Reading Time: 9 minutes

#Wineries #CO2 #Fermentation #Sustainability

Beer and Wine Sustainability Showdown

Inside the Carbon Footprint of Modern Fermentation

Carbon Footprint of Beer and Wine

The environmental journey that starts in the field ultimately meets its truth inside the production system. This is where a beverage’s carbon footprint is shaped — not by intent, but by engineering decisions, process discipline, and energy behaviour.

Breweries and wineries may source from the same planet, but it’s their internal systems that define their long-term impact. Heat cycles, fermentation controls, CO₂ handling, and utility efficiency become the real determinants of how responsible a product truly is.

In these controlled environments, sustainability stops being a concept and becomes a measurable outcome. The way each stage is configured from thermal loads to gas recovery — decides whether beer or wine leaves a lighter carbon footprint behind.
This is the point where environmental ideals translate into operational reality.

The Process Contrast: Brewing vs. Fermentation

Beer and wine may start from agricultural raw materials, but their carbon footprint diverges sharply once they enter the production system. The difference lies not in ingredients, but in how each industry uses heat, cold, time, and gas.

Brewing: A High-Intensity Thermal System

Brewing runs on deliberate energy spikes.

Mashing and wort boiling are the biggest thermal loads in the beverage sector. Dutch brewery benchmarks show combined heat demand at ~20 MJ/hl, with boiling as the dominant contributor.
Once boiled, the wort must be rapidly cooled, shifting the load to refrigeration systems.
Fermentation and conditioning require controlled cooling, and later, carbonation adds additional utility demand — though here breweries can reuse CO₂ if systems are installed.

In short: Breweries consume energy in sharp bursts — high heat upfront, high cooling immediately after.

Winemaking: A Low-Intensity but Long-Duration System

Winemaking relies less on thermal extremes, but more on time-controlled environments.

Fermentation temperatures are moderated rather than aggressively cooled.
Cold stabilization and clarification introduce intermittent cooling demand.
The real footprint comes from aging: months or years of temperature-controlled storage. Industry benchmarks place energy use for fermentation, stabilization, and aging at around 0.23 kWh/L combined — drawn slowly but continuously.

In short: Wineries consume energy in long arcs — lower peaks, but far longer durations.

A Clear View: Where the Energy Really Goes

Below is a single, straightforward comparison that avoids redundancy while highlighting where carbon impact originates.

Stage	Breweries – Energy Character	Wineries – Energy Character	Carbon Footprint Impact
Thermal Processing	Very high (mashing + boiling)	Minimal	Breweries have higher thermal CO₂ emissions unless steam is replaced by renewables
Rapid Cooling	High refrigeration demand	Moderate	Electricity source strongly influences footprint
Fermentation Control	Active cooling needed	Moderated control	Comparable, but breweries show higher load
Aging / Conditioning	Short-term cooling cycles	Long-term temperature control	Wineries accumulate emissions over time

Why This Contrast Matters for Carbon Footprint

Beer’s footprint is shaped by intensity. Wine’s footprint is shaped by duration.

For breweries, the biggest opportunities lie in:

lowering thermal demand,
recovering fermentation CO₂,
tightening cooling efficiency.

For wineries, impact depends on:

optimizing long-term storage conditions,
improving insulation and passive cooling,
reducing refrigeration drift over aging cycles.

Both industries can improve, but their pathways are fundamentally different because their processes are fundamentally different.

The CO₂ Equation

In the sustainability ledger, CO₂ isn’t just a waste gas — it’s a currency. How much is produced, how much is lost, and how much is reused directly shapes the carbon footprint of beer and wine. Here’s how the numbers stack up, and how Hypro’s CO₂ recovery systems can shift the balance.

A. Generation vs. Utilization — Beer vs. Wine

Beer (Brewing)

During fermentation, yeast converts sugars into ethanol and CO₂. Theoretical and empirical studies suggest a production of around 4 kg of CO₂ per HL of beer.
Not all of this CO₂ escapes cleanly — some is dissolved, and some is lost in early fermentation “blow-off.” Practical recovery systems typically capture 1.8–2 kg CO₂ per HL in many breweries.
On the demand side, a brewery generally requires 1–1.5 kg CO₂ per HL for carbonation, purging tanks, and other uses.
This creates a potential surplus: more CO₂ is produced than is needed for immediate reuse, making CO₂ recovery economically and environmentally attractive.

