×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

72 comments

But the real question is... (0)

xTMFWahoo (470364) | more than 9 years ago | (#10515328)

will beer prices actually go down?

Re:But the real question is... (2, Insightful)

venomkid (624425) | more than 9 years ago | (#10515566)

If you believe in fairies, it'll equal lower beer prices.

If you live in the real world, it means higher profits and layoffs.

Re:But the real question is... (1)

ChickenAintDone (713461) | more than 9 years ago | (#10516111)

Sometimes it's more profitable to decrease the price, so in the even more realer world, beer prices could very well go down along with higher profits and layoffs.

Economics (3, Insightful)

Bob_Robertson (454888) | more than 9 years ago | (#10516845)

The higher profits will be a signal to others that there is money to be made. They will step in, and in order to make money they will use the more efficient methods, undercut the price and sell more, trying to make money like the original pioneer.

The pioneer will then lower their price (or raise their quality) or go out of business.

Since there are more players in the market than before, productive workers originally laid off will be hired by the competition or become the competition themselves.

The winners are consumers who enjoy better quality, lower prices, or most often both.

When another development in efficiency or quality changes the production cost point again, the new profit margins will again signal to ready entrepreneurs that there is money to be made. Consumers enjoy another round of lower prices and higher quality.

If the governments weren't printing money like it was going out of style, a steady deflation would be the rule (again) as this progression of improvements in quality and efficiency continues to occur in every field and industry.

Bob-

Re:Economics (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10517150)

From a micro econ standpoint, your correct. There will be more competition, and the free market price of beer will drop because of more availabilty, and with more availability there is bound to be optimizations.

O a SOCIAL level...we have more alcoholics...which is BAD.

Re:Economics (4, Funny)

venomkid (624425) | more than 9 years ago | (#10518290)

Reminds me of a joke.

Q: How many libertarians does it take to change a lightbulb? ...

A: None. The free market will take care of it.

[rimshot]

Re:But the real question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10516988)

and higher taxes.

too good to be true. (2, Insightful)

Sevn (12012) | more than 9 years ago | (#10515409)

They'll be a downside. It will all taste like shit (coors, heineken) or something.

Re:too good to be true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10515502)

No it won't.

-1 picked on heineken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10516308)

I modded you down for picking on the best beer in the world. Coors does suck though.

Re:-1 picked on heineken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10516824)

in Holland Heineken is considered piss, according to the people I know who drink beer (I don't drink any alcohol out of principle) it is only slightly better then budweiser (which is described as pee from someone who drank Heineken). Brands like Dommelsch, Grolsch and even Bavaria are preferred over Heineken here....

Re:-1 picked on heineken (1)

Bush Pig (175019) | more than 9 years ago | (#10520364)

Yeah, Bavaria is quite nice (like a German Pils) and Grolsch is pretty good, but Heineken is horrid. It's way too sweet and nowhere near hoppy enough for my taste.

Re:-1 picked on heineken (2, Interesting)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 9 years ago | (#10521799)

in Holland Heineken is considered piss, according to the people I know who drink beer (I don't drink any alcohol out of principle) it is only slightly better then budweiser (which is described as pee from someone who drank Heineken). Brands like Dommelsch, Grolsch and even Bavaria are preferred over Heineken here....

Until you talk to someone else, who claims that only Heineken is perfect and all the other brands suck. Mostly which beer is considered best is regional (Heineken/Amstel in the west, Grolsch in much of the east).

In reality, all Dutch pilsener is very very close in taste (with a few exceptions, basically the really cheap C brand supermarket stuff - but perhaps I'm influenced by marketing even there). I've done many blind tests, where people get beer (from bottles) in glasses without a brand name, and had to guess what they were drinking. Generally people score about as well as you would expect from a random pick.

I've had someone who grew up with Grolsch, and claimed that was far better than Heineken, even though he had been running a bar with Heineken on tap for years now, mistake one for the other. Many of these "beer experts" claim that the difference between those two is huge...

In my opinion most (all major brands) are pretty much OK, if not very special. If you want to drink interesting beer, the Belgian stuff is available everywhere. German beers are much more varied as well. And of course there's plenty of great stuff in the Netherlands as well - but generally not the pilseners, and anybody who claims pilsener brand X is "piss" compared to brand Y is a marketing/groupthink victim.

