After the last one of these posts talking about cold brew coffee I attempted to replicate the results by just throwing some water and coffee into an ultrasonic jewelry cleaner. Results were not satisfactory. I wonder if extracting the transducer from the jewelry cleaner and attaching it to my Portafilter would work.
My dad was stationed on a submarine in the navy and he and a few others used to dump their laundry in the ultra-sonic cleaner normally used to clean engine parts. Said it did a great job....
I tend to wake up before my partner, and I can only imagine the look on her face when the ritualistic grinder noise gets joined by a noisy brewer.
In all seriousness, people tend to have a routine around coffee, but I think the Aeropress showed that people will change if the result is meaningfully better.
"Most of us think of espresso as a hot, high-pressure ritual." - No, most of us dont care how the sausage is made, and just want the end product. Sure theres lots of individual coffee enthusiasts who cares, but in % terms thats not "most of us", most of us do not care, and nobody in my 40 years of life has ever complained about coffee energy usage.
Extract with sound waves is an interesting idea, but dont romanticize demand that doesnt exist, it wrecks credibility, literally in the first sentence of the article
As I glance at my (checks notes) $200 power bill in San Diego apartment used entirely to run 3 ceiling fans and a box fan, I’m getting curious about all the ways power consumption can be reduced. No AC, LED lights, all gas appliances.
I am going to switch over to a bunch of DC tower fans which claim to cut energy usage substantially. I wish more appliances would just switch to DC motors.
This seems very interesting, at least from a pure coffee nerd standpoint and what it could mean for improving espresso brewing in general.
However, I'm going through the research paper, and am a bit skeptical of the energy savings angle, especially considering the many variables with espresso machine in terms of how they heat and brew (single vs dual boilers, heat exchangers vs dippers, spring lever machines vs pump driven). I'm weary of how they are doing a baseline comparison here, especially because the paper states that the comparison was done between a modified Ascaso machine (with the ultrasound gizmo) vs an entirely different machine (Sanremo Cube); and also that they swapped the Ascaso machine's original brew pump and put in a seemingly expensive, but more efficient "positive displacement magnetic gear pump". They still use the pump to drive about 11 bar of pressure during brewing with it run on some sort of interval schedule throughout the 3 minute cycle. They did factor out the initial heat up times which I guess makes sense.
However, another thing (on top of the obvious "room temperature espresso" problem) is that you'd still need steam / heat to produce milk based drinks (relevant for both home and especially cafes). Depending on the machine (including the Sanremo Cube they tested with) some of the "idle energy" usage is to support on demand steam generation. This doesn't seem to have been factored into their energy model which is pretty sketchy.
An espresso machine is essentially a 1-2kW electric boiler, a compressor pump, some valves/actuators, and some PIDs, right?
Even if it draws 1.5kW constant for 24h/day that’s only 36kWh. That’s about ~$5 to ~$15 of electricity, depending on how mismanaged your utility is.
It costs less than an hour of labor to power an espresso machine for an entire day, the energy cost to pull a shot is negligible, pennies. The rooftop unit cooling and heating the coffee shop probably uses 2-3x more energy.
If you want to really save energy, then they've already made the ideal product: caffeine pills. It's all the wonderful drugs without any of the bullshit. You can have it at any temperature, with any drink or even without a drink at all. It doesn't get cold or give you coffee breath. They're ultra compact and don't require rituals or specialty restaurants. They're also incredibly cheap.
36 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 49.0 ms ] threadIn all seriousness, people tend to have a routine around coffee, but I think the Aeropress showed that people will change if the result is meaningfully better.
But, yuck, who on earth wants to drink actual espresso at room temperature?
Extract with sound waves is an interesting idea, but dont romanticize demand that doesnt exist, it wrecks credibility, literally in the first sentence of the article
I am going to switch over to a bunch of DC tower fans which claim to cut energy usage substantially. I wish more appliances would just switch to DC motors.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48552440
Cutting costs does make sense for this type of product, but is it enough to keep up with declining demand?
For domestic use, in the home of somebody whose coffee snobbery is dialled to 11, I need far more information.
What beans were they using, freshness, etc? (Edit: Campos coffee… not on my shopping list that’s for sure…)
How did they control for extraction method differences to maximise output quality for all brew methods? (Edit: TDS and EY)
Were the “regular” coffee drinkers regular consumers of espresso?
Most importantly, how long until Hoffman does a deep dive and much will it cost so I can allocate budget for yet another coffee making device?
However, I'm going through the research paper, and am a bit skeptical of the energy savings angle, especially considering the many variables with espresso machine in terms of how they heat and brew (single vs dual boilers, heat exchangers vs dippers, spring lever machines vs pump driven). I'm weary of how they are doing a baseline comparison here, especially because the paper states that the comparison was done between a modified Ascaso machine (with the ultrasound gizmo) vs an entirely different machine (Sanremo Cube); and also that they swapped the Ascaso machine's original brew pump and put in a seemingly expensive, but more efficient "positive displacement magnetic gear pump". They still use the pump to drive about 11 bar of pressure during brewing with it run on some sort of interval schedule throughout the 3 minute cycle. They did factor out the initial heat up times which I guess makes sense.
However, another thing (on top of the obvious "room temperature espresso" problem) is that you'd still need steam / heat to produce milk based drinks (relevant for both home and especially cafes). Depending on the machine (including the Sanremo Cube they tested with) some of the "idle energy" usage is to support on demand steam generation. This doesn't seem to have been factored into their energy model which is pretty sketchy.
- The taste is apparently the same "There were no significant differences in aroma, flavour, bitterness or overall liking."
- That ultrasonic horn looks a lot smaller than both a modern espresso machine or a hand-cranked model like a Flair/Rok.
Even if it draws 1.5kW constant for 24h/day that’s only 36kWh. That’s about ~$5 to ~$15 of electricity, depending on how mismanaged your utility is.
It costs less than an hour of labor to power an espresso machine for an entire day, the energy cost to pull a shot is negligible, pennies. The rooftop unit cooling and heating the coffee shop probably uses 2-3x more energy.