Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 21 of 21

Thread: Servings Tanks In Cold Room vs Glycol Jacketed?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    389
    Quote Originally Posted by brain medicine View Post
    You’re forgetting this is a brewpub. Hes gonna need a cooler anyways for kegs, hops, kitchen ingredients, etc. Efficiency is gained by using system thats already gonna be running. Not to mention the more mass you have in the cooler the more of a heat sink you get. If you need a cooler, might as well maximize it.

    You have a point about different serving temps, but pretty narrow. If youve got a remote draft setup then the trunk dictates final temp, so one temp for everything. I feel like most of brewpubs seem to use remote as the kitchen, bathrooms, etc are usually between the brewery and the bar. Except maybe in the old school “showcase” setups where you’re trying to display the equipment.

    On that note, saw a CA brewpub hack that setup. They had one UK beer the patrons loved and they served it warm(er) by gettin a 100’ roll of heater tape, two dozen old wetsuits they sewed into a jacket on the tank, and then wrapped it all with thin foam. Cooler was 38, SV was 48 (i think). Direct draw through cooler wall. But they could only serve it at that point, which was a small secondary bar, not the main bar up front.
    Nope, not forgetting it’s a brewpub. Cold room efficiencies are reduced with size. The larger the cold room, the less efficient it will be. Yes mass helps maintain cold room efficiencies, however a brewpub cooler will often have less mass in it that a production facility anyways. In production you are usually replacing beer as it is removed from the cooler. With a pub, you will have tanks that are half empty fairly often.

    By the logic used in the above comments, you are already using a glycol chiller for tanks too. So either way you are using a system that is already running. The heat transfer coefficient of the glycol is better than that of cold air. The mass of the chilling liquid is much higher and provides more heat sinking capability than the cold air.

    I personally advocate for the jacket tanks as often as possible, but that is not to say it will automatically be a better solution in any given situation. It will be more efficient, however that may or may not provide you a good return on your investment. It may or may not be ergonomic. Chest freezers are great for hops and energy efficient, depending on volumes. Theoretically, if you use a line chiller, you may not need much walk in space for the brewery at all.

    Serving temps are one aspect, but I prefer the ability to control temps independently for things like lagering, chill haze proofing, carbonating, and maybe even an occasional eisbock. I don’t like working in the cold room more than I need to because it’s uncomfortable. Drainage in the cold room has often been an issue in the serving vessel setups I have used also. Not saying serving vessels are bad, just saying I don’t like them as much comparatively, and that they aren’t as energy efficient, objectively.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    west coast
    Posts
    275
    So add a brite to your FV lineup, and send the finished beer to the cooler.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Germantown, WI, USA
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by UnFermentable View Post
    I personally advocate for the jacket tanks as often as possible, but that is not to say it will automatically be a better solution in any given situation. It will be more efficient, however that may or may not provide you a good return on your investment. It may or may not be ergonomic. Chest freezers are great for hops and energy efficient, depending on volumes. Theoretically, if you use a line chiller, you may not need much walk in space for the brewery at all.

    Serving temps are one aspect, but I prefer the ability to control temps independently for things like lagering, chill haze proofing, carbonating, and maybe even an occasional eisbock. I don’t like working in the cold room more than I need to because it’s uncomfortable. Drainage in the cold room has often been an issue in the serving vessel setups I have used also. Not saying serving vessels are bad, just saying I don’t like them as much comparatively, and that they aren’t as energy efficient, objectively.
    How are you folks solving for longer draft lines? Do you use a pump? What's considered best practice? My BT's will be on the other side of a hallway from the taps and the lines will have to go under the concrete floor to get to the bar, so I can't generate enough pressure safely in the BT's without supplementing the delivery system.

    One related question. If I want to use one or two BT's for beers served on nitrogen/CO2 mix, what's the best setup for that?

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    389
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTylicki View Post
    How are you folks solving for longer draft lines? Do you use a pump? What's considered best practice? My BT's will be on the other side of a hallway from the taps and the lines will have to go under the concrete floor to get to the bar, so I can't generate enough pressure safely in the BT's without supplementing the delivery system.

    One related question. If I want to use one or two BT's for beers served on nitrogen/CO2 mix, what's the best setup for that?
    In most cases beer pumps are easiest, but blended gas can work. If you are wanting a nitro tap, a blended gas system with nitrogen generator may be a worthy consideration.
    FOB's are a good idea for long lines as well.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Enterprise, Oregon
    Posts
    1,813
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTylicki View Post
    How are you folks solving for longer draft lines? Do you use a pump? What's considered best practice? My BT's will be on the other side of a hallway from the taps and the lines will have to go under the concrete floor to get to the bar, so I can't generate enough pressure safely in the BT's without supplementing the delivery system.

    One related question. If I want to use one or two BT's for beers served on nitrogen/CO2 mix, what's the best setup for that?
    Sounds like beer pumps are your answer. Using mixed gas means even higher pressure than straight CO2. I use beer pumps now for anything over about 10', and get great pours.

    Another advantage to using beer pumps--if you're serving directly from BTs--is that you don't have to consider the change in static pressure as the level in the tank drops.
    Timm Turrentine

    Brewerywright,
    Terminal Gravity Brewing,
    Enterprise. Oregon.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Minocqua WI
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by onsgaard View Post
    absolutely single wall serving tanks. No ifs ands or buts.
    if and but...
    Brewmaster, Minocqua Brewing Company
    tbriggs@minocquabrewingcompany.com
    "Your results may vary"

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •