German Brewers Warn Fracking Could Hurt Beer 325
Taco Cowboy writes "Those of you who like free beer, watch out! The practice of fracking for shale gas may ruin the beer you drink. Under the 'Reinheitsgebot,' or German purity law, brewers have to produce beer using only malt, hops, yeast and water. 'The water has to be pure and more than half [of] Germany's brewers have their own wells which are situated outside areas that could be protected under the government's current planned legislation on fracking,' said a Brauer-Bund spokesman. The Brauer-Bund beer association is worried that fracking for shale gas, which involves pumping water and chemicals at high pressure into the ground, could pollute water used for brewing and break a 500-year-old industry rule on water purity."
Ruining water to get gas and oil (Score:5, Funny)
"it sounded like such a good idea!" ..
Uebersetzungsfehler? (Score:5, Informative)
The Reinheitsgebot stipulates beer have only THREE ingredients: water, barley and hops. The purity law dates to 1516. Yeast wouldn't be discovered until 1680 and even then wasn't recognized as a living organism.
Re:Uebersetzungsfehler? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Uebersetzungsfehler? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uebersetzungsfehler? (Score:5, Funny)
Problem solved then! They can simply amend it again to include the cocktail of chemicals from the fracking.
Benzene adds a delightful "bite" to an otherwise dull lager.
Re: (Score:3)
In the same manner that oak barrels inject other hydrocarbons into scotch. Benzene in trace amounts might make the beer tastier. Umm, benzene.
There may be some minor differences in the physiological effects of different hydrocarbons. /sarcasm
However, if you want benzene in your beer, then add some. I'll refrain.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
if that is the law then all beer is in violation. Unless the water is 100% pure, which is not what you will get from any well on the planet it is violation. The law is actually impossible to meet because one speck of dust means the beer is illegal.
Re:Uebersetzungsfehler? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually it is not a "law" as such. There is not law book that contains this law. It used to be a law in some places and guilds in the middle ages. But currently it is a well observed as a principle. The idea is to use the cleanest water possible. What is bad about trying to put the best ingredients into your product.
Re: (Score:3)
The fluids used in fracking do not exist as natural "chemicals". So your point is mood.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You are mixing up a few things. The Reinheitsgebot (law = gesetz, gebot =policy) is still the same. There is beer following the Reinheitsgebot (which is printed on the bottle), and beer which is not. They co-exist.
Re: (Score:3)
It does: the Reinheitsgebot specifically required that the malt be made from barley.
Beer saved the World! (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously... [wikipedia.org]People would die if they didn't drink fermented beverages in antiquity. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Was the British beer better than the Egyptian beer than preceded by a few millinea? In both cases the goal was to produce a product that didn't kill consumers. Those who were to drunk to brew and too poor to buy would logically have been bred out of the gene pool.
Re:Beer saved the World! (Score:5, Funny)
It was pretty watery and had just enough alcohol to kill much of the bacteria. ... You probably wouldn't touch the stuff.
I still can't believe Budweiser as that old.
Re:Beer saved the World! (Score:4, Informative)
Nearly. ISTR it was called "small beer" not "short beer". Even modern beer doesn't contain enough alcohol to kill bacteria; the important thing is that to make beer you had to boil it, which kills off any waterborne bacteria that were in your water supply. So up until the advent of treated water supplies you might well get cholera or dysentry from your water supply, but not from your beer.
Re: (Score:2)
it was called "small beer" not "short beer"
Small, short, I just speak American.
Even modern beer doesn't contain enough alcohol to kill bacteria; the important thing is that to make beer you had to boil it
Interesting. I wondered why the small alcohol content worked (maybe it helped a little?). I also wondered why they didn't just boil water, whether it was ignorance or just a preference for beer instead of water (actually I still don't know). I'm also obviously no brewer, as I didn't know you had to boil water to make beer.
Re:Beer saved the World! (Score:5, Informative)
it was called "small beer" not "short beer"
Small, short, I just speak American.