Re:-1 picked on heineken (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10517467)

Heineken? Fuck that shit, Pabst Blue Ribbon!

Re:-1 picked on heineken (1)

bobster45 (816998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10518245)

Plegarism from "Blue Velvet" will win you rewards!! I was particularly impressed you chose that line. I have used it on occasion myself.

Morning brew (5, Funny)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 9 years ago | (#10515515)

Now if you can just add a clock and a timer this thing could brew my morning beer before I get up, just like my coffee maker. :-)

Re:Morning brew (3, Funny)

Sean Johnson (66456) | more than 9 years ago | (#10518502)

Heck with that brewing stuff...I just use the freeze-dried instant beer crystals. No need for brewing at all. Instant-in-your-cup goodness! On Mondays though I usually put in 4 scoops instead of the usual 2. :-)

Oh Christ... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#10526194)

I just use the freeze-dried instant beer crystals.

Next you'll tell me Jesus turned water into wine with freeze-dried instant wine crystals.

Hopefully this equals (1)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 9 years ago | (#10515526)

Less Expensive Beer!!!

Re:Hopefully this equals (3, Informative)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#10515572)

but.. if you don't count the taxes beer _IS_ pretty damn cheap already, compared to other drinks(milk, juice, stuff like that).

i'd wonder more about what kind of new beers will come because of this, because obviously it allows the process to be changed.

Re:Hopefully this equals (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10515968)

i'd wonder more about what kind of new beers will come because of this, because obviously it allows the process to be changed.

It doesn't appear to change the process, only accelerate it. I can make all sorts of beer at home with all sorts of weird ingredients. But it takes 10 days to ferment, and another 3 day to carbonate. At that point, you've got a good idea what the beer will taste like. It may need a longer time to bottle condition before the best flavor comes out, but it's drinkable after ~13 days.

A commercial brewer skips the carbonation step, and injects CO2 into the brew. So commercial beer is ready after ~10 days.

The biggest advantage here is the ability to experiment. The new system is 1/10th the size and faster. Kinda like switching from a render farm of desktops to Dual Proc rack mounts. Now you can run a lot more tests in parallel. The density and speed allows you to try something out that you normally wouldn't waste more limited resources on.

Personally, I'm planning on setting up some 1 Gallon batches of beer, and trying a bunch of different things. If it's bad, then it's only a gallon of bad beer to drink. Those 1 gallon jugs of bottled water are perfect for experimental carboys.

Re:Hopefully this equals (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#10519683)

yes, but I'd imagine the taste to vary a bit too, with faster made vs. something that takes several days more, because of the other ingredients interacting with each other.

for the commercial brewers the extended yeast change time is the bigger plus though..

Re:Hopefully this equals (4, Insightful)

warpSpeed (67927) | more than 9 years ago | (#10515833)

Less Expensive Beer!!!

If you want less expensive beer, and good flavor (or any flavor for that matter), brew your own at home.

It can be far more economical, and you get braggin' rights to boot.

Re:Hopefully this equals (4, Interesting)

lewiscr (3314) | more than 9 years ago | (#10516181)

And it's easy to get started. I swiped a 5 gallon jug from the office water cooler, saved up 5 twelve-packs worth of import bottles, and went to the local Home Brew store. (import bottles are important, most American bottles are twist off, and those won't work.)

They had a nice kit for getting started that had 2 plastic buckets, an airlock, some plastic tubing, and a bunch of stuff that I don't use (hydrometer). You can get off even cheaper if you're willing to use more elbow grease. On top of that, I needed a bottle capper, bottle caps, and a beer kit.

Followed the directions included in the kit, waited 2 weeks, filled the bottles, capped 'em, waiting another week, and enjoyed some great brew.

Initial outlay was about $100 (Starter kit was $80, Beer kit was $20). It'll cost $20 to $30 for every 5 gallon batch, if I buy the hold-your-hand Beer Kits. 5 gallons makes me about 50 12oz bottles. At $10-$15 per twelve pack in the store, I save $10 to $45, depending on what I buy at the store. :-)

Like any hobby, there are lot of toys you can add. I used the beginner setup for a couple years, but started to get tired of washing bottles my hand, and controlling the bottling flow by hand. Another $40, and I think I'm done with my washing and bottling accessories.

