Silk City Distillers

Correct, the temperature of a 250 degree liquid and 250 degree steam (15.15psig) are the same. However, the energy stored in 1 pound of each is different. Don't talk in volumes, we're not talking apples to apples, you need to talk in mass. A pound of water and a pound of steam - when boiled, a pound of water turns into a pound of steam, which turns into a pound of condensate (water). Why is volume irrelevant? The reason is that steam can flow faster through piping than water can. Typical steam velocity is around 100 feet per second for low pressure steam, maximum water velocity is like 5 feet per second. In addition, a water to water heat exchanger will generally need to be larger than a steam to water heat exchanger, so you can't assume they are operating within the same fixed volume (besides, steam will win if they do). The bit you are missing is latent vs sensible heat, and the energy transferred as a result of the phase change from vapor to condensate, which is exactly the same energy required to turn the water into steam. So when that 1 pound of steam at 15psi condenses on the walls of the jacket or in the heat exchanger, it gives up all of the 1164 BTU to the transfer medium as part of the condensation process - this is a huge amount of energy. Then, as condensate, it also transfers heat. But, it is significantly less - which would be the same as with water, because it's not undergoing the phase change, you only have the sensible heat to work with. A pound of water at 15psi only has a total of 218 BTU/LB, and realistically, it can't give it all up (it would need to leave the jacket at 32'F to have given up all it's heat, not realistic - right). ASD mentioned it above, if the pound of water can only realistically give up 20-30BTU per pound, versus the 1164BTU per pound for steam. It's too early to do the math, but theoretically, you are probably need the water system to be sized more similarly to a fire sprinkler system main than a residential hydronic heating loop. I still don't see how you are getting a 350,000BTU boiler to do the same work of a 2,000,000BTU boiler. The work is being done where the fuel is begin burned, everything else is just wiring the battery to the lightbulb. Even assuming 100% efficiency of the transfer (which is hogwash), 350000BTU/HR (boiler output, not boiler input) is only sufficient to take ~265 gallons from ~60F to ~212F in 1 hour time.

Find another plumber. The steam or water are not the power sources, they are only the energy transfer mechanisms from the fuel burner to the point where heat is needed. Given our options, there is no heat transfer math that makes a 350kbtu burner equal a 2,000kbtu burner, even if you had ideal heat transfer (no losses). This certainly won't happen with water, because we know the heat transfer efficiency of steam is better in comparison. How can a worse heat transfer mechanism result in less input heat being required? It can't. At 15psig, steam will have 5 times the heat carrying capacity of water, 218btu/lb vs 1164btu/lb. Even if you were to run it at higher pressures and boiling points with the water, at best you might be pushing the water/glycol to about 260btu/lb. In addition, steam has a higher heat transfer coefficient than water and water/glycol mixtures. Not to mention that glycol mixtures have an even lower specific heat than straight water, which means they perform even worse than water does. So the "chemicals" are a trade off, higher BP for less heat carrying capacity. Steam can move more heat from point A to point B, and it can do it with higher efficiency. The cost for a water vs steam boiler of the same size (hell even the same model) is not going to be significantly different (For example, something like a cast-iron boiler that can be used for either hydronic or steam). Sure, the steam trim is different than the water trim, but we're not talking night and day differences in the cost of any of this equipment. Perhaps you can make do with only 350kbtu of input heat, but I suspect you will be incredibly disappointed with the heat up times. Probably take you 3 hours to bring 1000 liters to a boil, if it ever boils. In addition, jackets, coils, and heat exchangers that are using water are going to have to be larger/longer than their steam counterparts. There is a reason steam is so widely used for this purpose. It has nothing to do with doing things the old way.

Most of the safety approaches focus on eliminating ignition sources, because the other two requirements for a fire or explosion: fuel and oxygen, are a given in our environment. That's the crux of the dissonance. How can you simultaneously focus on eliminating ignition sources when a direct-fired system specifically requires an ignition source to work. The whole notion of NEC 500, classified areas and explosion proof electrics is based on minimizing the potential for the device to become an ignition source, and if it does become an ignition source, that it will detonate in a way that will limit the overall damage. Any AHJ in question is immediately going to go where precedence has been set, like it or not. So on one side, you have folks that have spent thousands of dollars (or tens of thousands) on putting in place a Class I Division 1 Group D (Explosion Proof) infrastructure to minimize ignition sources, and on the other side, you've got folks saying direct-fired is perfectly safe. Nary the twain shall meet.

Larry at Stilldragon has a very nice triclamp parrot system.

My small ARO double diaphragm runs fine on a small portable nailing compressor, and it is much larger than the Flojet. Per the spec, it only requires 1scfm at 40psi, 2.2scfm at 100psi. You aren't building any appreciable back pressure in a transfer situation. If finding a location for a compressor is an issue, you can always run it off a co2 tank and regulator, a 20 pound tank could probably run that for 2 or 3 hours straight.

Roll them on the forks of your fork lift.

