 Cask processing

Casks are cleaned in a different way to kegs as they are not capable of

holding compressed liquid so they must be cleaned through spraying

water and or detergent into the central hole as shown below in Figure 41.

This hole is used for filling and allowing air into the cask so that when it is

opened at the side air can flow in, allowing the beer to drain away.

Figure 41 Beer cask

Information was collected from four ale brewing sites on their cask

washers in order to gauge the level of consumption of a number of variables on a per cask method. This data

was collected through empirical tests without direct metering, so the figures are based on analysis of the

Figure 40 CO2 breakdown for 90km each way trip (CO2 breakeven point)


equipment used, for example, steam usage was calculated by the brewery team mimicking the wash cycle and

measuring the rise in temperature of a bucket of water after passing the sterilisation steam through a pipe to the

bucket.

Compressed air usage

Electrical demand for incorporated motors

Water usage

Water temperature

Steam usage

Detergent usage

These variables have been collated in Table 8 and Figure 42 below, and show that the use of a detergent wash

and effective management of CIP water can lead to significantly lower costs and carbon emissions per cask

cleaned.

For Sites 2 and 3, the higher water consumption (and therefore specific heat as the water is used hot) is due to

the pressure at Sites 2 and 3 being higher for the cleaning jets. Upon investigation it was found that the nozzles

that were used for Sites 2 and 3 were simple slots and inferior to the nozzles at Site 1 which allowed higher

impact velocities for the water with less water usage, through restricting the hole size.

Table 8 Utility consumption per cask cleaned

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

(Detergent wash)

Total electrical energy (kWh) 0.24 0.28 0.29 0.26

Total heat energy (kWh) 2.33 3.87 3.93 1.06

Total water consumption (l) 22 45 45 16

Detergent used No No No Yes

Total energy (kWh) 2.57 4.15 4.22 1.32

Total primary energy (kWh) 2.96 4.59 4.69 1.74

Total CO2 per cask 0.76 1.19 1.21 0.43

The four breweries that were looked at for this cask washer comparison paid different energy cost rates for their

utilities. In order to give a direct comparison average universal rates have been applied to the above specific

utility figures to see how the much the processing a cask in each machine costs.


Figure 42 Energy and cost for cask cleaning across four sites

From this limited data set we have two breweries running high energy intensity washers, one medium and one

low energy intensity washer. To estimate potential sector savings we have taken an average of the two larger

efficiency sites and the medium site, and suggest that 75% of all breweries are in this position, with the potential

to move to the lower energy intensity of the fourth site.

Based on these assumptions, the average cost to clean a nine gallon (0.41hl) cask is £0.09/cask with related

carbon emissions of 0.9 kgCO2, or £0.22/hl and 2.24 kgCO2/hl.

6.2.1 Process optimisation opportunities

Optimising and maintaining rinse nozzles: Ensuring that properly designed and specified rinse nozzles are

used allows the most effective mechanical cleaning performance with the lowest water consumption.

Use of detergent: Through using detergent it is possible to increase cleaning effectiveness and reduce the

water and heat consumption for the cask washer. If a brewery such as Site 3 in Figure 42 could reduce the

utility consumption of their cask washer through the use of detergent to the usages of Site 4 in the same chart

then the site would see an approximate reduction in cost of processing each cask of 7.4p. For a site

processing 200,000 hl/yr in casks of 41l per cask this would results in an annual saving of nearly £36,000.

The average saving for a site is less than this worst to best case scenario as it is from an average utility

consumption to the best case.

In order to proceed with this opportunity the cask washer should be assed as to whether it can be modified to

include a detergent cleaning section while still having separate sections to act as a final rinse to wash. If this

is not possible the only other opportunity is to invest in a new cask washer. The price of a new cask washer

has been estimated at £200,000 (Mircodat) giving a payback of 5.6 years when moving from the worst case

recorded to the best in this study.


6.2.2 Innovative opportunities

UV sterilisation: The use of UV light as a more energy efficient sterilising technique was looked at in this

project but as UV sources have to be surrounded by quartz glass the option was not deemed possible to

include into a cask washer due to the potential of the glass breaking and entering the cask before filling.


Kegs

For kegging an average cost of beer processed has been identified as approximately 50p/hl (excluding the

cost of compressed air) and 5.6kWh/hl of primary energy. The total carbon emissions associated with kegging

account for 6% of the UK sector total.

If keg processing could be carried out at ambient temperature up to 77% of the heat energy used could be

removed.

Alternative (one-way) packaging offers carbon saving potential but the determining factor is the distance they

are transported, the degree to which the plastic containers are recycled in practice, and the degree to which

alternative backhaul loads can be found for delivery vehicles.

Casks

For casking the cost was 9p/cask based on a monitored energy use of 8.52kWh/hl. For casks this report has

shown the value of cleaning with detergent, insofar that it can reduce by up to two-thirds the cost of

processing each cask through the reduction in water and energy needed. The cost of a new cask washing

plant unfortunately prohibits this from being a retrofit opportunity but this information should be taken into

account when replacing systems or planning new facilities.

Table 9 Keg and cask opportunities


Applicability (%)



(%)


(£)

CAPEX (£)

Average Payback (years)

Kegs/Casks Optimising cask

washing 6% 3,100 0.7% £34,000 £250,000 5.9

Kegs/Casks One way

containers 50%

Dependent on

transport

Dependent on

transport

Dependent on

transport Unknown Unknown

Kegs/Casks Ultraviolet

Pasteurisation for kegs

44% 13,000 2.9% £127,000 £240,000

1.9


Compatibility: One of the main reasons metal kegs and casks have not changed their fundamental design

over the last few decades is that most can be filled at any brewery regardless of their brand. The majority of

kegs come in similar sizes with one type of valve that is compatible with most automatic keg processing and

filling machines. Casks differ a little but the machines that process them are usually able to accommodate the

different varieties without too much trouble.

This compatibility relates back to the designs of these containers being free to use and so everyone builds

their machines to be compatible with this industry standard. The new one-way products that are emerging into

the market do not have this advantage, with each having its own geometry, filling adaptors and equipment


which a brewery must buy to convert their existing equipment to be compatible. This creates a barrier in that a

brewery committing to one type of one-way container may be left stranded if another type eventually comes to

dominate the market.

Without consensus within the industry it is unlikely that a one-way product will be introduced widely in the

numbers necessary to make a clear impact on the sector‟s carbon emissions.

Storage and transport: One of the areas that one-way packaging needs to be proficient is their strength

when stacking. Existing containers are stacked several times over in courtyards and on transport lorries and

any other packaging would have to do the same to fit in existing warehouses.


7 Key findings and opportunities: clean-in-place

7.1 Data analysis

Although CIP was not included in the metering process for this project we have taken energy data that was

already available from a single site to get indicative figures for opportunities. The steam used for heating CIP

systems was divided by the overall production for the site (Figure 43 below).

The average specific CIP heat for the measured multipack type brewery over one year was: 0.95 kWh/hl. It

should be noted that we have been unable to explain the steady decline demonstrated over time.

Figure 43 CIP specific energy at a site over 5 months

We have taken the main findings of the investigative works done for the dairy industry IEEA project which we

think are equally applicable to the brewing industry in many areas and have extrapolated the potential savings

available based upon the benchmark derived above. As this was a single figure only acquired from one site this

was compared to the specific heat measured for CIP in the dairy sector IEEA project. As a reference point, the

range recorded for milk was 0.75 – 1.87 kWh/hl.


7.1.1 CIP heat loss bridge

From the IEEA dairy sector monitoring and analysis we were able to break down the heat balance for the CIP

plants monitored. The total energy input was derived from the metered data, whilst tank standing losses and tank

dumps to drain were based on calculation, and the energy lost to drain during CIP was calculated from the

amount of raw detergent addition to the system (replacing losses at a given concentration). The following figures

show two thermal loss bridges for dairy sites. The top bar shows the total energy added to the system over the

monitoring period and the other bars the balance of the heat lost. Both loss bridges are broadly similar.

Figure 44 Example dairy CIP Loss Bridge 1

Figure 45 Example dairy CIP Loss Bridge 2

The key points to note are:

Tank standing losses are from the radiation and convection of heat away from the surface of the CIP tanks

and in general are small.