Even modern beer doesn't contain enough alcohol to kill bacteria; the important thing is that to make beer you had to boil it
Interesting. I wondered why the small alcohol content worked (maybe it helped a little?). I also wondered why they didn't just boil water, whether it was ignorance or just a preference for beer instead of water (actually I still don't know). I'm also obviously no brewer, as I didn't know you had to boil water to make beer.
I am a brewer, so what you'd learn is that while the small amount of alcohol helps to stem biological activity, there are two parts to ensure bacteria doesn't contaminate the end product - first, that the product is boiled is the true sanitation, but secondly during primary fermentation the active yeast strains compete with bacteria and win (or else it wouldn't be tasty). The fact that beer uses hops is another aid to the effort. The acids in the hop plant have effects that prevent spoilage, such as antibiotic and bacteriostatic qualities against gram-positive bacteria strains, and it seems to fend of molds as well. This way before refrigeration you could cask the beer in the fall/winter/early spring and then put it into a basement or as the germans did, bunkers by river beds, to drink it throughout the summer. Of course, there are exceptions such as belgian sours that purposely utilize brettanomyces, pediococcus, or lactobacillus to introduce the characteristic tang, but that's a little off topic and an entirely different conversation. -ZX
Re: (Score:2)
The real pollution problem with fracking (Score:5, Interesting)
The real pollution problem with fracking for gas isn't the fact that it's fracking as opposed to more traditional extraction techniques, but that the drilling sites are not well monitored and even existing regulations are not well enforced. In other words, the same crap can happen with conventional drilling. It's also ridiculous that thanks to Dick Cheney, companies don't have to tell the EPA or state environmental departments what the ingredients of their fracking fluids are. At least that's the situation here in the US - as an American I can't speak to the German situation so well. Hopefully they handle it better.
I'm afraid that this is yet another industry that'll screw itself through short term greed, just as lax safety at nuke plants has trashed that industry.
Profit (Score:2)
All a business is concerned about is profit, and rightly so! If a company doesn't have more money today than it yesterday it can't spend more money today than it did yesterday. Further, if it has less today than it did yesterday it can't spend any without causing risk to those who depend on it making more. Other than investing money only in and accepting the risk for doing so I don't know what else to suggest.
Re: (Score:2)
All a business is concerned about is profit, and rightly so!
Gewinn über alles? (anyone who actually speaks German feel free to correct).
Yes, profit is what I expect for-profit business to be mainly concerned with (hence the term "for-profit"). It makes a great economic tool, but we also introduce something called "regulation" to deal with externalities like pollution. In some cases intelligently run businesses even support that regulation because they realize that otherwise there may be a public backlash that will destroy their business.
Re: (Score:2)
The drilling and production of oil and gas is tightly regulated and monitored.
Re: (Score:3)
the Cheney laws are totally unthinkable in Germany or any other N/W European country
Hopefully you're right. Not so long ago they were unthinkable in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
All because of the bad example in the US (Score:3, Interesting)
I've myself gone to such meetings and it's quite astonishing the kind of utter rubbish that's being peddled as 'fact'. :)
When I get up and ask questions the organisers get nervous and the press interested
But these agitators seem to get away with it, at least for now.
As an example in my town they showed this slide [blogspot.com] that 'proves' how water is affected.
The scale is so ridiculous I can't imagine why we haven't produced this shallow gas a century ago.
Fact is the shale in my region sits below 3500 m (~10,000ft.)
Above it are huge salt layers that cap the Slochteren formation, the largest but 3/4 depleted on-shore gas field in Europe.
Would there be any leaks from the frack they'd logically end up in this reservoir.
A lady from the public jumped up and cried "Where should we go once our water is polluted", the organisers agreed with her, this crime should be stopped!
In the mean time they 'forget' to mention polluted water is produced at every conventional oil- and gas field, something that in this part of Europe has never been an issue.
But with shale gas it should be?
Thanks Cheney/Bush for fucking up a good idea with irresponsible legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
Fact is the shale in my region sits below 3500 m (~10,000ft.) Above it are huge salt layers that cap the Slochteren formation, the largest but 3/4 depleted on-shore gas field in Europe. Would there be any leaks from the frack they'd logically end up in this reservoir.