Should consider that your contractor and equipment distributor have a solid relationship and working experience with the equipment and brand you are considering, that's critical for long-term success and support. To some extent, a boiler is a boiler, but the devil is in the details. Once you have a trusted contractor (which is equally, if not more important), I'd give their recommendations some weight as well. Miura? The Lamborghini of boilers? Nice but the starting point of entry is something like 1.5mbtu, that's a big machine. Out in these parts, Fulton is very popular, and Hurst somewhat as well.

We have a Zurn system with a 6" epoxy coated cast iron grate. 4" seems positively tiny, and I'd imagine the cost differential once you consider the total cost of plumbing and construction, would probably be minimal. Go bigger. Whatever system you use, ensure the load capacity of the grate and grate system is well above the weight of your fork lift. We had initially thought the forklift and pallet jack wouldn't at all be on the drain, but during build out and setup, the forklift appears to have fallen into a love affair with the drain.

My wife has a killer recipe for candied bacon bourbon shortbread cookies. +2 on the blockage concerns.

27 CFR 19.131 Brew pubs can sell as part of the licensed premise, as can wineries. Perhaps time for a change?

Oatmeal in the carter head basket doesn't sound like a fun time

What does your floor plan look like?

If you can afford a Gamajet CIP system, you probably aren't fermenting in plastic IBCs.

The mobile nature of a shipping container is exactly why the TTB would never allow it. Just like the prohibition of vessels and boats. If the container became an integral part of a building, that might change the dynamic a bit.

Out here in the northeast, zoning is determined on a municipality by municipality basis, so there can be dramatic differences just moving one town over. No idea what it's like in Montana, so keep that in mind when reading my response. We were required to obtain a use variance to operate in a Business Commercial zone, otherwise distilleries were classified as permitted uses only in the most restrictive of the defined heavy industrial zones. This classification was likely based on rules put in place pre-prohibition. This process required an attorney, architect, and planner. While the town was very receptive to the idea, we still needed to go through the proper channels. The team, which also included an additional expert, made the case to the board. I'm glad we brought along an expert to give testimony as well, since we did have "interested parties" who asked some significant questions that the board would have deemed us unqualified to address. I'd suggest working with a local attorney who is familiar with local land use and frequently presents use variance cases to the zoning and planning boards. Not only will these folks be familiar with the process, but in many cases (at least out here), they are familiar with the particulars of the board and know particular pain points. In our case, he specifically recommended we pay particular attention to items like parking and odor, since he knew that these were particularly sensitive issues around the area of our location. Of course, he was spot on, and it was the main issue that the "interested parties" brought up. We were able to nail it. The architect had done parking calculations, reviewed local parking, etc etc. Clearly made the case that we were in excess of required parking. Also, the expert (another local distillery owner) was able to address the issues of odor by providing specific examples of their own active operation. Our attorney went back through the township records to be able to make the point that they had never had an odor complaint against them in their years of operation. Anyhow, I digress. One of the key points of the case that the attorney made was that only a portion of the overall facility would be utilized for manufacture, with the remaining used for storage, office, and mercantile. The latter 3 uses being perfectly suited for B-C, and represented a majority of the square footage. While the manufacturing aspect wasn't pure incidental use, the local zoning provisions did allow for up to 10% manufacturing space within a B-C. What it boiled down to was that the existing zoning code was not suitable to characterize a unique mixed use business such as a craft distillery, and that the B-C zone is actually more suitable than heavy. The other flip-side of his argument was that mercantile/retail was also prohibited in the H2/H3 heavy zones, so simply moving into another zone doesn't resolve the mixed use issue. Hope this helps, but I'd still recommend the attorney, and of course the devil is in the details. Let me know if you want a copy of our use variance and zoning board meeting minutes. Although I am from Jersey, your zoning guy might take one look at it and laugh you out of town.

I would be inclined to believe that most "fail" (run out of cash) before they even open their doors, which means if numbers exist, they are probably understated. If it's like any other industry, if you can make it to startup, there's a 55% chance you'll be around by the end of 3 years. If it's like any other startup I've worked with before, the #1 issue is poor management.

Strike a balance and focus on the importance of local sourcing and supporting local farmers and businesses. I tend to look for the organic label as well, but if you told me that your only real alternative was to truck it in from 3 states over, it's tough to not give that fact serious consideration.

I think that's an oversimplification of the process. Seldom is anything so simple, especially where preference and subjectivity come into play. I would argue that if getting distillate at any proof out of the business end is the point, a pot still is going to be more efficient than a column still. It takes a considerable amount of energy to vaporize, condense, and revaporize the distillate associated with reflux necessary for a fractionating column (plated or packed) to work effectively. So why bother if it's less energy efficient? Because the payback for the additional energy involved in running a column is the ability to produce tighter separation of fractions, so the separation efficiency (if there is such a thing) increases. Once you start to increase the number of plates, the ability to separate increases even more so. Now, if getting distillate out of the business end at a high proof is the goal, things change, since making N passes through a pot still are going to consume more time and energy than fewer passes (or just one) through a column. Pulling "out all of the flavor" is much harder than you think, there are plenty of plated and packed columns in operation that are producing products chock full of flavor. By the way, I hate the word "flavor" since most implicitly associate it with good flavors. Bad flavors are flavors just the same. A still doesn't know the difference between a good flavor and a bad flavor.