Caustic lost to drain is the energy lost during each CIP where some of the hot detergent solution is sent to

drain rather than recovered – this forms one of the significant losses from the system and is largely

dependent on system optimisation.

Caustic lost during tank dumps is related to the sporadic dumping of an entire tank when the tank is too

contaminated with foreign material to carry on working effectively – these generally account for a small


amount of losses and hence carbon emissions. In breweries this could however be larger due to

carbonisation of the detergent solutions.

Heating up infrastructure includes heating up pipe work, tanks, valves and other conducting materials that the

CIP solution comes into contact with while in circulation, as well as the subsequent losses to the surrounding

atmosphere – this forms the most significant amount of the CIP heat load.

7.1.2 Effect of temperature on CIP runs

Heat use in CIP is affected by temperature. The temperature of the caustic CIPs measured in the dairy industry

were approximately 80°C (acid CIP temperatures were lower, nearer 65°C), with ambient temperature at 20°C,

therefore the differential temperature is approximately 60°C between equipment at its CIP temperature and the

surroundings. Therefore for every 1°C reduction in CIP temperature there will be approximately 1/60th reduction

in the heat energy needed.

If all CIP was done with caustic at 80°C then for every 10°C reduction in CIP temperature, there would be on

average a 17% (10/60) reduction in the heat energy consumed by CIP. Multiplying out across the sector would

result in a sector-wide reduction of just below 1,400 tCO2 for every 10°C the CIP temperature could be reduced.

This demonstrates the significant potential for optimisation or technologies that reduce temperature.


The opportunities associated with CIP can be classified into two areas: opportunities that involve optimisation of

the current process, and opportunities that require fundamental redesign with a new system.

Through the CIP loss bridges we have shown that the two largest areas of heat use are hot detergent lost to

drain and heat absorbed through infrastructure in order to get the system up to temperature. With detergent loss

to drain there are opportunities for optimisation of the CIP system, but in order to reduce the costs associated

with heating up infrastructure, a system that uses lower temperatures or does not use heat as a fundamental

component of cleaning could be considered.

Minimising detergent loss to drain: By looking at the split of CIP energy use we were able to identify hot

detergent lost to drain during CIP runs as one of the main causes of energy loss. The most common reasons

for CIP systems to lose hot detergent are as follows:

o When cleaning valves and vents, hot detergent solution is pushed out of seals and openings and

this is lost to drain.

o Parts of the system are „non-return‟ CIPs where either the age of the system, or the cost of initially

setting up the return, means that the caustic used to clean these items is not reused and simply

goes to drain.

o When some systems are cleaned the amount of material that the detergent solution picks up results

in the detergent being thrown to drain as it would contaminate the central detergent supply.

o Insufficient caustic tank size means that if a single system is performing multiple cleans at once, the

caustic tank level may fall below the minimum point and will be filled with fresh cold caustic and

water which then needs to be heated up. When the existing caustic solution comes back from the

items it has cleaned there is not enough space in the tank and so the hot solution is either sent to

drain or to the pre-rinse tank and then to drain.

o User alteration: over time, minor adjustments or „tweaking‟ of the system to the CIP recipes can

result in the system becoming out of balance.


o CIP systems are set for specific periods of time and if aspects of wash cycles are optimised to

increase production availability then associated costs can sometimes increase. As energy prices

increase this balance may tip in the other direction.

If a low temperature CIP system was implemented then the cost of heating caustic and fresh water to replace the

solution lost to drain would be mitigated. However before a new CIP system is installed we would recommend

that a CIP engineer visit the site in question and check through all of the items mentioned above with the aim of

achieving some quick wins and reducing the heat, water and chemical demand of the CIP system.

Reduction of CIP water volume and/or temperature would reduce the energy consumption of CIP

systems. It will not be possible to predict how much impact this would have across the sector as each site

benchmarks their CIP systems differently and has a different set up of caustic and acid systems. The

regulated aspects of CIP are the microbial levels within the pipes and not the temperature of the working fluid.

Volume reduction can generally be achieved through incremental monitoring, adjusting and testing. Often

this is best achieved with the assistance of a commissioning engineer.

Reduction in the number of CIPs: Typically CIP cycles are instigated through either timers, product change

and also through operator discretion. Of the three sites monitored as part of the dairy sector IEEA project, the

plant with the highest CIP load had 60% more CIP units for the same volume of raw milk throughput.

Reductions can be achieved in two ways: either increasing the utilisation of the plant whilst keeping the CIP

schedule similar; or reducing the frequency of CIP runs in areas where possible. As CIP is primarily time

driven, the higher the plant utilisation, proportionally the less CIP carried out per unit output.

Understanding what is clean: through a better understanding of “what constitutes clean”, i.e. avoiding an

unnecessary level of cleaning for a required standard of hygiene. Knowing how much energy is used to heat

the fluid used for CIP enables the calculation of potential energy savings from alternative forms of CIP that do

not involve the heating of large amounts of caustic and acid for cleaning.

Optimising process plant design to reduce CIP requirements: Including reducing pipe runs, ensuring all

pipes and tanks are free draining. Further investigation into how the design of process plant and a CIP

system affects its energy demand will be needed to model accurately the potential savings associated with

CIP. The analysis carried out for the dairy sector IEEA project has shown the size of prize that is available in

terms of heating energy reduction potential, but when taking into account chemical usage and pumping costs

the overall energy consumption savings would be considerably greater.

Cleaning of CIP detergent solution with thin membranes: would reduce the amount of hot solution that is

currently lost to drain after becoming too contaminated to return to the main tanks. The cost savings would

be associated with the amount of solution lost through tank dumps and solution not currently returned to the

detergent tank due to excessive soiling.

Reduce infrastructure losses: It is unlikely that the proportion of heating energy used for heating up

infrastructure can be simply reduced through optimisation of current CIP systems. By using an alternative

system that does not use hot solution to clean, the energy that is lost to drain and the energy used to heat up

the infrastructure can be saved, meaning that much of the CIP energy losses could be reduced. An

alternative approach could be to minimise the heat capacity of process equipment through new equipment

materials and design e.g. alternative pipe material.

7.3 Innovative opportunities

If we are to use this figure of 0.95 kWh/hl as the base for CIP heat energy use for breweries then we can

estimate the potential savings for a number of more innovative CIP opportunities.

Real time cleaning verification

Low temperature detergents


Ultrasonic cleaning

Ice pigging

Whirlwind pigging

Electrochemically activated water (ECA)

These are described briefly below; fuller descriptions including business cases are shown in Appendix 6.

Real time cleaning verification: 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.

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.

A previous EU-funded project run by Birmingham University called „ZEAL‟ covering real time cleaning

verification has estimated potential energy savings of up to 50%, by reducing CIP time, as well as reducing

chemical and water use.

It is unknown to what extent the sector could benefit from this 50% reduction through better control of CIP in

real time. We have estimated that 80% of sites could achieve this reduction.

Low temperature detergents: Normally a CIP system works at a temperature of 70 - 80ºC. If we use 80ºC

as a baseline then using a detergent that is effective 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 such CIP technology is ECA or electro chemically activated detergent that produces an anolyte and

catholyte out of a Sodium chloride (salt) solution or other compounds such as sodium carbonate. The anolyte

is a steriliser that removes bio-films and biological compounds and the catholyte solution has many of the

properties of a detergent.

There are however compatibility issues with the ECA technology and acid cleaning systems already installed

in CIP systems in current breweries. ECA can only be used to remove biological compounds and not mineral

deposits such as burn on in the kettle or lime scale. Currently acid is used for removing this but if ECA comes

into contact with acid this results in chlorine gas being given off which is poisonous. The use of this

technology is still possible if the two liquids are kept separate and always flushed with water in-between. The

other option is to use a different solution other than sodium chloride such as sodium carbonate. ECA has

been found to work well in packaging where acid is not used with interest in the UK and further afield in South

Africa to name another country.

Running the 25ºC system on a 2Mhl site will save £66,000 a year and could reduce the UK total brewery

sector emission by 1.7%.

Ultrasonic cleaning: 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 with 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. The wort cooler

would be an obvious application for this at it is frequently subject to blinding; however 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.

