Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: bubbly carbon footprints

  1. #1
    Martin Field Guest

    Default bubbly carbon footprints

    Sorry if this has been asked before. Not sure exactly how much CO2 is in a
    bottle of bubbly, but there's enough to maintain a pressure of about 6
    atmospheres.

    My question, in two parts: in these days of global warming what effect does
    the opening of a bottle have on the world's carbon footprint?

    If it is significant, should we foreswear the drinking of fizz?

    Cheers!

    Martin



  2. #2
    DaleW Guest

    Default Re: bubbly carbon footprints

    On Apr 17, 7:02*pm, "Martin Field" <onet...@liamezo.moc.ua> wrote:
    > Sorry if this has been asked before. Not sure exactly how much CO2 is in a
    > bottle of bubbly, but there's enough to maintain a pressure of about 6
    > atmospheres.
    >
    > My question, in two parts: in these days of global warming what effect does
    > the opening of a bottle have on the world's carbon footprint?
    >
    > If it is significant, should we foreswear the drinking of fizz?
    >
    > Cheers!
    >
    > Martin


    Hopefully Dr Lipton will check in with actual knowledge. But as a bear
    of very little brain, doesn't the bubbly process just trap the CO2?
    Still wine produces same amount, just released to atmosphere?


  3. #3
    Paul Arthur Guest

    Default Re: bubbly carbon footprints

    On 2009-04-17, DaleW <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Apr 17, 7:02*pm, "Martin Field" <onet...@liamezo.moc.ua> wrote:
    >
    >> Sorry if this has been asked before. Not sure exactly how much CO2
    >> is in a bottle of bubbly, but there's enough to maintain a pressure
    >> of about 6 atmospheres.
    >>
    >> My question, in two parts: in these days of global warming what
    >> effect does the opening of a bottle have on the world's carbon
    >> footprint?
    >>
    >> If it is significant, should we foreswear the drinking of fizz?

    >
    > Hopefully Dr Lipton will check in with actual knowledge. But as a
    > bear of very little brain, doesn't the bubbly process just trap the
    > CO2? Still wine produces same amount, just released to atmosphere?


    Well, no. All other things being equal, a still wine and a sparkling
    wine will produce the same amount of CO2 during primary fermentation.
    However, the CO2 present in the bottle is the result of a process
    (either secondary fermentation or forced carbonation) that still wine
    does not undergo.

    Still, this additional amount of CO2 is indeed going to be much less
    than that released during primary fermentation, so to worry about it
    strikes me as rather silly.

    --
    What I hit F to say, though, is that there's more than one way to gain
    respect. When you've got a major nest of Monks by the upstream IP feed,
    their hearts and minds will follow.
    --AdB in ASR

  4. #4
    Ronin Guest

    Default Re: bubbly carbon footprints

    On 2009-04-17 17:57:57 -0700, Paul Arthur <[email protected]> said:

    > On 2009-04-17, DaleW <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> On Apr 17, 7:02*pm, "Martin Field" <onet...@liamezo.moc.ua> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Sorry if this has been asked before. Not sure exactly how much CO2
    >>> is in a bottle of bubbly, but there's enough to maintain a pressure
    >>> of about 6 atmospheres.
    >>>
    >>> My question, in two parts: in these days of global warming what
    >>> effect does the opening of a bottle have on the world's carbon
    >>> footprint?
    >>>
    >>> If it is significant, should we foreswear the drinking of fizz?

    >>
    >> Hopefully Dr Lipton will check in with actual knowledge. But as a
    >> bear of very little brain, doesn't the bubbly process just trap the
    >> CO2? Still wine produces same amount, just released to atmosphere?

    >
    > Well, no. All other things being equal, a still wine and a sparkling
    > wine will produce the same amount of CO2 during primary fermentation.
    > However, the CO2 present in the bottle is the result of a process
    > (either secondary fermentation or forced carbonation) that still wine
    > does not undergo.
    >
    > Still, this additional amount of CO2 is indeed going to be much less
    > than that released during primary fermentation, so to worry about it
    > strikes me as rather silly.


    And beyond that, who cares?


  5. #5
    Young Martle Guest

    Default Re: bubbly carbon footprints

    On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:49:32 -0700 (PDT), DaleW <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >> But as a bear of very little brain,


    You're a tubby little cubby all stuffed with fluff!!??