Can't imagine the service life of rubber steam hose would be anywhere near steel pipe. I'd give the manufacturer a ring and inquire as to whether it's intended for permanent installation, I'd be surprised if it were. If you were going to go that route, I'd budget in for replacement every few years. I don't know your premise layout, but I'd also consider the potential for accidental damage.

When you say efficiency - what do you mean? Are you concerned with the energy efficiency of the overall system? As in, I'd like to be green? Or are you talking about being able to support a faster product take off rate? As in I don't want to find myself having to run at a slower take off rate because my product condenser can't keep up? These are different. Short answer, the higher coolant flow rate the greater the "efficiency" (TO AN EXTENT), but there are dozens of other variables too, and some of these are tradeoffs. The "Just slow enough" regime is ideal when you are not recirculating, as it utilizes the least coolant possible. This is especially good if you can find a use for the hot water created. However, in the real world, being able to run faster means turning up the coolant flow rate, which wastes more water, or generates an overabundance cooler water. Tradeoff. However, if you are recirculating, then it's a different story. You aren't wasting coolant, so you don't need to worry about that tradeoff. You now have the luxury to run increased flow rates, and if you increase flow rate, you increase the heat transfer rate (TO AN EXTENT). This assumes of course, that you have the reservoir capacity for this to make sense. Don't take this to mean that you can blast cold coolant through an undersized condenser to infinitely increase take off rate, won't happen. Yes, you'll gain some headroom, but you'll hit a wall (where you'll witness a head scratching operating condition where very cold distillate is produced alongside hot vapor chuffing out). Keep in mind though, with most simple recirculating coolant setups, the flow rate in the coolant loop is determined by the process controller opening and closing a valve. So, the flow rate that's required to maintain a given set point is going to be the variable that's being adjusted. You don't have the ability to increase the flow rate beyond this, without adjusting or impacting other variables in the mix. Also, if your chiller can't keep up with the reservoir (or you don't have one) the reservoir temperature increases during the run. You'll notice that through the run the flow rate through the condenser will need to increase to maintain a given set point (As Temp-In increases, Flow rate needs to Increase to maintain the same Temp-Out, this is probably obvious). So again, coolant loop flow rate is only partially in your control. Now, there is a different way to plumb the coolant loop so that it's "Constant Flow Rate" - this is a little bit more complicated as it requires the pump to be in the cooling loop, and it also requires the use of a 3-way mixing valve, and not a simple 2-way. However, in this scenario you can increase or decrease the flow rate through the loop (TO AN EXTENT) without impacting the process set point. This was probably way too much information.

Yamada DP-10F and ARO 666053-344 - Viking S2M for Mash. Also pieced together our mash pump and built the cart.

Unless you have an end-to-end engineered system, you'll probably be better off with a mash pump cart, just provides a little bit more flexibility. The mash pump will probably be heavier than you think as well, so if you are thinking by stationary, you mean you might manually move it around, no way. The small spirit diaphragm pumps are small enough that if you just rigged a base and carrying handle, you'd probably be fine. I have both ARO and Yamada diaphragm pumps. The ARO is polypropylene and teflon, and the Yamada is all teflon. Both are nice, the ARO is 1/2" and can pump around 12 gpm at full speed, the Yamada is 3/8" and can pump around 2-3 gpm. They don't use much air at all. The Yamada is a pretty small pump, the ARO isn't much bigger. Someone posted a picture here of one mounted to a skateboard, it doesn't need much. Stainless variants aren't really dramatically different, just different housings, slightly heavier. Mash pump, can't comment on FIP or Centrifugal, as we use a PD lobe pump. But these things get heavy fast, our pump and drive train on the cart has got to be around 250 pounds, and it's only a 3hp pump, it would be impossible to manage without a cart. The FIP and Centrifugals should be a little bit lighter, but if it's anywhere around 2-3 hp, it's going to be 100-150 pounds with the cart, the motors alone are going to be 60-70 pounds. You'll also want to go with a VFD/Speed Control, which is going to be much easier to use if it's cart mounted. If you are buying new, I can't imagine it's going to be significantly more expensive to just buy one of these as a complete system.

UV is disinfection, not filtration, and typically needs to be the final stage in the filtration process, located after a traditional filtration system (since particulates in the water will significantly reduce efficiency). Do you have some reason to believe your water is high in microbial content and requires additional disinfection/sterilization? I would imagine anyone who is sourcing their water from a modern municipal supply should not have this problem. Lots of municipal water treatment facilities are now using UV (it went out of fashion for a time due to the high operating costs). Now if you were sourcing your water from surface water or a shallow well, that would be a completely different matter.

It's glucoamylase (aka amyloglucosidase).

Neither Acrylic (Plexiglass) nor Polycarbonate (Lexan) have very good compatibility with ethyl alcohol at typical barrel concentrations (Polycarbonate slightly better). No worry, any decent glass shop can cut you custom circles out of glass. Be liberal with the bees wax and you should be fine.