You're assuming that the contamination comes from the actual fracking itself. It usually comes from things like improperly sealed bore holes. Is it your contention that fracking (or any natural gas drilling) can't contaminate water supplies? Do you think everyone in the US reporting it is under a delusion and that we should just trust the gas industry?
Re: (Score:3)
An irresponsible action can be over-fracking a small shale layer and thus damaging formations that should retain the gas but are now leaking and allowing the gas to migrate up.
Responsible action on behalf of regulator and oil company would exclude such very shallow shales from getting an exploration and production licence.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem in the US is a lack of regulation
I agree, but unless you specifically say otherwise, talking about fracking as though it can't cause contamination because the actual fracking is at great depths misleads people into thinking that the whole operation can't cause contamination.
Re: (Score:2)
You shouldn't trust the gas industry. You need sound regulation and enforcement.
But the scare tactics and yes outright lies put forth by the opponents of fracking are just as bad.
The fact is that there are no confirmed reports of fracking contaminating drinking water.
The secondary operations associated with fracking have caused problems and there is a definite need to improve these operations.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is that there are no confirmed reports of fracking contaminating drinking water.
The actual fracking, no, but there are cases of the overall operations causing serious contamination.
Re: (Score:2)
Because of this thickness and the drop from the original pressure to it's present this sand will slowly subside under the pressure of the overbearing layers.
As predicted this subsidence will be in the order of 50 cm (18 in.) at the centre, the scaremongers predict half-meter clefts down the landscape.
Reality is this subsidence takes place over an about 50 km (30 mi) radius and thu
EU Environmental Regs Are a Mess (Score:5, Insightful)
These are the same people who are now building new coal burning plants because they shut down their nuclear power industry. And the coal they are burning is low quality crap lignite. In some countries in Europe coal consumption is increasing 50% per year.
Some have called it a new golden age of coal in Europe:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569039-europes-energy-policy-delivers-worst-all-possible-worlds-unwelcome-renaissance [economist.com]
Now of course they are going to turn their back on much cleaner natural gas because they are afraid that they can't write effective regs for shale gas production?
MOAR COAL!!!
Europe's environmental policy is flat out nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason being US coal has due to the abundance of shale gas gotten so cheap it is now flooding the world market and Europe is part of it.
Now don't worry too much, it won't be long and a nice CO2 levy will be slapped on to these plants returning them to the inefficient dinosaurs they are.
Specifically Germany is very much on it's way to a renewable energy economy, another reason they might not be so terrible interested in shale
Re: (Score:2)
US gas production is also causing world gas prices to fall. Europe of course isn't taking advantage of this because their policies give coal plants overly generous carbon allowances.
Dumb dumb dumb.
Re: (Score:3)
How long do you think planning and getting approval from authorities for any kind of power plant takes? In Germany: decades. So, if you buy into the propaganda, that coal power plants are built because of the Fukisima-caused nuclear exit strategy, all I can say is: congratulations! You have been fooled the way the lobbyists wan
They're worried about the beer? (Score:5, Funny)
Bullshit. The Germans have it all wrong. (Score:2, Offtopic)
I didn't read the summary or the TFA, but everyone knows it's the other way around: consumption of too much beer can ruin fracking. While the consumption of some beer may very well increase desire, reduce inhibitions and can make someone undesirable look very frackable indeed (google "beer goggles"), it is well documented that having too much beer reduces activity and performance and can very much ruin a good frack. In the extreme, having way too much beer will just make you pass out in the middle of frac
Bad Fracking vs Good fracking (Score:4, Interesting)
All fracking is not the same.
Bad fracking
1. Shallow wells
2. permeable layers between fracked shale and aquifer
3. Poor handling of fracking chemicals
Good fracking
1. Deep wells
2. Impermeable layer between shale and aquifer
3. Close monitoring of site and disposal of chemicals.
By the way, a similar thing has bee done for decades in oil fields [wikipedia.org] where hot water is injected down one well to increase production on others. The difference with fracking is the chemicals used to create and hold open the cracks so the natural gas can flow.