Re:Hopefully this equals (2, Informative)

Paster Of Muppets (787158) | more than 9 years ago | (#10517168)

Yes, but watch out for the water! I live in the UK, and was born "up North", where the water is "soft". My father used to make a lot of his home-brewed beer, and apparantly it tasted quite nice. We later moved "down South", he got his brewing kit out again, and made a batch. This time, it tasted like crap because the water where we then lived is "hard". He had to chuck the whole batch away.

Me? I hate beer, will never touch the stuff. Now, if I could only make a home-made Baileys set...

Re:Hopefully this equals (2, Informative)

lewiscr (3314) | more than 9 years ago | (#10517508)

Most Home Brew stores stock water additives for this purpose. If not, you can find them online. It's not an easy task to adjust your water though, which is why I swipe the bottled water from work.

Once you've got a 5 gallon jug, you can fill it up pretty cheap with good quality water at most US supermarkets. The supermarket down the street has reverse-osmosi filtered water for 25 cents per gallon.

Hard water has more minerals than soft (1)

georgeha (43752) | more than 9 years ago | (#10523639)

so he'd want to get water with less in it to duplicate a Northern brew, or switch to a brew that works well with harder water like the other poster suggested, perhaps a pale ale.

So, the only additive that would help would be distiller water.

Re:Hopefully this equals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10517539)

Bass Ale seems to sell quite well despite it being brewed with hard water.

Re:Hopefully this equals (1)

cft_128 (650084) | more than 9 years ago | (#10517973)

Bass Ale seems to sell quite well despite it being brewed with hard water.

I doubt they use unfiltered tap water. I would be it is at least reverse osmosis filtered and probably has other additives to make it taste better. Scarily enough the plant where Bass is brewed is now owned by Coors Brewers Ltd.

Re:Hopefully this equals (2, Informative)

NaturePhotog (317732) | more than 9 years ago | (#10518951)

The original IPA (India Pale Ale) was brewed in an area of England with hard water, so some recipes for IPAs add gypsum, etc. to the water when preparing the wort, to simulate the original water. You wouldn't want it for most beers, but IPAs are hoppy enough that you wouldn't notice water changes as much.

And Coors is proof that good water doesn't necessarily make good beer.

Re:Hopefully this equals (2, Informative)

Bush Pig (175019) | more than 9 years ago | (#10520385)

You just have to brew beer styles that work with your local water, although, in my experience, the effect of the water on the final product is overstated. If you have hard water, you just brew a Burton-on Trent style pale ale. With softer water, you could try your hand at a Bohemian style Pilsner. However, I live in Adelaide, which has probably the hardest water in the world, and I just make what I feel like. It all turns out OK.

Re:Hopefully this equals (1)

BeaverCleaver (673164) | more than 9 years ago | (#10520845)

Yeah, in Adelaide, any old shit you add to the water will only improve it!

Re:Hopefully this equals (2, Informative)

BeaverCleaver (673164) | more than 9 years ago | (#10520867)

Sorry to reply to myself, but to help the Northern-Hemisphere centric readership, Adelaide, South Australia gets their water from the Murray river. The end of the Murray river, which has been raped for thousands of miles of its length for irrigation and hydropower (not to mention the ever-increasing salinity of any runoff). What used to be the most bitchin' river in Australia now actually has NEGATIVE flow at times, that much has been taken out of it. The poor buggers in Adelaide have to drink that salty crap daily. The big Hydro/irrigation project of the '50s may not have been the bright idea it seemed.

Re:Hopefully this equals (1)

Bush Pig (175019) | more than 9 years ago | (#10522546)

This isn't actually _quite_ true. We only have to drink the saline crap in the Murray, full of toxic chemicals that those fuckers upstream growing rice and cotton have thrown in, during the summer. In winter, the water's still very hard, but it comes from local reservoirs.

Re:Hopefully this equals (1)

Wirr (157970) | more than 9 years ago | (#10521696)

Now, if I could only make a home-made Baileys set...

Slightly off-topic, but Baileys ist actually quite easy to copy.
It's basically only cream and whiskey. I would try a 1:10 mixture to start with.

Or if your want a ready recipe try this:
3 parts Tequilla
2 parts Creme de Cacao
1 part Amaretto (an almond liquer this is actually optional)
Top with double cream and shake with ice.