  6. #6
    cwdjrxyz Guest

    Default Re: bubbly carbon footprints

    On Apr 17, 6:02*pm, "Martin Field" <onet...@liamezo.moc.ua> wrote:
    > Sorry if this has been asked before. Not sure exactly how much CO2 is in a
    > bottle of bubbly, but there's enough to maintain a pressure of about 6
    > atmospheres.
    >
    > My question, in two parts: in these days of global warming what effect does
    > the opening of a bottle have on the world's carbon footprint?
    >
    > If it is significant, should we foreswear the drinking of fizz?


    Most of the CO2 produced in making Champagne is released during
    fermentation of the still wine. The CO2 in the bottle is produced by
    adding sugar to the still wine to start fermentation again in the
    sealed bottle. This portion of the CO2 will be released when the
    Champagne is opened. The total amount of CO2 released depends on the
    total amount of sugar in the unfermented grape juice plus that added
    for secondary fermentation in the bottle. Not nearly as much total
    sugar is involved in Champagne as is involved in rich, late harvest
    wines such as Sauternes. Perhaps we should quit drinking Sauternes and
    switch to Champagne :-). However the situation is really much more
    complicated than that. What is the total energy needed to produce the
    Champagne including that to make the extra heavy bottle, etc. If the
    energy comes from nuclear or solar power, no CO2 will be released in
    making the glass for example. However if the power used to make the
    glass comes from burning of fuels, that might release considerable CO2
    in producing the power needed to make the glass. However, some fuel
    may be burned and release CO2 to produce the equipment needed for
    generation of solar or nuclear power. This requires extremely complex
    mathematical analysis and often more research. "Common sense"
    reactions in such cases often turn out to be "common ignorance."

    CO2 is not something bad that should be reduced as much as possible.
    It is necessary for plant growth, for example. The trick is to balance
    the CO2 content in the air so that release of CO2 is not much greater
    than that needed to support plant growth properly. Of course as more
    land is cleared, it takes less CO2 release to support the reduced
    population of plants. If the growth of the population were limited or
    reduced, there would be no need to clear more land and and there would
    be fewer people to release CO2. Here you open a can of worms that
    brings out all sorts of arguments, moral considerations, and shrill
    reactions from many. We are dealing with an extremely complicated
    problem with a huge number of variables, all of which must be
    quantitatively considered, in any meaningful evaluation of the status
    of CO2 loss or gain in the air.

  7. #7
    Mike Tommasi Guest

    Default Re: bubbly carbon footprints

    cwdjrxyz wrote:
    > What is the total energy needed to produce the
    > Champagne including that to make the extra heavy bottle, etc. If the
    > energy comes from nuclear or solar power, no CO2 will be released in
    > making the glass for example.


    France's electricity supply is over 90% nuclear, so glass produced here
    would have a small CO2 footprint.


    --
    Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
    email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

  8. #8
    Michael Pronay Guest

    Default Re: bubbly carbon footprints

    Paul Arthur <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> Hopefully Dr Lipton will check in with actual knowledge. But as
    >> a bear of very little brain, doesn't the bubbly process just
    >> trap the CO2? Still wine produces same amount, just released to
    >> atmosphere?


    > Well, no. All other things being equal, a still wine and a
    > sparkling wine will produce the same amount of CO2 during
    > primary fermentation.


    I beg to differ. Let's take the typical example of Champagne. The
    base wine is harvested when sugar in the grapes will produce 10.5%
    of natural alcohol. If there is not enough sugar, then the must
    is chaptalized to give a 10.5% base wine. The finished example
    typically has 12.5%, so the total amount of CO2 is exactly the
    same as a wine with 12.5%.

    M.

  9. #9
    Michael Pronay Guest

    Default Re: bubbly carbon footprints

    cwdjrxyz <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Most of the CO2 produced in making Champagne is released during
    > fermentation of the still wine. The CO2 in the bottle is
    > produced by adding sugar to the still wine to start fermentation
    > again in the sealed bottle. This portion of the CO2 will be
    > released when the Champagne is opened. The total amount of CO2
    > released depends on the total amount of sugar in the unfermented
    > grape juice plus that added for secondary fermentation in the
    > bottle. Not nearly as much total sugar is involved in Champagne
    > as is involved in rich, late harvest wines such as Sauternes.
    > Perhaps we should quit drinking Sauternes and switch to
    > Champagne :-).


    Again I beg to differ. The amount of CO2 has nothing to do with
    the amount of sugar in the finished wine, only with the amount of
    alcohol.

    So the most environmental friendly wine should be Asti or sweet
    Mosel Auslese (5 to 7%); the least freundly Californian Zin with
    16%.

    M.