This is not a substitute for standard CIP but a system that would work in tandem with it, reducing the load or

frequency of the primary method.

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.

Ice pigging: 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.

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 as the high shear forces within pig mean the ice crystals

effectively dislodge material as they scrape past. Due to its nature the pig is unsuitable for tank cleaning so

only forms a partial CIP solution and, in any case, extensive trials will be needed to evaluate the technology in

terms of its practical applicability and potential cost-effectiveness to the brewing industry.

Whirlwind pigging: 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‟.

An air stream is blown through the pipe work to recover product. This is done by a blower system and does

not involve compressed air (which is very energy inefficient). 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. Heated air is introduced to dry the pipe work.

The technology currently has a small number of active applications in the food and beverage industry, but

trials are needed to prove its wider applicability. The technology cannot be used to clean plate pack heat

exchangers or large tanks and silos. As for ice pigging, further work is needed to evaluate the technology in

terms of its practical applicability and potential cost-effectiveness to the brewing industry.


Through identifying the specific energy for CIP in a brewery and comparing it to the dairy industry benchmark

developed as part of the IEEA dairy sector project, this study has managed to quantify the savings for

switching to low temperature detergents and for real time cleaning verification.

We have identified that through reducing the temperature of CIP in a brewery by 10ºC the energy needed can

be reduced by 17%, giving a saving nearly £7,000 per annum for a 2Mhl/yr site. Running a project on real


time cleaning verification can also offer significant financial savings (reducing energy cost by 50%) and with a

potential sector CO2 savings of up to 1.7% but this will depend on which other opportunities are applied first

and how much CIP related energy consumption has reduced.

There are many novel CIP technologies which have recently been developed such as whirlwind pigging, ice

pigging and ultrasonic cleaning but none of these have been trialled successfully in breweries or produced

any case studies for the brewery industry and so the savings or applicability cannot yet be evaluated.

What this section on newer CIP technologies should provide is insight into what is becoming available and so

when future planning for replacing systems or building new plants takes place they can be quickly considered

and further investigation carried out.

Table 10 CIP opportunities


Applicability (%)



(%)


(£)

CAPEX (£)


CIP

CIP - Real time cleaning

verification ZEAL

80% 4,600 1.0% £40,500 unknown Unknown

CIP CIP - Low temp detergents and

ECA 80% 7,500 1.7% £66,000 unknown Unknown


CIP culture: It is sometimes the case that only a few people working at a brewery know why a CIP system is

set up to have the temperatures, concentrations of detergents and run times that are operated. The case in

the majority of breweries are that a CIP system was set up to clean with a degree of contingency built in. If

this was set up years ago it would have been at a time when the price of energy and water meant that over

cleaning the system by a factors of two or three did not have a substantial impact on the running costs on

site. This is no longer the case.

CIP set points are also regularly altered as a result of poor microbiological results somewhere on a line. A

typical response is to either increase the temperature of CIP or increase the run times of CIP on that line

without really looking into the reasons behind the poor test results. Formalised monitoring, investigation and

change procedures could help to minimise the potential for these changes.

Compatibility with multiple systems: For the alternative CIP systems investigated a common theme has

been that the different systems all offer reduced energy cleaning but are not able to offer the whole brewery

with one solution, as with the current system of caustic, acid and sterilant of today. We have looked at

systems such as ice pigging and whirlwind pigging which can clean lines but not tanks. We have looked at

ECA which is very effective at cleaning biological deposits but cannot remove scale or work near acids.

The issue with proposing multiple CIP systems could be that as the complexity increases the workload of

employees, individual training needs and effective quality control measures become greater or more complex.

Multiple systems may offer substantial energy savings but the added cost of work to maintain such systems

and be trained enough to achieve these savings may not be initially apparent and may be the deciding factors

in their uptake.

Lack of metering: The energy going into CIP was not part of the metering process of this project as it was

felt that to fully understand the energy used within CIP the amount of metering and access to site personal


would exceed the budget of this project. For this reason we have used data from a site that had two CIP

systems from which the monthly data for CIP steam usage was available, as well as drawn on the findings

from the IEEA dairy sector project.

Brewery CIP systems vary from site to site, from systems that deliver flushes, detergent cleaning solutions

and final rinses to into discreet areas of the plant, to systems that have multiple uses. What is common with

most systems is the lack of metered data on the water and energy inputs into these systems and the end

uses for these CIP stations. Without a move to increase the understanding of where energy goes within CIP,

the ability to quantify the savings for new technologies on specific areas will be hampered.


8 Summary of opportunities

8.1 Overview

The approach taken during this IEEA Stage 1 project was to categorise opportunities in terms of “waves”,

dependent on their level of commercial and technical maturity, and associated cost-effectiveness of

implementation. This is shown in the diagram below.

Figure 46 Categorising energy saving opportunities in terms of commercial and technical readiness

The so-called “Wave 1” opportunities include both low/no cost energy good practice measures (such as effective

energy management and maintenance), as well as proven energy and carbon saving technologies for which

there is a solid business case without any need for external grant support or subsidy. Examples in this latter

category include VSDs, improved controls, and areas of process optimisation such as high gravity brewing.


To the extent that these cost-effective opportunities have not yet been implemented within the brewery sector,

the requirement is one of awareness raising across companies and sites so that they can be taken up to their

fullest extent, allowing for the fact that some sites may have insurmountable, site-specific constraints to

implementation.

The “Wave 2 and 3” opportunities are those where there are financial, commercial, process-related and/or

technical barriers to be overcome and these therefore are the focus of this project. These opportunities can be

classed as either ready to be piloted at a demonstration scale at a brewery site or to be the subject of further

tests and/or development to generate the additional data needed to quantify their energy saving benefits in more

detail, as well as to provide confidence for the industry to speed up the uptake of the technology.

The barriers here relate to high costs (since they are not yet in production and so must be built as “one-offs”), or

to available experience (for example, beer has not been pasteurised in the UK using UV light before ).

8.2 General best practice energy efficiency opportunities

The following best practice opportunities have been extracted from the collated survey responses, selecting the

measures that were still possible (i.e., not yet implemented, but could be), at most sites, but which also have the

potential to achieve effective emissions reduction. The full summary of responses to the check list survey can be

found in Appendix 2.

Based on the ten survey respondents, the following list summarises the measures which had the most potential

for implementation (i.e., had not yet been implemented, but could be):

Monitoring and targeting: Protected budgets for energy saving measures

Process: Recover heat from spent grain (40% possible)

Boilers and steam distribution: Install a flue gas economiser (50%)

Cooling and refrigeration: Reduce unnecessary parasitic loads e.g. pumping (60% possible)

Compressed air: install VSDs onto compressors (50% possible).

Buildings and lighting: Presence sensors (60% possible)

Appendix 2 provides the full list of survey questions (the good practice “check list”) as well as tabulated summary

of responses.


Table 11 and Table 13 below summarises the process optimisation opportunities identified as part of this project

and relevant to the focus subject areas.

8.4 Innovative opportunities

Table 12 and Table 14 below summarises the more innovative opportunities investigated as a part of this project.