Re:Energy a bit more important than Beer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people are worried about that, too.
They should have made it to the headlines, too. And that is what actually worries me.
Re:Energy a bit more important than Beer (Score:5, Insightful)
That's like saying that it's okay to pollute the atmosphere with some poisonous gas (say, for example, chlorine gas) because we can always use technology to re-purify it.
Re:Energy a bit more important than Beer (Score:5, Informative)
The obvious solution will be to bottled and sell fresh air and water and let those that can't afford it die. Who cares what happens to plant and wild life that can't buy bottled products when we could be creating a whole new industry for some big corporation to make huge profits off something required to sustain life.
Re:Energy a bit more important than Beer (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you would be happier if humans went back to living in caves? Nearly all industry causes some type of waste. There are ways to deal with it responsibly.
The problem isn't that it can't be dealt with responsibly. The problem is we fear -- the past being our guide -- that it won't, at least not until it's already caused us problems.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Energy a bit more important than Beer (Score:4, Insightful)
That is an extraordinary claim and it requires extraordinary evidence. Specifically, it requires explaining why fracking liquid injected into a gasfield inevitably ends up in an aquifer, despite these being separated by impermeable layers (which is a requirement for gas to stay put in the first place).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But working safely is in the short run obviously not the cheapest method.
Re:Energy a bit more important than Beer (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that the cost is probably a large multiple of the win you can get from fracking. So why would this be considered an acceptable solution?
Oh, right, because those who get the profits are not the same as those who have to pay the cost.
Re:Energy a bit more important than Beer (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you misunderstand how fracking works. Fracking works by pumping water into the earth. The water is typically not potable, because potable water is expensive. So there's no amount of "monitoring" that can prevent "leaks" because the whole point of the process is to leak. You leak water into the ground under high pressure, and that releases natural gas which can then be exploited.
The problem with fracking is not so much that it would pollute ground water, although it could well do so, but that it will pollute aquifers.
Also, whenever an industry flack says "however, done right..." I wonder if said flack recalls any time in the history of extractive industries when things were "done right." Extractive industries are at their most profitable when things are not "done right," because doing things right is expensive. As long as the costs of not doing things right can be laid off on someone else, the stockholders would sue the asses off of a company that did things "right," because such a company would not be maximizing shareholder value.
So let us not pretend that things will be done right. Let us assume instead that they will not be done right, and plan for that, because that is what is going to actually happen.
Re:Energy a bit more important than Beer (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you misunderstand how fracking works. Fracking works by pumping water into the earth. The water is typically not potable, because potable water is expensive.
Isn't one or the key ways of making water potable by filtering it through the ground?
Its not that the fracking water is impure it is that it is actually Fracking MUD, an intentional mix of water, chemicals, (bentonite and others), as well as propellants. It starts polluted.
Re:Energy a bit more important than Beer (Score:4, Insightful)
Your post in one line (to save time):
You don't know it'll be done right, I don't know it'll be done wrong, so let's assume I'm correct because I told you I am.
Did that about sum it up?
I am not the original poster, but let me respond with: Yes, and that is why any sane person should err on the side of safety.
After all, if I can't prove you are guilty and you can't prove yourself innocent; I have to assume you are innocent. Because if you are actually guilty, I have merely just not punished you for what you already did. But if you are indeed innocent, I would commit a crime (or at least wrongdoing) on top of yours.
On the other hand, if someone has told you that I wrecked my previous 10 cars, you would probably not lend me your car; even if you have no proof for it and I don't have a proof against it. Here, the safe approach is to not lend me the car (unless I can prove to you I desperately need it and you believe me).
Erring on the side of caution is in itself always a very good thing.
The fine details come from when you believe the scales are in balance. For example, in the above case of the car, the person who told you that I'm a car-wrecker could've been a person that you know very well, or a random maniac with soiled clothing. I think in the latter case you'd be more inclined to believe my (still equally baseless) statement of innocence in terms of car-wrecking.