  10. #10
    Michael Pronay Guest

    Default Re: bubbly carbon footprints

    Michael Pronay <[email protected]> wrote:

    > So the most environmental friendly wine should be Asti or sweet
    > Mosel Auslese (5 to 7%); the least freundly Californian Zin with
    > 16%. ^^

    ie

    Sorry,

    M.

  11. #11
    Mike Tommasi Guest

    Default Re: bubbly carbon footprints

    Michael Pronay wrote:
    > Paul Arthur <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>> Hopefully Dr Lipton will check in with actual knowledge. But as
    >>> a bear of very little brain, doesn't the bubbly process just
    >>> trap the CO2? Still wine produces same amount, just released to
    >>> atmosphere?

    >
    >> Well, no. All other things being equal, a still wine and a
    >> sparkling wine will produce the same amount of CO2 during
    >> primary fermentation.

    >
    > I beg to differ. Let's take the typical example of Champagne. The
    > base wine is harvested when sugar in the grapes will produce 10.5%
    > of natural alcohol. If there is not enough sugar, then the must
    > is chaptalized to give a 10.5% base wine. The finished example
    > typically has 12.5%, so the total amount of CO2 is exactly the
    > same as a wine with 12.5%.


    Yes, but what matters in environmental terms is not how much CO2 is
    produced in fermentation of grape juice, which is carbon neutral, but
    how much net CO2 is added to the environment.

    Since CO2 from juice fermentation (not including added sugar!) is coming
    from plants that in order to produce sugar had to sequester CO2 from the
    atmosphere, the fermentation CO2 is basically returning to the
    atmosphere what the plant took away. It is CO2 neutral.

    What does matter is the rest, the energy to make the bottles, wash the
    corks, irrigate the cork trees, transport the bottles (empty and full),
    transport and refine the sugar or MCR, host the website, travel for
    promotion, etc..

    --
    Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
    email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

  12. #12
    cwdjrxyz Guest

    Default Re: bubbly carbon footprints

    On Apr 18, 10:49*am, Mike Tommasi <nob...@tommasi.org> wrote:
    > Michael Pronay wrote:
    > > Paul Arthur <floweryson...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >
    > >>> Hopefully Dr Lipton will check in with actual knowledge. But as
    > >>> a bear of very little brain, doesn't the bubbly process just
    > >>> trap the CO2? Still wine produces same amount, just released to
    > >>> atmosphere?

    >
    > >> Well, no. All other things being equal, a still wine and a
    > >> sparkling wine will produce the same amount of CO2 during
    > >> primary fermentation.

    >
    > > I beg to differ. Let's take the typical example of Champagne. The
    > > base wine is harvested when sugar in the grapes will produce 10.5%
    > > of natural alcohol. If there is not enough sugar, then the must
    > > is chaptalized to give a 10.5% base wine. The finished example
    > > typically has 12.5%, so the total amount of CO2 is exactly the
    > > same as a wine with 12.5%.

    >
    > Yes, but what matters in environmental terms is not how much CO2 is
    > produced in fermentation of grape juice, which is carbon neutral, but
    > how much net CO2 is added to the environment.


    > Since CO2 from juice fermentation (not including added sugar!) is coming
    > from plants that in order to produce sugar had to sequester CO2 from the
    > atmosphere, the fermentation CO2 is basically returning to the
    > atmosphere what the plant took away. It is CO2 neutral.


    Again, the total amount of sugar in the grape juice and any added
    sugar determines the total amount of CO2 released to a good
    approximation. The first release of CO2 comes in fermenting the grape
    juice. The second release happens when the bottle is opened if the
    wine is a sparkling one. The third release, which I did not describe,
    happens when the wine is drunk and digested. The body "burns" alcohol
    and any residual sugar in the wine and we release CO2 to the air.
    Thus, to a decent approximation, the fermentation and consumption of
    wine is carbon neutral, as you suggest. But one can play the devil's
    advocate. Grape vines pruned for making good wines do not have nearly
    the leaf area coverage per unit of land as do large trees, for
    example. Thus if we pull up all of the wine grape vines and instead
    plant apple or pear trees, a given area of land then likely will take
    up much more CO2 from the atmosphere. So perhaps we need to outlaw
    grape wine and drink the fermented juice of apples and pears :-) .
    The wine that might release the most CO2 might be Tokai Essencia,
    since it has such an extreme sugar content. However the digestion of
    this wine would return the CO2 to the atmosphere, which likely would
    be about the same as the CO2 used by the grape plants to make the
    sugars in the Tokaji grapes. Since so little such wine is made and
    since most people will drink only very small portions of it at one
    time, consideration of this very extreme case is of no practical
    importance. Perhaps we need to change the subject to the middle ages
    discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin :-).