Table 11 Process optimisation opportunities

Wave

(1) Area Description

1 Kettle Calorific Kettle Heating

1 Kettle Reducing boil-off & using a sparge ring

1 Kettle Vapour heat recovery

1 Kettle Reduction in calandria steam pressure

1 Kettle Adding adjunct after the kettle

1

Tunnel Pasteuriser Optimisation using water & energy metering

1 Tunnel Pasteuriser Operational scheduling & line stoppages

1 Tunnel Pasteuriser Insulation of pipes, valves and surface areas

1 Tunnel Pasteuriser Maintenance of pumps, valves and control systems, operational practice

1 Tunnel Pasteuriser Use flash steam condensers on heat exchangers

1 Tunnel Pasteuriser Increasing thermal regeneration

1 Tunnel Pasteuriser Use of a cooling tower for final cooling zone water cooling

1 Tunnel Pasteuriser Intelligent water exchange during imbalance

1 Tunnel Pasteuriser PU controls

1 Tunnel Pasteuriser Smaller water reservoirs

1 Flash Pasteuriser Improving heat exchanger regeneration efficiency

1 Flash Pasteuriser Circulation of Pasteurisers & hibernation

1 Flash Pasteuriser Pasteuriser holding Tube Insulation

1 CIP Minimising detergent loss to drain

1 CIP Reduction of CIP water volume and/or temperature

1 CIP Reduction in the number of CIPs

1 CIP Understanding what is clean and more robust commissioning

1 CIP Optimising process plant design to reduce CIP requirements

1 CIP Cleaning of CIP detergent solution with thin membranes

1 CIP Reduce infrastructure heat losses


Table 12 Innovative opportunities and significant changes

Wave (2/3)

Area Description

2 Kettle Continuous brewing

3 Kettle Sequential brewing

2 Pasteurisation Use of alternative energy efficient heat sources such as heat pumping from refrigeration

2 Heat pump

Use a heat pump to take waste heat from refrigeration systems and increase its temperature so that it can be used elsewhere in the brewery (egg, pasteurisation processes)

3 Pasteurisation Pulsed electric field pasteurisation

3 CIP Ice pigging

3 CIP Whirlwind pigging

3 CIP UV cleaning

3 CIP Advanced oxidation/ECA


Table 13 Quantified best practice and generic process optimisation opportunities

Wave (1/2/3)


Applicability (%)



(%)


(£)

CAPEX (£)


1 Best practice Carry out all opportunities from best practice

check list 100% 22,300 5.0% £374,000 Unknown Unknown

1 Process

optimisation Reduce boil-off 100% 11,200 2.52% £55,500 Unknown Unknown

1 Process

optimisation Increase high gravity dilution 100% 11,900 2.66% £58,800 Unknown Unknown

1 Process

optimisation Optimise tunnel pasteurisers 100% 14,000 3.15% £154,400 Unknown Unknown

1 Process

optimisation Optimising cask washing 6% 3,100 0.7% £34,000 £250,000 5.9

Table 14 Quantified innovative opportunities and significant changes – the business cases

Wave (1/2/3)


Applicability

(%)


(tCO2)


(%)


(£)

CAPEX

(£)

Average Payback

(Years)

2 Small pack

pasteurisation Flash pasteurisation with a clean room 45% 53,400 12.0% £295,000 £727,000 2.5

2 Small pack

pasteurisation Cold sterile filtration 50% 68,600 15.4% £350,000 £2,200,000 6.3

2 Pasteurisation Heat pump on refrigeration condensers 100% 29,200 6.5% £280,000 £750,000 2.7

2 Kettle Wort stripping column 100% 21,600 4.8% £152,000 £360,000 2.4

2 Kettle Wort steam injection 100% 18,700 4.2% £132,000 £420,000 3.2

2 Kegs/Casks One way containers 50% Dependent on

transport Dependent on

transport Dependent on

transport Unknown

Dependent on transport


Wave (1/2/3)


Applicability

(%)


(tCO2)


(%)


(£)

CAPEX

(£)

Average Payback

(Years)

distance distance distance distance

2 CIP CIP - Real time cleaning verification

(Project ZEAL) 80% 4,600 1.0% £40,500 Unknown Unknown

3 CIP CIP – Novel technologies and low

temperature detergents (including ECA) 80% 7,500 1.7% £66,355 Unknown Unknown

3 Small pack

pasteurisation Ultraviolet pasteurisation for small pack 50% 68,300 15.3% £350,000 £2,270,000 6.5

3 Kegs/Casks Ultraviolet pasteurisation for kegs 44% 13,000 2.9% £127,000 £240,000 1.9


9 Sector roadmap and next steps for the UK brewery sector

9.1 The step change roadmap

This section describes our recommended next steps for the significant opportunities (larger than 10,000 tonnes

There have been multiple opportunities identified for the brewing sector to reduce energy consumption in each of

the focus process areas. But many of these opportunities represent different ways to save the same energy from

a process, and therefore cannot simply be added together. Examples of this are flash pasteurisation, cold sterile

filtration and UV pasteurisation, only one of which can be implemented at a site. The sequence in which

improvements are made also has an impact; for example, if all brewers move to a position of best practice for

boil-off and HG dilution in the kettle, then this will reduce the impact of other, newer kettle technologies that may

subsequently be introduced.

Figure 47 Three-wave step reduction potential in sector CO2 emissions


In Figure 47 above, we have shown a potential road map for reducing CO2 emissions within the sector, which

describes how a sequential roll-out of energy saving improvements, based on degree of technical maturity and

cost-effectiveness, could achieve step change reductions in sector energy consumption and equivalent carbon

emissions:

The first bar shows the total opportunity available as 100% at the “Start,” where no changes have yet been

made (ie, this represents the current level of sector-wide carbon emissions);

The second bar marked “Wave 1” shows that 14% of current sector carbon emissions can be reduced

through the implementation of best practice technologies and operational practices, as well as by extending

the process optimisation techniques described in this report across all areas of the industry.

The third bar, “Wave 2” shows that a further 12% emissions reduction can be achieved through the

implementation of more innovative but nonetheless commercially available technologies that are not yet in

widespread use within the UK. Such technologies include, for example, flash pasteurisation, vapour heat

recovery, direct steam injection and the wort stripping column.

The fourth bar, “Wave 3”, shows that we estimate that realistically a further 5% carbon savings could be

achieved through the implementation of more advanced, pre-commercial technologies such as UV

pasteurisation, real-time cleaning verification and low temperature detergents.

Finally, the fifth bar, “End”, shows the potential end-point of a systematic, sector-wide programme of

emissions reduction, resulting from the implementation, over time, of Wave1, Wave 2 and Wave 3

opportunities. Allowing for the wide range in potential outcomes from Wave 3, this final level of emissions

could be reduced to 69% of current emissions level.

Hence the carbon reduction roadmap described above and shown in Figure 47 shows that by sequentially

implementing Wave 1, Wave 2 and Wave 3 opportunities, a 31% reduction in sector carbon emissions is

achievable, equivalent to 138,000tCO2 per year (assuming annual sector baseline emissions of 446,000tCO2).

9.2 Elements of the roadmap

The above roadmap of Figure 47 has been based upon the following scenario. Note that we have calculated the

carbon impact of each “wave” assuming that the preceding wave has reduced the carbon baseline position (ie,

the percentage savings of Wave 2, have been calculated against a carbon starting position which is already lower

than the current level, since we assume that Wave 1 opportunities have already been taken).

Similarly, we have tried to avoid double-counting the impacts of similar technologies and have instead calculated

the reduction potential based on the technology which offers the greatest saving.

Wave 1: Energy efficiency best practice and brewery process optimisation

By carrying out all feasible best practice opportunities and sustaining a high standard of energy and water

management we estimate that a 5% saving could be made across the industry. This will result in a sector saving

of 22,300tCO2.

A large number of process optimisation opportunities were identified for the sector focusing on the kettle, small

pack pasteurisation, keg and cask processing and CIP. We estimate that a systematic approach to the

implementation of these opportunities, including:

Optimising cask cleaning;

Reducing the boil-off in the kettle;

Moving to higher gravity brewing; and


Optimising tunnel pasteurisers

will deliver a further estimated savings of 9% or 40,000tCO2 of sector CO2 emissions.

Wave 2: Opportunities on the horizon

A number of opportunities were identified which have the potential to make big step changes; many, such as

vapour heat recovery, flash pasteurisation and cold sterile filtration, are mature technologies elsewhere in the

world but take-up in the UK has been low due to concerns over quality impacts, lack of capital, and payback

periods which, although good in terms of rates of return on investment, are still longer than the two years or so

normally expected by industry. We estimate that engaging in a select number of initiatives including:

Installing either a wort stripping column or wort steam injection apparatus for the kettle, which could result in a

further maximum reduction of 1.2%, equivalent to 5,500tCO2 of sector carbon emissions if implemented

across the industry after Wave 1 opportunities have been implemented (or 4.8% and 21,500tCO2 respectively

if implemented from a current position baseline).

Switch to flash pasteurisation or cold sterile filtration for small pack pasteurisation after implementing

pasteurisation process optimisation. This would result in a maximum sector carbon emission reduction (with

cold sterile filtration) of 12.2%, 54,500tCO2 (or 15.4% and 68,500tCO2 from a current position baseline).