Now look again back at the track record of all parties in the question of "Is fracking safe?" and ask yourself: Are the scales in balance or even tipped in favour of the safe approack of not allowing fracking? If yes, then choose the safe route. If not, then you can contemplate being adventurous -- but be ready to examine the scales if new evidence comes up.
You see, the problem is not the question itself; just which side you find more trustworthy and reliable in its arguments and proofs.
Re: Energy a bit more important than Beer (Score:2, Insightful)
You obviously know nothing about Germany's economy. In a country where the average beer consumption is over a liter per person, ruining the beer would also ruin the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Over a liter per person! Wow. That ranks up there with... Utah? During Prohibition?
beer consumption per capita [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Water purification is simple. Distill it and you have far "purer" water than you get from a well.
Re:Energy a bit more important than Beer (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes! Let's destroy our clean drinking water in the name of boosting the fossil fuel industry! What a great fucking idea!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you drive a car, use or own anything made of plastic, ever fly anywhere, take a bus?
Popular Science did a report on fracking. Sits that have been contaminated so far? 1 and that was an unusual site where the gas was near the water table.
Usually the gas layer is several thousands feet below the water table. fracking fluid is heavy and flows down so contamination should be next to impossible.
Mindless fear and opposition is frankly destructive and will just increase the use of coal and imported oil and gas.
Re:Energy a bit more important than Beer (Score:5, Funny)
Are you saying he's another Hollywood tree-hugger distorting facts in order to sell movie tickets?
Re:Energy a bit more important than Beer (Score:5, Informative)
1 site contaminated? really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing#Groundwater_contamination [wikipedia.org]
Skimming 3 paragraphs shows 3 sites in the US and I'm sure proper research would turn up a lot more. There is a movie about this (arguably propaganda) called Gasland that I have yet to watch. Considering potable water is a necessary resource, and natural gas is not necessary (although it is important). I am very very wary of the proposition of risking one for another.
Re: (Score:3)
*why, oh why...
Because companies deriving large profits from fossil fuels will do whatever it takes to maximize and prolong those profits, everyone else be damned. The better-paid workers and executives can buy clean bottled water from current "known good" sources and presumably can pay for better-ventilated showers.
In all the articles and research, left unsaid is what effects the contaminated water will have on crops and livestock.
Were they anyone else (corps being people, after all), they'd be up for a D
Re: (Score:2)
Water table != aquifer. Sites that have been contaminated according to Popular Science is not so interesting. Get back to me when Nature weighs in on the question. Popular Science is a fun magazine, but it's not my go-to source for accurate reporting on environmental contamination in the oil industry. How many times has Popular Science done articles on the flying car you'll be able to buy in 20 years?
Re:Energy a bit more important than Beer (Score:4, Informative)
I drink from an aquifer. Most of my neighbors drink either from an aquifer or from ground water. People who are on town water in my town do in fact drink from a lake; the lake water is chlorinated, because it has to be, because animals poop nearby. But if you dumped a thousand gallons of hexane in it, the town would be drinking bottled water for the foreseeable future—there's no way to filter that out at the treatment plant. So don't give me this crap about it not mattering whether the water in streams and lakes is contaminated.
Re:Energy a bit more important than Beer (Score:4, Interesting)
Nobody drinks from a lake river or stream anymore.
The entire city of Vienna, Austria - and that is: millions of people - drink from mountain streams, whose water is led to Vienna by aquaducts and pipes.
Re: (Score:3)
All water can be cleaned using energy. Nobody drinks from a lake river or stream anymore.
No, no it can't. And cleaning it will not be cheap. Ethyl glycol ethers often dissolve the separation membranes on reverse osmosis systems. Many other chemicals are costly to remove. The disposal of the chemicals they were able to retrieve is an added expense. Most companies do not disclose the 'cocktail' of chemicals they're using, therefore testing for contaminants is an added cost. Most wells require a minimum of 500,000 gallons of water to frack and can consume up to 16 times that over a well's lifet
Re: (Score:2)
water purity (a long term issue) is a lot more important than the excuse of "energy" (immediate profits).