Wine (Winemaking)

Fermentation of grape sugars also releases large volumes of CO₂. While precise recovery data is sparse, industry sources estimate very little reuse happens.
According to one technical source, roughly 50 L of CO₂ (gas) can be produced per litre of wine during fermentation.
Because wineries typically vent this CO₂ (instead of capturing it), nearly all of this gas contributes to their carbon footprint — either as a pure greenhouse gas loss or as a risk factor in cellar safety.

B. How CO₂ Recovery Works

This is where systems thinking and industrial design converge — CO₂ recovery plants can change the equation. Rather than letting fermentation gas escape, modern recovery systems:

Capture the off-gas from fermentation.
Compress and purify it, often removing moisture, contaminants, and unwanted gases.
Condense it to liquid CO₂ using refrigeration.
Store it in dedicated tanks for reuse: carbonation, purging, or supply to other processes.

Hypro’s CO₂ recovery technology is built precisely for this shift toward self-reliance. The system operates fully automatically, with remote access and intelligent controls that keep performance consistent regardless of scale or geography. As Hypro’s FMD, Ravi Varma often highlights,

“All the CO₂ demand for such beverage industries can be met by recovering gases from the fermentation industry, which is the purest source and the lowest cost of production of CO₂.”

This isn’t just an operational advantage; it reshapes the CO₂ value chain. By capturing what would otherwise be vented and turning it into a reliable internal resource, industries reduce dependence on external suppliers and strengthen the circular economy within their own footprint.

C. The Shift from Waste to Value

Waste or resource? Without recovery, CO₂ from brewing is a liability — a greenhouse gas released needlessly. But with systems like Hypro’s, that same CO₂ becomes an asset: a by-product that closes the loop, reducing carbon input from external sources and lowering emissions.
Self-sufficiency as sustainability: By recovering CO₂, breweries can decouple from external CO₂ supply chains. This not only cuts cost but also strengthens their environmental integrity.
Carbon footprint redefined: Recovery systems don’t just prevent emissions; they reshape the carbon footprint from a linear “emit and buy” model to a more circular “capture and reuse” model.
A global impact already in motion: Hypro’s installed CO₂ recovery systems across breweries, distilleries, chemical plants, and biogas units worldwide — across the USA, North America, Europe, Australia, Africa, and Asia — collectively recover 2.0+ Mi MT to date and 691+ MT every single day. These numbers represent more than engineering efficiency; they signal a shift in how industries view their emissions — not as an unavoidable burden, but as a recoverable, reusable resource.

Energy Efficiency Metrics

Energy defines the carbon footprint of both beverages — shaping how much heat, power, and refrigeration the process demands. When breweries and wineries rethink their energy mix, their emissions curve shifts accordingly.

Breweries are traditionally more energy- intensive because they rely on several active thermal steps: mashing, lautering, boiling, and rapid cooling. Industry research published by the Brewers Association consistently highlights boiling as one of the largest single contributors to brewery thermal demand.

Wineries, on the other hand, operate with a lighter thermal profile but a heavier electrical load. Studies from the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV) show that refrigeration, especially grape — must cooling and fermentation temperature control — dominates electricity consumption in most wineries.

In essence, breweries burn more heat; wineries pull more electricity. Their carbon footprints diverge because their energy profiles do. And so do their options to reduce emissions — fuel-efficient thermal systems for breweries, and smarter, more controlled cooling strategies for wineries.

Energy Use Comparison – Validated Ranges from Industry Sources

Process Stage / Metric	Breweries (per L beer)	Wineries (per L wine)
Total Thermal Energy	180–220 kJ/L	70–90 kJ/L
Total Electrical Energy	8–12 kWh/hL	4–6 kWh/hL
Boiling Load Contribution	30–40% of total heat	None (no boiling)
Cooling/Refrigeration Load	20–30% of electricity	50–60% of electricity
Typical Carbon Hotspot	Thermal energy (boil + wort cooling)	Fermentation cooling

Every kilowatt saved is not just reduced cost, it’s a smaller carbon footprint and a tighter circular CO₂ loop. Breweries can push reductions through better heat recovery, steam-free utilities, or low-pressure boiling systems. Wineries, on the other hand, benefit most from upgrades such as improved insulation, variable-speed compressors, and renewable-powered cooling systems like solar-driven refrigeration.

The Fermentation Reality: Where CO₂ Truly Escapes

Fermentation is the quiet center of the carbon footprint, an emission source that rarely appears in sustainability reports. Both beer and wine release CO₂ as yeast converts sugars into alcohol, but how each industry handles this gas defines a major part of its environmental profile.