Using a heat pump to recover low grade waste heat from refrigeration compressors, to provide hot water at

up to 80oC to pasteurising and/or CIP processes, is another potentially effective energy and carbon saving

measure. Although viability will depend on pipe lengths, the amount of recoverable condenser waste heat and

other site-specific factors, heat pumps could result in a sector carbon emission reduction of up to 6.5%

against the current emissions baseline (equivalent to 29,200tCO2/yr).

Wave 3: the future

A few game changing technologies have been identified but will require both a time and financial commitment

from the industry to bring them to fruition. We estimate the key areas showing potential are:

Use UV pasteurisation for small pack and keg pasteurisation

Carry out real time cleaning verification through enhanced monitoring of CIP return water and clearer

definitions of “what constitutes clean”

Use low temperature detergents, including ECA (electrochemically activated water).This opportunity is only

worth only 50% as much if done in conjunction with real time cleaning verification, as these reduce the CIP

baseline energy consumption.

As part of the road map the total further potential for these opportunities is shown as 5.0%, equivalent across

the sector to an annual reduction of 22,400tCO2

Not all of the measures covered by the three waves are additional since, as mentioned above, some

technologies are targeted at the same energy saving opportunity (for example, direct steam injection and a wort

stripping column are alternative methods to reduce kettle-related energy consumption, so are not additive).

Similarly, lower cost, easier to implement measures (which should be done first, as part of Wave 1), will reduce

baseline energy consumption and hence the potential impact (in absolute terms) of the more innovative

measures included in Waves 2 and 3.

The road map of Figure 47 takes these factors into account, and shows that by sequentially implementing Wave

1, Wave 2 and Wave 3 opportunities, a 31% reduction in sector carbon emissions is achievable, equivalent to

138,000tCO2 per year (assuming annual sector baseline emissions of 446,000tCO2).


9.3 Next steps for the UK brewery sector

Awareness within the UK brewing industry of the need for energy and carbon savings is high, and the cost-

focused nature of the sector means it has already taken many steps to reduce energy consumption. But there is

still potential to raise awareness of „what is still possible‟ in terms of best practice and process optimisation, as

well as an opportunity to investigate the implementability of more innovative technologies on a pilot or

demonstration scale. We recommend that the brewing industry takes the following tiered approach to energy and

carbon efficiency improvement.

Implement remaining good practice: More robust implementation of good practice opportunities at all sites

in the sector is recommended. Operational staff should be made more aware of the level of opportunity that

is still available as indicated by the best practice survey, and companies should ensure that this is applied

consistently across all sites.

Optimise existing processes: A number of significant opportunities were highlighted including the remaining

potential for reducing boil-off, increasing high gravity dilution, optimising tunnel pasteurisation and optimising

cask washing machines.

Businesses should focus on making operational staff more aware of the level of opportunity that is still

available as indicated by the process improvement opportunities highlighted.

Engage in demonstration and pilot projects: The opportunities discussed in this report have been costed

where possible for an average brewery producing 2Mhl/year. This „average‟ brewery has a product split of

50:50 between small pack and large pack and has been used to give the sector an appreciation of the

potential savings and the estimated capital cost where available. For any further level of detail these

opportunities need to be worked out on a site by site basis, taking into account the specific set-up of the

brewery, its present energy consumption and the product split.

For Wave 1 and 2 projects that sites may find interesting, individual business cases must be drawn up taking

into account the site specific conditions. This will very quickly indicate whether the opportunity is viable under

the availability of capital for the project.

For the Wave 3 concepts sites should look to either invest in burgeoning technologies themselves in the

interest of gaining the technical edge on their competitors or the risk could be shared equally among several

partners. Projects to test equipment such as UV pasteurisation and low temperature detergents could be

shared by organisations, all equally benefitting from the energy reduction rewards. Many brewing companies

operate small-scale brewing plant for the development and testing of new products; such plant could also be

used to trial new process technologies, and to monitor any impact on product quality, under controlled

conditions. This sort of work could be done in collaboration with technology developers/suppliers.

There is an opportunity here for industry to collaborate with equipment suppliers to prove that some of the

more innovative technologies are technically feasible and have the potential to offer the level of savings

expected. Some require modest investments, while others require substantially more.

Whilst the challenge is often significant for companies to obtain sufficient internal capital to support

investments around energy reduction, collaborating together with other companies and equipment suppliers

may be a way to help share the financial costs. Initial pilot scale tests at research facilities or universities may

offer a lower cost way to gain confidence before deploying on site.

BBPA support: The BBPA should play a pivotal role in pushing forward campaigns that focus on some of the

areas that this study has delved into. It is in a good position to encourage cross-sectoral awareness of best

practice and process optimisation techniques, though the production of case studies and events. Many of the

barriers to implementing best practice and process optimisation are cultural in nature. Industry wide initiatives

lead by the BBPA could help to focus the sector on specific areas of best practice and process optimisation.


When new technologies are implemented successfully, a case study could be shared throughout the industry.

This would help instil confidence in new technology and speed its integration into the sector. An example of

this would be sharing the experience at Shepherd Neame with their direct wort steam injection system, which

has saved almost 50% of evaporation energy in the kettle.

As capital was highlighted as being one of the main reasons for not being able to move forward with many of

these opportunities the proposed Green Bank could be investigated with the BBPA instigating access to

finance.

The Carbon Trust hopes to continue dialogue with the British Beer and Pub Association, sector companies

and technology providers to develop new opportunities to support the implementation of energy and carbon

saving projects and technologies.


Appendices

Appendix 1: Metering rationale Appendix 2: Good practice checklist Appendix 3: Kettle technologies and business cases Appendix 4: Small pack technologies and business cases Appendix 5: Keg/cask technologies and business cases Appendix 6: CIP technologies and business cases


Appendix 1: Metering rationale

Capturing the following variables for each process shown in Table A1.1 will allow a detailed understanding to be

developed and allow the comparison of information collected from the different sites.

Table A1.1 Processes to be metered at each site

Host site Plant to be metered Rationale

–Site A The kettle The selected plant is representative of the more

technically advanced breweries. The amount of current metering allows in depth analysis of the majority of processes at this plant

Small pack pasteurisation There are both tunnel and flash pasteurisers allowing a case study comparison between the two technologies.

Kegging The equipment is largely representative of what is in more energy efficient breweries, with alternative heat sources being used (hot liquor). This set up is also designed for sending kegs abroad and cleaning them to the highest possible standard

Additional metering required

1 x hot water meter to measure the hot liquor going into the kegging plant

–Site B The kettle The selected plant is representative of the more middle stage breweries. The amount of current metering allows in depth analysis of the majority of processes at this plant. The technology of the plant is suitably different to provide a useful comparison against the kettles at other sites within this programme.


No additional metering required


Host site Plant to be metered Rationale

Site C Small pack pasteurisation The older tunnel pasteuriser can be used in the

comparison case study against the newer pasteurisers at Magor.

Kegging The equipment is similar to other breweries but with enough subtle difference to make monitoring it useful when determining the difference in demand when compared to the other sites.


3 x cold water meters: flow and return for cooling tower water to the pasteuriser & water for the bottle rinser

2 x electrical meters for the bottle line: electrical consumption for the pasteuriser and electrical consumption for the rest of the bottling line

Site D Small pack pasteurisation The older tunnel pasteuriser can be used in the comparison case study against the newer pasteurisers at Magor.

Casking The cask cleaning plant is largely representative of many smaller ale brewery systems and is being compared to 4+ other cask washers and new washer.


Rental of a new cask washer for a one week period

Site E The kettle This is representative of older breweries with limited technical improvements over the basic kettle design. This would provide a useful technical comparison to the more advance kettle at the other breweries in this program

Kegging This kegging plant is representative of another type of heavily cleaned keg process as kegs are all cleaned for foreign export.


GPRS router for sending back 4 signals from kettle 'piggy backed' meters

Meters for steam, water, electrical and compressed air with signal sent back via GPRS router for kegging plant


Table A1.2 Variables to be measured on each process

Process Variable Rationale

The kettle At a time interval of 1 minute By recording these variables we will be able to build a model showing the amount of energy needed to produce different variations of boil using different technologies. This data can then be used to quantify the savings associated with alternative methods and technologies as well as their impact on the quality of the beer. As the kettle is the single biggest user of energy on site and most sites have a similar set up any savings made here will provide substantial savings across the sector.