Re: (Score:2)
For about 10 or twelfe years. (which is IIRC the estimated volume of oil/gas that could be produced my fracking).
And then a country WITHOUT energy, clean water and beer is definitly NOT what we need.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
German industry doesn't need a supply-side boost: it needs a demand-side boost. Fracking is a supply-side boost. Fracking will not help German industry.
Re:Energy a bit more important than Beer (Score:5, Interesting)
Or if only there was a way to filter the water (they don't already filter it?).
Filtering works great for sand, grit, etc. but is not so easy w/ various mixed in chemicals.
Or if only you could take hydrogen and oxygen gasses and do anything useful with them.
You mean the hydrogen that you get from the electrolysis of water, and the oxygen you get either from that or liquefying air? That'll solve your energy problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Filtering works great for sand, grit, etc. but is not so easy w/ various mixed in chemicals.
Well, to be strict, you just need to widen the definition of "filtering" to include reverse osmosis, nano-filtration and preparative chromatography. Not that these processes are always realistic, but just saying...
Re: (Score:2)
If only there were some. . .other. . .source of water for the brewers than their existing wells.
Existing wells which the companies have no doubt spent a lot of time and money developing to make sure they can provide an adequate supply. Do you really expect them to have to dump all of that and start buying it in from a profit-seeking provider just because somebody else has started to contaminate the groundwater?
Or if only there was a way to filter the water (they don't already filter it?).
Any why should they have to pay to clean up somebody elses pollution? Any filtration they have is probably geared for contaminants currently found in the ground, not fracking-byproducts.
Or if only you could take hydrogen and oxygen gasses and do anything useful with them.
Again,
Re: (Score:2)
We shouldn't defend anybody polluting private water wells - that's an affront to property rights - but it's also silly to think that any of those wells contain 'pure water'. Every ground well has some minerals in it, and it's often those 'impurities' that give the local food products their unique character.
We also shouldn't be paying attention to any 500-year-old rules that have something to say about chemistry...
Re: (Score:3)
We also shouldn't be paying attention to any 500-year-old rules that have something to say about chemistry...
I don't know about that. "Do not drink from the water the goat just pissed in" remains a sensible rule, even after all this time. Different centuries, different goats, but the principle remains sound.
Re:Energy a bit more important than Beer (Score:4, Informative)
Or if only there was a way to filter the water (they don't already filter it?
In much of Germany, the water in the brewers' wells is so pure, they do not need to filter it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's what humans do... over and over and over again.
Re: (Score:2)
More beer is more important than beer. There, I've run rings 'round you logically.
Re: (Score:3)
So distill the water if you need it "pure". I doubt the water coming out of the ground is as "pure" as distilled water.
Forget beer - do you know how much potable water the average person uses in a day? Distillation is very energy intensive, otherwise it would be used all over to get fresh water from salt water. Distilled water also tastes like crap. Even soft water has enough mineral content to change the flavor, and I suspect that's part of the beer flavor. Brewer's tend to be very particular about their exact water source, which wouldn't be an issue if distilled water worked well.
Re: (Score:3)
It would only be a flaw in their argument if the Reinheitsgebot called for distilled water, which of course it does not. "Pure" in reference to water means "safe to drink." If the well has been poisoned, the water is no longer pure. That is precisely what we are talking about here.
Re:So distill the water... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just make sure it stays pure and don't allow US-style rape of resources.
Under present EU and German legislation modern oilfield technology is quite well capable of extracting shale gas in a clean and responsible way without the American effects on the environment and population.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I watch way too many WWII documentaries.
Same here, but it's ok if you only apply it to beer.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh great, German anti-science deniers spreading scare stories about fracking.
Is it your scientific contention that fracking can't pollute water supplies?
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously it can't! After all, fracking takes place far below where the wells get their water, and with our latest technology, we have Scotty here to teleport the chemicals down and the gas up without having to drill through the water table!
Scotty ain't so sharp. He can't even tell the difference between a computer mouse and a microphone.