I guarantie you this tastes even better than Baileys.

Re:Hopefully this equals (1)

Bush Pig (175019) | more than 9 years ago | (#10520581)

I got really sick of washing bottles, too. These days I just keg it. There's an initial expense for a tap, regulator, and some kegs, and an occassional expense refilling the CO2 cylinder, and you have to drill a few holes in your beer fridge, but it's worth it.

Re:Hopefully this equals (1)

1967 Ferrari 312 (592016) | more than 9 years ago | (#10522500)

Twists-top bottles work just fine. I've been using them since I started brewing 13 years ago, and I've never had a problem.

I've heard rumours of "for twist" and "not for twist" caps, but I've never actually seen any difference. I've also heard that twist-off bottles were somehow thinner or more fragile, but again I've never had any bottle explode on me (except the 6 pack I left in the trunk of a rental car for 2 days at 28 degs C - but that's another story :-)

This is in Canada, mind you, but I don't see how that would be different anywhere else.

Richard.

Re:Hopefully this equals (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 9 years ago | (#10523022)


They had a nice kit for getting started that had 2 plastic buckets, an airlock, some plastic tubing, and a bunch of stuff that I don't use (hydrometer). You can get off even cheaper if you're willing to use more elbow grease. On top of that, I needed a bottle capper, bottle caps, and a beer kit.


Three suggestions:

1) Use your hydrometer. It makes it easier to guage how consistently it'w working out and what alcohol content you're getting. It also lets you figure out a lot more about the rate at which the brweing is happening. Changes a lot by temperature.

2) Ditch the plastic water bottle and get a real glass carboy for sanitary reasons. Some of those water jugs get all scratched up and make for surface areas for nasties.

3) Switch to plastic pop-bottle type bottles with screw on caps. Bottle cappers are such a pain to use and some commercial bottles might bust on you.

And, of course, choose quality ingredients. I eventually convinced my father to use better stuff than those beer kits you buy in grocery stores (eg. John Bull) because you'll get far better results. Way better results. Double malting and using less powdered glucose will improve your results but push your costs up a bit.

Definitely concur on the extra goodies you can get at brew shops -- a bottling wand is one of the most worthwhile.

As much as the "For Dummies" series annoys me, "Homebrewing for Dummies" is actually a useful book on the topic.

Cheers

Re:Hopefully this equals (1)

lewiscr (3314) | more than 9 years ago | (#10527848)

Use your hydrometer.

I keep meaning to, but by the time it's in the carboy, I usually don't want to mess with it. Between work and kids, it invariables sits in the carboy for 2 weeks. I've only made ales, so I know it's done after 2 weeks. It would be nice to know the alcohol content, but I'm going to drink it anyway. :-)

I am planning to do some lagering now that the whether is cooling off. I haven't gotten the brewing fridge yet, so I'll be brewing in the garage. I'll need the hydrometer to tell me when it's done.

Ditch the plastic water bottle and get a real glass carboy for sanitary reasons.

I agree. I think the plastic buckets are great way to get started cheap, but beginner should graduate to carboys after a while.

I am using a plastic carboy. It's pretty much the same shape and size as a glass one, just plastic. I assume they'll get damaged at some point. So far they're brand new, I've got 6 of 'em, and a bleach soak plus the bottle washer cleans them out, so no scratches inside. I'll wait on the glass carboy until my kids are a bit older.

Switch to plastic pop-bottle type bottles with screw on caps.

Personally, I went the swing-top route. I started saving my Fischer's 22oz and Grolsh 16oz empties, and now I've got enough for a single 5gal batch. I way overcarbonated on my 2nd batch, so I know they aren't going to explode. I was playing with putting the carbonation sugar in each bottle, rather than the whole batch. I think 1 bottle got 6x the amount of carbonation sugar it should've had. Foam shot 18" in the air when I uncapped, and I lost half the beer to foaming, but the bottle held. I have cracked a few bottles (probably during washing before I got the bottle washer). They didn't explode, they just came out with flat beer. Mixed them with carbonated beer, and it tasted fine.

I want to brew a batch that needs a lot of bottle conditioning (Russian Imperial Stout). I was planning on using the empties and bottle capper for these batches, leaving my swing tops free for quick turn around batches. I haven't decided if I should get more swing tops, or just save up for a beer fridge and start kegging.

Re:Hopefully this equals (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 9 years ago | (#10530148)

I keep meaning to, but by the time it's in the carboy, I usually don't want to mess with it. Between work and kids, it invariables sits in the carboy for 2 weeks.


My experience is that longer is better since the flavours mellow nicely into it and some of the harshness goes away. shorter turn-arounds are fine too, but a nice long period of wiating makes it all happy-happy. =)

I'll wait on the glass carboy until my kids are a bit older.


Sound reasoning. =)

I was playing with putting the carbonation sugar in each bottle, rather than the whole batch


I've given up on seeding individual bottles an always prime the whole batch. Less mess, less nuisance.

Personally, I went the swing-top route.


Definitely way less hassles with swing-tops, and you don't need to look around for lids.

Before bottling I've come to the conclusion if you can rack from one vessel to a final vessel to ditch the yeast dregs, the bottling goes a lot smoother and the amount of crap in the bottom of the bottle goes way down.

Cheers. Enjoy your homebrew.

Re:Hopefully this equals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10516673)

Sure, homebrew is cheaper...but not that much cheaper.

Re:Hopefully this equals (1)

Bush Pig (175019) | more than 9 years ago | (#10520710)

Yes it is. It costs me less than $A1 per litre, and that's for _everything_ - malts, yeast, hops, heat for boiling the wort, stuff to sanitise containers, ...

The cheapest (and, not coincidentally, the nastiest) beer I can buy is Fosters, which costs at least $A25 per slab (about 9 litres), which works out to nearly $A3 per litre. Decent beer (Cooper's Sparkling Ale, eg) costs nearly twice that much, and (ahem) my homebrew is generally better than Cooper's Ale.

Taste? (4, Insightful)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#10515594)

Faster doesn't always mean better.

What does it taste like?

Re:Taste? (2, Informative)

thatshortkid (808634) | more than 9 years ago | (#10515736)

well, in TFA the inventor stated that the beer "still tasted fine" after using the same yeast after a year's use, so I'm assuming that the first batch tasted fine too.

Re:Taste? (2, Insightful)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#10518634)

Tasting fine and tasting good aren't the same thing.

If I was trying to sell an invention of mine, I wouldn't say "The finished product tastes like yak-piss"

Re:Taste? (2, Informative)

Nutria (679911) | more than 9 years ago | (#10521490)

Tasting fine and tasting good aren't the same thing.

Yes, they are. From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

1. Finished; brought to perfection; refined; hence, free from impurity; excellent; superior; elegant; worthy of admiration; accomplished; beautiful.


Now, "ok" and "good" are definitely different...

Re:Taste? (1)

xutopia (469129) | more than 9 years ago | (#10516018)

I have to agree with you on that one. I don't care if my beer takes 3 months to get right so long as it's damn good at the end. However if this is just optimizing an existing process without affecting the taste I'm all for it! :)

Re:Taste? (1)

GypC (7592) | more than 9 years ago | (#10517867)

Well, it tastes like yak piss... but just look how fast it brews!

Re:Taste? (2, Interesting)

Zachary Kessin (1372) | more than 9 years ago | (#10520560)

OOOH --- Fast Yak Piss! now thats a sales pitch.

I'm not a brewer, but I do bake a lot of bread, and often a slow rise with sourdough makes the best bread. The goal is not just to break down the sugar but to produce flavor as you do it. As for yeast it will make itself in great quantities if you are brewing or baking.

Re:Taste? (1)

Bush Pig (175019) | more than 9 years ago | (#10520801)

There's an analogous process with brewing. That's why lagers and ales taste different, because lagers ferment at a much lower temperature, and consequently much slower, producing different fermentation products (except for alcohol, of course. That's always the same). It's also why most commercial bread (risen far too fast) is tasteless and lacks structure.

Re:Taste? (1)

Zachary Kessin (1372) | more than 9 years ago | (#10521315)

Well commercial bread has other issues like chemicals to make it last longer. Actually I live in Israel where you can get some great bread for cheap, i can get 30 pittot (Thats the plaurel of Pita) for 10 shekels which is like $2.25 US, and they are still warm out of the oven.