Kettle temperature

Kettle volume

Temperature of wort coming out of Calandria

Heat energy going into the calandria

Energy recovered from vapour heat recovery in stack (where this is installed)

Heat energy going into the wort pre-heater (where this is installed)

Measured per brew

The type of beer being brewed

The gravity of the beer being produced


At a time interval of 30 minutes By recording these variables we will be able to build a case study of the different types of pasteurisation available at the moment while also using the information to quantify the savings associated with alternative methods and technologies. Previous experience suggests that there is a heat needed with flash pasteurisation is five times less than that of tunnel pasteurisation and so this could lead to considerable savings if the process is taken up across the sector.

The production of the pasteuriser and bottling process

The type of beer being brewed

Heat going into the pasteuriser

Water being used by the pasteuriser and bottling process

Elect being used by the pasteuriser and bottling process

Kegging At a time interval of 30 minutes This information will allow us to make a comparison study with the amount of heat, water, compressed air and electricity that is being used in the cleaning process for each keg. This information can then be used as an industry benchmarking tool and referenced against the type of equipment found on each metered site. This benchmarking can then be used to quantify the savings associated with alternative methods and technologies. Through understanding the amount of steam used in sterilisation loss bridge of the process can be built, identifying where the highest energy demands are in the process and focussing our investigation on them.

The number of kegs through the keg cleaning process over a period of time

Heat used in the Kegging plant over this period

Water used in the Kegging plant over this period

Electricity used in the Kegging plant over this period

Steam use for final sterilisation (where available)

Casking Metrics measured per cask cleaning cycle This information will allow us to make a comparison study with the amount of heat, water, compressed air and electricity that is being used in the cleaning process for each keg. This information can then be used as an industry benchmarking tool and referenced against the type of equipment found on each metered site. This benchmarking can then be used to quantify the savings associated with alternative methods and technologies while demonstrating which approach uses the least energy and water.


Appendix 2: Good practice checklist

A2.1 Methodology

The following questions were asked in the good practice survey sent to brewing industry members as part of this

project. The options for response were:

Implemented

Possible

Not possible

No selection

The check list had drop-down boxes where, if the measure had not been implemented, an option could be

chosen as to why not. The options were:

Pay back too long >12 months



Impact on production downtime

Lack of people skills

Lack of available capital budget

Lack of available revenue budget

Saving not perceived large enough

Saving not perceived large enough

Not relevant to our specific processes / operation

Other – please indicate to the right (in a comment box)

The good practice measures are listed in the following sections.


A2.2 Good practice measures, by utility area

Compressed air

Sequence compressors to reduce unloaded hours

Use high efficiency jet nozzles in blowing applications

Replacement of outdated pneumatic tools

Connect specific applications of compressed air to separate compressed air facilities. Do not run the entire

compressed air system at high pressure to satisfy one user when a booster could be used

Heat recovery for space heating or hot water

Ensure cold feed air for compressors

Application of small weekend compressor

Install VSD compressors or retrofit VSD on existing compressors

Isolate unused areas e.g. at weekends

Separate compressed-air networks (high/low pressure/quality) to minimise generating costs

Buildings / lighting

Switch lighting to energy saving lamps or LED lighting

Daylight dependable control

Lighting on the workplace evaluation for lighting per m2 of floor space

Presence sensors

High frequent lighting containing fittings with an optical mirror system

Installing several light switching groups

Cooling and refrigeration

Improve part load performance by changing compressor sequencing or retrofitting a VSD

Reduce parasitic loads e.g. unnecessary pumping

Fit VSDs to secondary pumping

Fit VSDs to condenser and evaporator fans

Common compressor suction and discharge piping

Heat recovery from oil coolers

Floating head pressure control on condenser fans

Electronic expansion valves on DX systems

Adiabatic cooling on air cooled condensers

Use alternative heat sinks if available e.g. river or lake

Have large enough pipes to minimise pressure drop

Calculate and reduce your cooling loads e.g. chilling set points (increase by 0.5°C?)


Reduce condensing temperature

Increase evaporating temperature / secondary coolant temperature

Switch off evaporator fans with compressor

Automatic air bleed

Heat recovery (de-superheat/oil heat recovery)

High efficiency motor or double-speed motor for evaporator fans

Smooth loads to stabilise plant loading

Improving heat release of condenser to reduce scaling and water treatment

Boiler and steam distribution

Sequence boilers to reduce low fire running

To improve burner efficiency use oxygen trim through exhaust gas analysis

Fit VSDs to FD fan and feed pump

Flue gas economiser (preheats boiler feed water)

Measure and increase condensate return

Improve lagging on valves, steam and condensate pipe

RO treat make up water to reduce blowdown

Using closed loop dosing

Use automatic side and bottom blowdown controls

Use of direct firing for hot water generation

Condensate flash steam injection e.g. into CIP detergent tank or high pressure condensate return

Reduce end user steam pressure to reduce flash losses

Increase hot well temperature or use a de-aerator to reduce blowdown (less chemicals required)

Manage instantaneous loads or use a surplussing valve

Blowdown heat recovery

Use fully modulating burner

Vacuum

Switching off pump outside of working hours

Optimising pressure measurement

Frequency control of pumps

Valves at point of use

Waste water treatment


Intermittent aeration

Connecting aeration to measurement of the oxygen level

Full utilization of biogas

Mechanical sludge dewatering

Decreasing sludge content (amount of sludge per m3)

Anaerobic (pre- or post-) treatment

Process

Recover heat from spent grain

VSD on grain blowers and conveyors

VSD on dust extraction systems

Equipment efficiencies / baseloads

CIP

Use sensors (conductivity) instead of timers for CIP runs

Recover final rinse water for pre-rinse.

Recover heat from hot final rinse

Other

Voltage reduction - fit tap down transformers

Scheduling & Simulation (debottlenecking/buffer reduction)

Use of cogged V-belts instead of standard V-belts to transfer mechanical power

Monitoring and targeting

Have a written energy policy

Have a quantitative improvement target

An assigned carbon/energy manager at site level

Regular on site meetings to review energy use

Regular collection of main meter data

Extensive sub-metering on key processes

Half hourly collection of sub meter data

Regular analysis of consumption patterns (e.g. regression analysis)

Utility mass balances

Cary out regular energy surveys

Energy awareness training for staff


Technical training for staff

Active reporting systems for energy waste (e.g. steam leaks)

Predicative maintenance procedures on energy consuming plant equipment

Good operation/practice guides

Capital procedure to take account of energy

Capital procedure to take account of carbon savings

Hedged budget for energy saving measures

A2.3 Summary of responses

This section shows the results of the survey (for the 10 sites which responded), by utility area.









Appendix 3: Kettle technologies and business cases

A3.1 Wort Stripping column

The concept involves applying alternative wort boiling technology that offers major energy savings while

producing very high quality wort, and so improving final beer quality. The technology also assures an efficient and

flexible elimination of unwanted volatile compounds in the wort (such as DMS – dimethyl sulfides).

The device is placed "in line" between the wort cooler and the settling tank and sends the wort through a packed

bed, with steam sent up through the bed in the opposite direction. This packed bed increases the surface area of

the wort, while subjecting the liquid to high temperature steam, ensuring that volatiles can be removed effectively.


Where is the technology currently used?

The technology is currently used in seven breweries around the world, noticeably several large international

breweries with the following size throughput. 10, 200, 200, 400, 450, 600, 1,000 hl/hour systems.

What is the advantage over the current best practice?

With a maximum evaporation rate of 2% the amount of energy used in the wort boiling process is dramatically

reduced, especially for the breweries that currently operate at higher boil-off.

Figure A3.2 Illustration of where a stripping column would sit in the wort processing line

Are there any limitations to the technology?

The steam used for this system must be free from all contaminants and be fit for mixing with the wort.

What is the development stage of the technology?

This technology is a fully commercial product that is provided by a well-respected international process

equipment manufacturer, offering comprehensive after sales care and support.

Barriers to overcome

The main obstacle to overcome is a culture change within brewers to allow the beer to be brewed in a deferent

method to what has been a historically stable process for hundreds of years.

Who are the technology providers?

Meura, Boccard Enterprises, Belgium


Business case: wort stripping

Wort stripping column

Carbon Emissions

Original process intensity 2.50 - 6.63 kWh thermal energy / hl

0.67 1.78 kgCO2/hl

New process intensity 2.05 - 3.53 kWh thermal energy / hl

0.55 0.95 kgCO2/hl

Specific energy saved 0.45 3.10 kWh thermal energy / hl

Carbon intensity saved 0.12 - 0.83 kgCO2/hl

Sector applicability 100%

% high and low 50.0% 50.0%

Sector carbon dioxide saving (absolute)

5,488 - 37,506 tCO2 per annum

Sector % carbon dioxide saving 1.2% - 8.4% per annum

Site Financials

Site Capex (2,000,000 hl/yr site) £360 £360 £k

Cost Saving £39 - £265 £k per annum

Payback 9.3 - 1.4 years

Lifetime Savings

Lifetime Carbon Cost 1,475.8 - 215.9 £/tCO2

Technology Life (persistence) 15 15 years

Lifetime Carbon Cost per year 98.4 - 14.4 £/tCO2/year


A3.2 Wort steam injection

The technology is a specifically designed steam injection system that produces very effective mixing through promoting a supersonic shock wave in the mixing zone. This wort is atomised and the mixture of high surface area and the high temperature of the steam allow for elevated removal of volatiles and unwanted flavours from the beer. Through removing these compounds faster the total amount of energy needed in the boil is reduced. This technology can be retrofitted to existing wort coppers and takes the place of heat exchanger based calandrias. Where is the technology currently used?

The technology has been successfully installed at Shepard Neame brewery and has been producing beer to previously high standards for several years. What is the advantage over the current best practice?

Up to 50% energy reduction in evaporation energy for boil-off compared to using calandria based technology.

Parameters such as unwanted volatiles and hop isomerisation can be easily controlled.

No burn-on of material as there is no heat exchange surface – improvement of quality and reduction in CIP

times and energy.

Faster wort stabilisation times resulting from a more effective heat exchange medium.

Capacity for increasing capacity without further capital expenditure

Figure A3.3 Wort steam injection system provided by PDX Are there any limitations to the technology?

The steam used for this system must be free from all contaminants and be fit for mixing with the wort.



This is a fully commercial product that is offered by an international R & D organisation that offer comprehensive after sales care and support in the UK Barriers to overcome

The main obstacle to overcome is a culture change within brewers to allow the beer to be brewed with a different method to what has been a historically stable process for hundreds of years. Business case

Wort steam injection

Carbon Emissions

Original process intensity 2.50 - 6.63 kWht/hl

0.67 1.78 kgCO2/hl

New process intensity 2.22 - 3.81 kWht/hl

0.60 1.02 kgCO2/hl

Specific energy saved 0.28 2.82 kWh/hl

Carbon intensity saved 0 - 1 kgCO2/hl

Sector applicability 100% %

% high and low 50.0% 50.0%

Sector carbon dioxide saving (absolute) 3,382 - 34,096 tCO2 per annum

Sector % carbon dioxide saving 0.8% - 7.6% % per annum

Site Financials

Site Capex (2,000,000 hl/yr site) £420 £420 £k



Lifetime Savings

Lifetime Carbon Cost 2,794.4 - 277.2 £/tCO2

Technology Life (persistence) 15 15 years

Lifetime Carbon Cost per year 186.3 - 18.5 £/tCO2/year


Appendix 4: Small pack technologies and business cases

A4.1 Heat pump on main refrigeration plant

What is the technology?

A high temperature hot water heat pump is a mechanism for

the recovery of waste heat from existing centralised site

refrigeration systems to generate hot water which can

subsequently be used to heat brewing processes including

pasteurisers, CIP and bottle washers. It takes low grade heat

from the hot pressurised refrigerant gas which would normally

be discharged to atmosphere at around 30°C, and using a

secondary high pressure compressor system, upgrades it to a

condensing temperature which can heat up water via a heat

exchanger to a maximum 82°C.

Using a buffer tank and pumps, the hot water is distributed

around the factory, (in a similar fashion to that of a regular

chilled water system – but hot) and is used as a heat source

for processes.


All refrigeration plants are in fact a type of heat pump, but their primary purpose is to remove rather than deliver

heat. With technology advancements and government led incentives, air and ground source heat pumps are now

becoming more widely used in commercial

buildings as energy efficient means to

provide low temperature hot water for

heating.

In the food and drink sector in the UK

there are currently a handful of examples

of hot water heat pumps but these are

limited to food manufacturers that have a

requirement for large volumes of 50°C –

60°C wash down water.

The first example of a heat pump using


refrigeration condenser hear as a low temperature source in a dairy, is currently being installed in the North West

of England. We are not aware of any brewery examples.

What is the advantage over current practice?

Currently steam raised by firing a boiler is normally used as a heating medium in breweries and has an efficiency

of 60% - 80% for useful output. A heat pump producing 80°C water has a COP of around 5; or in other words, an

efficiency of around 500% heat output to electrical energy in.

When the relative costs of fuel and electricity are taken into account, as well as the different carbon intensities of

the different energy sources, a significant saving in carbon emissions and costs is made over existing technology.

Are there any limitations?

If the generation of process waste heat and the requirement for heat are not synchronised, this could cause heat

storage issues at the factory. A hot water heat pump is limited to generating water temperatures of just over

80°C, whereas temperatures far in excess of 100°C can be achieved using a conventional steam system,

therefore flexibility is lower. However 80°C should be sufficient for thermal pasteurisation processes.

The higher the temperature of heat required, the lower the efficiency of the heat pump become, therefore water

temperature has a direct impact on project economics.

What is the development stage?

To be considered useful for pasteurisation and CIP in a brewery, heat sources need to be in the region of 80-

85°C. Until recently limitations in fridge plant technology have meant that the maximum temperature achievable

using a heat pump was 65-70°C and at a low coefficient of performance (COP) or efficiency.

New design and technology developments have meant that a fully commercialised skid mounted capable of

generating 82°C water is available. The first example of a dairy application of this technology is currently being

installed in the North West of England and undergoing commissioning. We are unaware of a brewery application.


A lack of industry case studies and technology acceptance could be barriers to take up of heat pump systems.

Maintaining existing systems in tandem till the capability of new heat pump system is proved could be a solution

for this. If the first UK dairy implementation later this year proves successful there will also be tangible results to

be assessed and many of these concerns may be overcome.

Effective integration to existing process heating systems may also be complex as the application of a heat pump

affects numerous systems including processing, steam and refrigeration. The distance between refrigeration

condensers and pasteuriser units may prove a barrier: if too long, the cost of insulated pipework could render the

project financially unviable.


GEA Grenco: a refrigeration plant manufacturer who produce a skid-mounted high temperature heat pump

Star Refrigeration: a UK based industrial refrigeration engineering company.


Business case

The example below assumes that a heat pump system recovering low grade heat from refrigeration condensers

can substitute between 30% and 50% of the total thermal energy needed for a site‟s small-pack pasteurisation

processes.

Heat pump on refrigeration condenser

Carbon Emissions Notes

Original process intensity 11.79 - 11.79 kWh/hl Relating to pasteurisation process

3.33

3.33 kgCO2/hl

New process intensity 8.25 - 5.90 kWh/hl

2.33

1.66 kgCO2/hl

Specific energy saved 3.54

5.90 kWh/hl


Sector applicability 30% - 60% Applicable to small pack; site layout also affects viability

Sector carbon dioxide saving (absolute) 13,470

44,900 tCO2/year

Sector % carbon dioxide saving 3.0% - 10.1% %

Site Financials

Site capex (2Mhl/yr site) £600

£900 £k

Cost Saving £210 - £350 £k/year


Lifetime Savings

Lifetime Carbon Cost 180 - 900 £/tCO2

Technology Life (persistence) 10

15 years

Lifetime Carbon Cost per year 12 - 90 £/tCO2


A4.2 Cold sterile filtration


Beer sterile filtration processes play a key role in many of the final

stages of modern brewing. Many breweries now choose sterile filtration

as an alternative to pasteurization, because this makes it possible to

remove undesirable microorganisms before the beer is filled into bottles

or kegs. The process involves sending the beer through a very fine mesh

of filters which trap all the unwanted products and allow the beer to pass

through. The filter is sporadically regenerated through applying a flow in

reverse to dislodge the trapped material and return the filter to its

previous condition.