Re: (Score:3)
We have reverse-osmosis filtering system on the water source for the humidifiers for the environmental chambers in the test lab at work. It's not unknown technology. The old-fashioned alternative is a still.
You think that's a solution? What about the rest of the potable water supply and the cost and energy use of what you suggest.
Are these breweries currently using unfiltered, unpurified water?
Quite possibly. There are places where untouched ground water is quite safe to drink (let alone what the alcohol in beer does to further sterilize it). There are plenty of people in less densely populated areas that get their water from a backyard well.
And What of the Natural Salts and Minerals? (Score:3)
We have reverse-osmosis filtering system on the water source for the humidifiers for the environmental chambers in the test lab at work. It's not unknown technology. The old-fashioned alternative is a still.
Are these breweries currently using unfiltered, unpurified water?
As someone who consumes large amounts of beer, there are salts and minerals that exist in the water that come from certain aquifers that are actually desired to be in place for the beer and can have a negative or positive effect on the yeast. An adequate amount of calcium, magnesium, and zinc is necessary for some of the yeast’s metabolic paths. I believe most brewers add in these things to aid the yeast as much or as little as they want but I am almost certain that RO would completely remove any of
Point rules (Score:2)
And now you know why I always bring a case or two of Point Special back with me whenever I get back to WI. The magnesium salts in the local water makes all the difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well water is anything but pure. In the best case its loader with dissolved minerals and full of microbes. ... say its pure is crazy talk.
You're quibbling over the definition of "pure". At least you could find out what the German word is and quibble over that definition. Personally I'd rather have the minerals dissolved in most decent ground water than, say benzene.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm German and a beer fan. And I never stop beeing amazed about the variety of beer you actually can produce within the limits of the purity law. On the other hand, I became a fan of Ameriucan craft beer, too.
Belgium? Ummm thanks, but no thanks....
Re: (Score:2)
You can blame Budweiser for that. Some of our microbrewries produce excellent beers. Anheiser/Bush just wants everyone to drink "Bud".
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Except that 80% of German beer that is drunk it good or better beer and 80% of american beer that is drunk is mediocre or worse. You can find very bad beer in Germany and great beer in the US. The big difference in Germany is that most beer that is sold in bars is from the one of the local breweries, which on average is 3 per town (from 1000 pop.). In many cases you have larger beer houses that brew and sell their own beer. On average you get better beer in Germany than the US.
- from a USA/German national
Re: (Score:2)
local breweries, which on average is 3 per town (from 1000 pop.)
Small wonder the last time I visited Germany it seemed like everyone was staggering. It may have helped that it was during Oktoberfest.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that 80% of German beer that is drunk it good or better beer and 80% of american beer that is drunk is mediocre or worse. You can find very bad beer in Germany and great beer in the US. The big difference in Germany is that most beer that is sold in bars is from the one of the local breweries, which on average is 3 per town (from 1000 pop.). In many cases you have larger beer houses that brew and sell their own beer. On average you get better beer in Germany than the US.
- from a USA/German national
And 100% of Belgium beer is as good or better than German; as is their chocolates relative to the Swiss.
Re: (Score:3)
silly americans think their beer is beer...
FTFY
Good thing you said that about Americans, who are quite forgiving about such "jokes". If you'd said that about Canadians, you could be in real trouble [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
nothing is happening to the beer source water now
If for no other reason than that they aren't fracking yet. This is about a proposed law permitting it.
and it may well be that nothing will happen to it in the future. And if anything does happen, the magnitude of it could be so small as to be unnoticeable
That's two "maybe's", and the other side of that is two "maybe not's". Wouldn't it be nice to get some assurances before proceeding w/ something that can seriously contaminate the water supply, as has happened at fracking sites in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to ban fracking in Germany, just give the lawmakers some American beer and remind them that there's fracking in the US and look how the beer tastes.
Careful, if you give them some of our good microbrewery stuff they might decide that contamination is a good thing. The French used to turn their noses up at American wines too, until a blind test by French testers found they preferred some of the American wines.