Industrial Energy Efficiency Accelerator - Guide to the brewing sector pot

Industrial Energy Efficiency
Accelerator - Guide to the brewing
sector
They UK produces 49 Mhl per year and emits approximately
446,000tCO2/yr. Current CCA data shows that in the UK there are 14
large breweries or packaging sites (over 1Mhl per annum), a further 35
smaller breweries and circa 700 micro-brewers. This Sector Guide
describes the IEEA findings for the UK brewing sector. The investigation
centred on the brewhouse, small pack packaging, kegging/casking and
clean-in-place (CIP) as the key areas where significant improvements
could be made.

Executive Summary

The Carbon Trust has worked with a range of industry sectors as part of its Industrial Energy Efficiency
Accelerator (IEEA), to identify where step-change reductions in energy use can be achieved through detailed
investigation of sector-specific production processes. The IEEA aims to support industry-wide process carbon
emissions reduction by accelerating innovation in processes, product strategy and the uptake of low carbon
technologies, substantiated by process performance data and detailed process analysis.
This Sector Guide describes the IEEA findings for the UK brewing sector. The investigation centred on the
brewhouse, small pack packaging, kegging/casking and clean-in-place (CIP) as the key areas where significant
improvements could be made, and opportunities categorised according to their degree of technical/commercial
maturity; that is, their relative ease of implementation and cost-effectiveness:
Wave 1: Energy efficiency best practice and process optimisation: On the basis of the best practice
survey carried out as part of the investigation, we estimate that a 5% carbon saving (22,000tCO2/year) could
be made across the sector, from the consistent application of all feasible best practice opportunities.

Furthermore, a large number of process optimisation opportunities were identified, relating to the kettle, 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)
(tCO
2
)
(%)
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
Brewing Sector Guide 3





Wave
(1/2/3)
Area
Description
Sector Carbon
Saving
Average
Payback

(years)
(tCO
2
)
(%)
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.
Brewing Sector Guide 4






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
Brewing Sector Guide 5





5.4 Innovative opportunities and significant change 50
5.5 Summary of findings 53
5.6 Barriers to implementation 54
6 Key findings and opportunities: keg and cask processing 55
6.1 Keg processing 55
6.2 Cask processing 59
6.3 Summary of findings 62
6.4 Barriers to implementation 62
7 Key findings and opportunities: clean-in-place 64
7.1 Data analysis 64
7.2 Process optimisation opportunities 66
7.3 Innovative opportunities 67
7.4 Summary of findings 69
7.5 Barriers to implementation 70
8 Summary of opportunities 72
8.1 Overview 72
8.2 General best practice energy efficiency opportunities 73
8.3 Process optimisation opportunities 73
8.4 Innovative opportunities 73
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


Brewing Sector Guide 6





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
Brewing Sector Guide 7





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 CCA
2
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

multinational
3
.
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
Brewing Sector Guide 8





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.
Brewing Sector Guide 9





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.


Brewing Sector Guide 10

Figure 2 Brewing process diagram



Brewing Sector Guide 11





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 brewery
5

Brewhouse
38%
Packaging
35%

Cold Block
11%
Waste Water
7%
Building services
5%
Warehouse
4%
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
Brewing Sector Guide 12

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. Whirlpool
4. 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).
Brewing Sector Guide 13






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.

Brewing Sector Guide 14






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.


Brewing Sector Guide 15






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

Brewing Sector Guide 16





Table 2 CCA brewery archetypes


Number
of sites
Production
(hl)
UK
production
(%)
Carbon
emissions
(tCO
2

e)
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
Brewing Sector Guide 17





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.

Brewing Sector Guide 18





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
Brewing Sector Guide 19





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 Commission
7
. 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
Brewing Sector Guide 20





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.
Brewing Sector Guide 21





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.
Brewing Sector Guide 22





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.




Brewing Sector Guide 23





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
Brewing Sector Guide 24

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.
Brewing Sector Guide 25





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