This technology is currently used for brewing in locations all over the

world. The largest take up has been in East Asia where several famous brands are produced using this

techniques (e.g., Singha).


Reduced specific energy consumption.

Improved quality of beer with no heat treatment

Total elimination of kieselguhr

No waste disposal

No intrusion of heavy metals

Fully automated process

Monitoring of the system for controlling the microbiological count in the filtered beer

Highest hygiene standard

Low energy consumption

Low water consumption

Reduced beer losses

Continuous filtration possible

Easy product changes



The filtration pore sizes need to be carefully managed so that the

protein that is responsible for forming the head on a beer is able

to pass through the filtration process while maintaining a barrier

against any spoiling organisms.


This technology is a fully commercial product that is provided by

some of the largest process equipment manufacturers in the

world, offering comprehensive after sales care and support.


Identifying the energy savings in comparison to other systems so that a clear business case can be made. The

relative lack of this technology within the UK means that culture and confidence are lacking in the UK brewery

sector and so demonstrations of this technology are needed to instil this confidence.


Alfa Laval, Milipore, PALL SeitzSchenk


Business Case

Cold Sterile Filtration



0.69 3.33 kgCO2/hl

New process intensity 0.028 - 0.028 kWhe/hl 0.0150 0.0150 kgCO2/hl



Sector applicability 50% Only for small pack pasteurisation

% high and low 10.0% 90.0%

See flash pasteurisation


15,116 74,502 tCO2 per annum

Sector % carbon dioxide saving

3.4% - 16.7% % per annum

Site Financials

Site capex (2Mhl/yr site) £180 £2,200 £k

Full cost figures from Alfa Laval have not been provided (estimated at £600,000 for the new filler plus half of flash)

Cost saving £128 - £374 £k per annum

This takes into account the electrical, cooling and heating costs. This is only for 1,000,000hl a year as this is large pack only


Lifetime Savings


Technology Life (persistence) 15 - 15 years

Lifetime Carbon Cost per year 9 - 22 £/tCO2/year


A4.3 UV pasteurisation technology


Non-thermal processes, such as ultraviolet (UV) light

technology, have the potential to cut demand for energy

currently used for thermal pasteurisation. While some

countries have explored these technologies, there have

been no commercial demonstrations of UV beer

processing in the UK.

UV pasteurisation is a process where milk is subjected

to a certain wave length of light that is just the right

frequency to interact with DNA and stop its ability to

replicate.

Where is the product currently used?

The technology has been successfully trialled and is used on milk for calves in South Africa. In the UK there are

currently trials to extend the shelf life of milk through post-pasteurising UV treatment of milk where it has been

shown abroad (USA) to increase shelf life by up to 30%.

The technology is currently used in the photo-purification of wine, fruit juices and is also used in large scale water

treatment facilities as a last stage sterilisation process.


The energy needed to disable bacteria with UV light is

dramatically lower than that of thermal pasteurisation. By using

UV light the energy is focused in breaking down the DNA of the

bacteria, rendering it ineffective, whereas in the heat based

method the whole of the product is heated in order to break

down the entire structure of the bacteria.

Used in conjunction with thermal pasteurisation the shelf life of

beer can be increased without any associated taste

degradation.


The dosage needed to treat beer depends on its absorptivity and transmissivity. These characteristics change

with different beers so there will need to be a control system that can cater for changing the exposure with

specific recipes.


The UV photo-purification process is well understood and the effects on microbial levels within different products

have been researched and compared with heat based pasteurisation. Large scale equipment has been

manufactured for other industries and incorporated into factories.


The modification to plants in order to replace heat based pasteurisation would not be extensive as the only

consumable needed is electricity and no further pipe work would be necessary.


The largest barrier will be in producing robust validation trials that would give the industry confidence that this

technology can provide the shelf life extension necessary and reduce spoiling effectively to a similar level to

thermal pasteurisation.

Cost - HIGH


SurePure – A global leader in turbid liquid photo purification

MicroTek – A global leader in microwave induced UV light tubes.

Steribeam – A German based company that offers pulsed light, cold plasma and UV sterilization

Business case:

Ultraviolet Pasteurisation for small pack



0.69 3.33 kgCO2/hl

New process intensity 0.05 - 0.05 kWhe/hl UV power +pumping

0.028 0.028 kgCO2/hl



Sector applicability 50.00% Just for cans and bottles

% high and low 10.0% 90.0% see flash pasteurisation


14,831 74,218 tCO2 per annum


Site Financials

Site Capex (2,000,000 hl/yr site) £240 £2,270 £k

Price is estimated through discussions with Microtek and uses the tunnel to flash capex when going from tunnel


This takes into account the electrical, cooling and heating costs. This is only for 1,000,000hl a year as this is small pack only


Lifetime Savings


Technology Life (persistence) 15 years

Lifetime Carbon Cost per year 12 - 23 £/tCO2/year


Appendix 5: Keg/cask technologies and business cases

A5.1 One-way keg packaging


A high temperature hot water heat pump is a mechanism for the

recovery of waste heat from existing centralised site

The concept is for kegged beer to be sent in one-way packaging

in place of steel and aluminium kegs as is currently practiced

with the majority of the UK pub market.

The packaging involves a pressurised PET ball that houses a

flexible inner bag. This systems allows the traditional system of

using gas at pressure to force the beer out of a keg and up

through the lines. The entire package is inserted into cardboard

outer packaging.


The technology is currently manufactured in Holland and has seen take up in Europe, including the UK


Reduction of costs and capital investment:

25% more beer per transport and no return shipments

Extra capacity during peak periods; no expensive extra keg pool

No loss or damage of steel kegs

Cleaning and administration costs are no longer necessary (laid out above)

No storage of empty kegs

Cheaper containers


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 9 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.


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.


This technology is a fully commercial product that is provided by a manufacturer that offers comprehensive after

sales care and support.


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.


KeyKeg

CypherCo


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.


Appendix 6: CIP technologies and business cases

A6.1 Real time cleaning verification


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.


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.


This concept is currently a research project at Birmingham University in collaboration with worldwide

manufacturers.


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.



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.


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 2 and would be keen to work with a brewing industry partner to understand their CIP system

and optimise it at the same time.


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 - 0.95 kWh/hl

0.26 0.26 kgCO2/hl


0.13 0.13 kgCO2/hl




% high and low 50.0% 50.0% %


4,590 - 4,590 tCO2 per annum


Site Financials

Site Capex (2,000,000 hl/yr site) Unknown Unknown £k


Payback - years


A6.2 Low temperature detergents


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%


This technology has already been adopted in several breweries in the UK and overseas.


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


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.


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.


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 - 0.95 kWh/hl

0.26 0.26 kgCO2/hl


0.05 0.05 kgCO2/hl




% high and low 50.0% 50.0%


7,512 - 7,512 tCO2 per annum

Sector % carbon dioxide saving

1.7% - 1.7% % per annum

Site Financials

Site Capex (2,000,000 hl/yr site)

Unknown Unknown £k


Payback - years


A6.3 Ultrasonic cleaning


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.


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.


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.


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) .


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Ice Slurry Butter

A6.4 Ice pigging


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.


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.


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.

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Bristol University - The technology has been developed by Prof Joe Quarini and team in the Department of

Mechanical Engineering.


A6.5 Whirlwind pigging


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.


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.


The technology cannot be used to clean plate pack heat


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 4 inch pipes.

Any pipe sizes outside of this level will require additional testing before they are deemed suitable.


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.


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 cost-

effectiveness to the brewing industry.


Aeolus Technologies: A company formed specifically to commercialise and develop the whirlwind

technology for use in industry.


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, 5 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF.

Published: August 2011

© The Carbon Trust 2011. All rights reserved. CTG058

Documents

Brewing Industrial Energy Efficiency (CTG058) - Carbon Trust