    > What does matter is the rest, the energy to make the bottles, wash the
    > corks, irrigate the cork trees, transport the bottles (empty and full),
    > transport and refine the sugar or MCR, host the website, travel for
    > promotion, etc..


    I agree, but there are likely many other much more important things to
    consider, including burning less coal and using more solar and nuclear
    power, than wine making. To be most effective, you need to start with
    known big things.

    > --
    > Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
    > email linkhttp://www.tommasi.org/mymail



  13. #13
    T.C. Guest

    Default Re: bubbly carbon footprints

    "Michael Pronay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    > cwdjrxyz <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Most of the CO2 produced in making Champagne is released during
    >> fermentation of the still wine. The CO2 in the bottle is
    >> produced by adding sugar to the still wine to start fermentation
    >> again in the sealed bottle. This portion of the CO2 will be
    >> released when the Champagne is opened. The total amount of CO2
    >> released depends on the total amount of sugar in the unfermented
    >> grape juice plus that added for secondary fermentation in the
    >> bottle. Not nearly as much total sugar is involved in Champagne
    >> as is involved in rich, late harvest wines such as Sauternes.
    >> Perhaps we should quit drinking Sauternes and switch to
    >> Champagne :-).

    >
    > Again I beg to differ. The amount of CO2 has nothing to do with
    > the amount of sugar in the finished wine, only with the amount of
    > alcohol.
    >
    > So the most environmental friendly wine should be Asti or sweet
    > Mosel Auslese (5 to 7%); the least freundly Californian Zin with
    > 16%.
    >
    > M.



    Fermentation of grape juice is neither more or less environmentally
    friendly. It is completely carbon neutral irregardless of percent alcohol.
    The CO2 released is the same CO2 that was fixed in the grapes by the vines
    to begin with.


  14. #14
    T.C. Guest

    Default Re: bubbly carbon footprints

    "Martin Field" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:49e90a94$0$29866$[email protected]..
    > Sorry if this has been asked before. Not sure exactly how much CO2 is in a
    > bottle of bubbly, but there's enough to maintain a pressure of about 6
    > atmospheres.
    >
    > My question, in two parts: in these days of global warming what effect
    > does the opening of a bottle have on the world's carbon footprint?
    >
    > If it is significant, should we foreswear the drinking of fizz?
    >
    > Cheers!
    >
    > Martin
    >



    Energy was spent to move grape juice into fermenters, wine out of those
    fermenters, to stabilize the wine, to make the ingredients necessary for
    additions, finings, etc, to produce the bottles, fill the bottles, label the
    bottles, pack the bottles, ship the bottles, etc. etc. etc.

    The fermentation of wine is completely carbon neutral. The yeast cannot
    release any more CO2 than carbon is present in the juice. The CO2 trapped
    in the bubble from the dosage results for added sugar which was refined from
    some plant. Also carbon neutral except for the energy spent to refine such
    sugar for addition.

    Thus the carbonation is the least of your worries when considering your
    carbon footprint.

    T.C.


  15. #15
    Mike Tommasi Guest

    Default Re: bubbly carbon footprints

    T.C. wrote:
    > "Michael Pronay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]..
    >> cwdjrxyz <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Most of the CO2 produced in making Champagne is released during
    >>> fermentation of the still wine. The CO2 in the bottle is
    >>> produced by adding sugar to the still wine to start fermentation
    >>> again in the sealed bottle. This portion of the CO2 will be
    >>> released when the Champagne is opened. The total amount of CO2
    >>> released depends on the total amount of sugar in the unfermented
    >>> grape juice plus that added for secondary fermentation in the
    >>> bottle. Not nearly as much total sugar is involved in Champagne
    >>> as is involved in rich, late harvest wines such as Sauternes.
    >>> Perhaps we should quit drinking Sauternes and switch to
    >>> Champagne :-).

    >>
    >> Again I beg to differ. The amount of CO2 has nothing to do with
    >> the amount of sugar in the finished wine, only with the amount of
    >> alcohol.
    >>
    >> So the most environmental friendly wine should be Asti or sweet
    >> Mosel Auslese (5 to 7%); the least freundly Californian Zin with
    >> 16%.
    >>
    >> M.

    >
    >
    > Fermentation of grape juice is neither more or less environmentally
    > friendly. It is completely carbon neutral irregardless of percent
    > alcohol. The CO2 released is the same CO2 that was fixed in the grapes
    > by the vines to begin with.


    That's what I wrote :-|

    --
    Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
    email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

Posting Permissions

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32