Breweries ferment in closed, pressure-rated vessels, which makes CO₂ release predictable and partially controllable. The gas exits through defined blow-off points, allowing brewers to channel it into recovery systems when installed. Even without recovery, the escape pattern is structured and traceable.

Wineries operate very differently. Fermentation is typically carried out in open or loosely sealed tanks, allowing CO₂ to vent freely into the atmosphere. The release is rapid, unmetered, and highly variable — shaped by grape sugar levels, temperature swings, vessel geometry, and vintage-to-vintage differences. Most wineries have no infrastructure to contain, measure, or make use of this gas.

This difference creates the overlooked gap in fermentation emissions: breweries lose CO₂ in a controlled way; wineries lose it in an uncontrolled stream. And in both sectors, this portion of the footprint remains largely unquantified even though it is one of the most avoidable emissions inside the plant.

The Untapped CO₂ Reservoir: How Much Could Actually Be Recovered?

If fermentation is where CO₂ escapes, the next question is straightforward: how much of that gas is recoverable inside breweries and wineries? The answer is substantial, and the comparison becomes clearer when we look at the numbers side by side.

Parameter	Breweries	Wineries
Primary CO₂ Source	Yeast fermentation in closed, pressure — rated tanks	Yeast fermentation in open or loosely sealed tanks
CO₂ Generation Rate	7–16 kg CO₂ per hL of beer	50–70 g CO₂ per 100 g sugar consumed
Typical Substrate Levels	Wort gravity varies by recipe	180–240 g/L sugar in grape must (pre — fermentation)
CO₂ per Standard Batch	700–1,600 kg CO₂ for a 100 hL batch	9–16 MT CO₂ from a 10,000 L fermentation tank
Recoverability	High — predictable release, closed vessels	Very low — uncontrolled release, open tanks
Current Industry Practice	Partial recovery where systems exist	CO₂ mostly vented into atmosphere

These figures reveal an important insight: the gas is not the limitation, the engineering discipline around the tank is. Breweries generate a steady, pressure-driven CO₂ stream that can be captured with the right recovery setup. Wineries release far higher volumes, but they escape diffusely and uncontrollably because the infrastructure was never designed to contain them.

In both industries, the gap between recoverable potential and actual recovery remains wide. And this unrealised reservoir is what sets the stage for engineered solutions that can stabilise, purify, and return fermentation CO₂ into a circular loop.

The Hypro CO₂ Lens: Engineering Circularity at Industrial Scale

The gap between recoverable CO₂ and the CO₂ that actually gets captured is ultimately an engineering problem, and this is where Hypro changes the equation. Hypro’s CO₂ recovery systems are designed to take the full spectrum of fermentation gas, purify it, and return it to the plant as process CO₂.

The foundation is the main recovery module, which draws CO₂ directly from the fermenter. It handles fluctuations in flow and composition, ensuring the gas enters purification at consistent conditions.

For breweries operating pressurised transfers, Hypro extends capture capability through a dedicated counter-pressure module, an add-on that balances and recovers CO₂ released during tank-to-tank movement to filters and fillers. This closes one of the most overlooked CO₂ loss points in production.

Once captured, the stream moves through Hypro’s purification train, delivering 99.998% v/v CO₂ purity, suitable for food-grade use. Combined, the modules enable plants to recover 85–90% of the total CO₂ generated, pushing recovery from a supplementary utility into a core sustainability asset.

The entire system is fully automated and PLC-operated, with integrated remote access for seamless oversight. Hypro’s HySAAA module strengthens operational control by providing plant monitoring, maintenance insights, and detailed MIS reporting, ensuring performance isn’t just achieved, but continuously verified.

With this architecture, CO₂ recovery becomes more than capturing gas; it becomes a structured circular pathway. Fermentation CO₂ is no longer a vented emission — it transforms into a controlled, traceable, high-purity resource that strengthens both sustainability and operational self-sufficiency.

Closing Note: The Emission We Can No Longer Ignore

Fermentation has always been viewed as the heart of beer and wine, yet its CO₂ emissions have lived in the margins of sustainability discussions. One truth is clear: the carbon footprint inside the tank is not abstract or inevitable — it is measurable, manageable, and, with the right engineering, almost entirely circular.

Breweries and wineries may differ in scale, structure, and energy behaviour, but they share the same responsibility: the CO₂ released during fermentation no longer has to be lost to the atmosphere.

As we close this part of the story, the conversation naturally moves beyond the tank. Fermentation is only one layer of the carbon footprint. What happens after the liquid leaves the vessel — how it is packaged, transported, cooled, and consumed — defines the next phase of the sustainability journey.