But when I bake I often use 4 things... Flour, water, salt and starter or yeast. Sometimes I will add spices or honey or whatever, but often not.

Actually I have done some brewing as well

not entirely new (4, Informative)

NaturePhotog (317732) | more than 9 years ago | (#10516282)

Professor Graham Stewart, a brewing expert at Heriot-Watt University in Scotland and the head of the International Centre for Brewing and Distilling, told CNN that Heiliger's concept was not entirely new.
He says it is a type of "continuous fermentation," which has been used for about 50 years in wine-making and 15 years in beer-making.
...and believes the idea could work well on a small scale.

Makes me wonder if the idea doesn't scale well. That said, IAAB (I am a brewer; I worked in a brewpub and brew on premises for several years and home brew), and I wonder if it might not still be a boon (boont? mmm...amber...) to smaller breweries, brewpubs, and especially brew on premises. Most brewpubs go through much smaller amounts of any given beer than they brew, and this might be away to "brew on demand" or the like, and give a fresher product.

For brew on premises customers, instead of brew, wait two weeks, come back and bottle, it could be brew in the morning, bottle in the afternoon, and might appeal to more people that way. I recall a fair number of people who were put off by two week wait.

And all that said, it seems like there will still be call for the more traditional brewing process, as different beers, etc. use different fermenting processes (lager = cooler, bottom-fermenting yeast; barleywine = two fermentations, one with wine yeast; lambic = 'spontaneous' fermentation)

Re:not entirely new (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 9 years ago | (#10518197)

>boont? mmm...amber..

Good stuff, that. I'm also partial to Eye of the Hawk. Eight Ball Stout from just up the road a bit is also excellent.

Re:not entirely new (1)

R.Caley (126968) | more than 9 years ago | (#10521635)

Makes me wonder if the idea doesn't scale well.

Perhaps he thinks the improvements are not worth the hastle for a big operation.

The cost of freash yeast may be trivial compared to whatever operation you have to perform to un-bond spent yeast.

And speed is going to be less important for a big plant which is operating more or less as a pipeline, compared to a small operation doing batches of different products.

What about Mead? (2, Insightful)

Retric (704075) | more than 9 years ago | (#10517436)

This sounds cool, but what about mead? I love the stuff but it can take months to find out if the batch is good.

Ahh well some things are worth the wait.

Re:What about Mead? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10517665)

It would probably work for mead, but why bother. Sure it take fermenting from 10 days down to a few hours, but that just means you can drink your mead in five months three weeks instead of six months (or however long that batch takes to age).

Re:What about Mead? (1)

HexaByte (817350) | more than 9 years ago | (#10526883)

Uh, if you look, it's speeding up the process by a factor of 10 or more.

At 10X, that 6 months just became 3 weeks!

Move over Microbrews.. (1)

xenoarch (817676) | more than 9 years ago | (#10517488)

Its Time for NanoBrews! (I'm heading to my lawyers this second to trademark it.. :) )

Personally i don't like beer, i prefer mead. Wonder if we can use this or something similar to make mead faster.

It does however open up faster production of things made ith GM yeast. Possbily if they can get Yeast to produce insulin use this technique to make insulin for diabetics cheaper.

Ethanol Fuel (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10517714)

So would this same process work for producing ethanol fuels more efficiently.

Re:Ethanol Fuel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10534158)

Good question. Why r there only two of us thinking along the same lines? Everyone else just wants to drink cheap beer.

Home Brewing (1)

chia_monkey (593501) | more than 9 years ago | (#10522605)

I was going to ask "so when does this wonder invention come to home brewing, 'cause I really want to get back into it and my time is a premium" but then I came across this quote from the article:

"Heiliger says that his device takes up about 30 square meters, whereas traditional systems can be up to 300 square meters in size."

Damn. I know a few home brewers out there who would like to be able to go "hm, I have a good idea for a beer", make it in a day, tweak it when it doesn't taste like they expected, and try again as opposed to waiting a couple months for the batch to ferment and such. Some day...*sigh*

Re:Home Brewing (1)

El Batemano (821900) | more than 9 years ago | (#10523609)

All i know is that Beer is good for the soul. The cause of and solution to all of lifes little problems.

what's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10526848)

A system to make 15-year single malt scotch in 15 days?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...