[HN Gopher] Glenfiddich will use its own whisky waste to fuel it...
___________________________________________________________________
Glenfiddich will use its own whisky waste to fuel its trucks
Author : OJFord
Score : 154 points
Date : 2021-08-08 17:38 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (eandt.theiet.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (eandt.theiet.org)
| [deleted]
| hinkley wrote:
| I don't know if they still do after the buyout, but New Belgium
| Breweries had a bioreactor that used spent wort to produce
| methane to help fire the boilers. Then the doubly-spent wort went
| into compost for the landscaping.
|
| I'm thinking that the shorter supply chain there probably works
| better, but then again you need multiple examples to get most
| people to actually start solving problems so kudos to GF for at
| least trying.
| 08-15 wrote:
| Am I missing something or is this actually bad?
|
| > Glenfiddich has sold off spent grains left over from the
| malting process to be used for a high-protein cattle feed.
|
| This sounds as if the leftovers used to be sold as cattle feed,
| but now they are turned into fuel. If correct, that's horrible!
| Valuable protein is destroyed in the process. That protein will
| now have to come from somewhere else, and that's plants
| fertilized with ammonia, which is in turn made from natural gas.
|
| Destroying protein is not green! Never! Fueling the very same
| trucks with natural gas is as easy and more efficient, because it
| skips the intermediate steps.
|
| > The Scottish whisky industry hopes to hit carbon net-zero
| targets by 2040.
|
| I'm curious how they plan to do this while burning peat in the
| production process. My guess is by creative accounting.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Yep, you're missing this part:
|
| > However, through anaerobic digestion - where bacteria break
| down organic matter, producing biogas - the distillery can also
| use the liquid waste from the process to make fuel and
| eventually recycle all of its waste products this way.
|
| Basically, they have solid waste which was and is going to be
| used for cattle feed, and they have liquid waste which they're
| now converting to bio-gas by feeding it to bacteria.
| 08-15 wrote:
| Oops, looks like I overlooked an "also". But I still can't
| think of a protein poor and energy rich waste stream in
| whisky making.
| freeopinion wrote:
| The world--and especially the tech world--is such now, that I
| never know if a word is misspelled or if the spelling is
| intentional and has a meaning I have not yet learned. Or learnd.
| [deleted]
| dean177 wrote:
| The name means "valley of the deer" in Scottish Gaelic.
|
| Glenfiddich was founded in 1886 in Scotland.
| austinl wrote:
| Guessing you're referring to "Glenfiddich", but it reminded me
| of the case of whiskey vs. whisky:
|
| It's generally spelled "whiskey" -- with an e -- in the United
| States and Ireland. It's spelled "whisky" -- without the e --
| in Scotland and Canada. Since this article is about
| Glenfiddich, which is based in Scotland, it makes sense that
| it's spelled without the e.
|
| The reason for this is purely historical -- there's not
| necessarily a difference in the product. That said, "Scotch"
| must be produced in Scotland, and hence you'll always see
| "Scotch whisky" (no e).
| smcl wrote:
| The way I understood it, Scottish distillers had widely
| adopted the extremely productive Coffey still and were quite
| willing to use non-barley grains, which allowed them to
| produce a LOT of quality whisky for export so they went on to
| dominate world consumption of whisky. This was to the
| detriment of Irish producers, who at the time stuck to the
| more traditional pot stills and barley (some point after they
| got a bit more flexible). To distinguish their own product
| from Scotch whisky the Irish chose to start spelling what
| they sold as "whiskey".
|
| It's actually not so cut-and-dry as you might think regarding
| the USA. Even some bigger brands like Makers Mark call theirs
| "whisky"
|
| But anecdotally as a Scot, the only people who really get
| upset about that extra "e" are non-whisky drinking Scottish
| people :D Those who drink it are, in my experience, generally
| pretty chilled out and understanding.
| twic wrote:
| I find the terminology used here incredibly annoying.
|
| > It will convert its production waste and residues into an
| Ultra-Low Carbon Fuel (ULCF) gas that produces minimal carbon
| dioxide and other harmful emissions.
|
| > The biogas emitted by whisky's production process cuts CO2
| emissions by over 95 per cent compared to diesel and other fossil
| fuels and reduces other harmful particulates and greenhouse gas
| emissions by up to 99 per cent, Glenfiddich said.
|
| Biogas is a mixture of methane and CO2. When burnt, it produces
| less CO2 per unit energy than petrol, because it's got more
| hydrogen, but it absolutely still produces lots of CO2. It is
| definitely not cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 95% or 99%!
| The important difference is that the carbon is not from fossil
| sources. This is vital! But CO2 is still being emitted!
|
| Essentially, "carbon" has become a metonym for "fossil-derived
| carbon". This is going to lead to lots of confusion by anyone who
| doesn't have a firm grip on that fact.
| fsckboy wrote:
| the average person will take this to mean this use of a
| sustainable, renewable fuel will reduce the carbon footprint of
| the distillery... I don't see the problem
|
| it definitely is reducing greenhouse gas emissions because the
| source of the energy is byproducts of plantstuffs they grow
| anyway for the purpose of making their whiskey
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| "Emissions" has become synonym for "net emissions" in non-
| technical discourse. I'm not sure what to think about that: on
| one hand it can be confusing as you said, but on the other
| hand, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter if
| someone takes a ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere and then re-
| emits it. After all, net emissions is the interesting number
| for climate change.
| joshjdr wrote:
| I appreciate the original comment's explanation- it's helpful
| to understand how the marketing points can potentially
| obfuscate the real/technical points.
|
| I also think your feedback is here accurate, and beyond that
| would take the side of ringing relevant.
|
| If when they 're-emit' they're replacing what would otherwise
| be gross emission, that's a net reduction, and a good thing.
|
| Is good the enemy of great? Jim Collins and many corporate
| managers would agree yes. At a global/societal scale? I think
| it's probably more debatable, at least.
|
| I remember learning reduce>reuse>recycle and I think this
| falls somewhere in the middle which might make it an ethical
| conundrum; but unless we expect to the whiskey company to
| reduce whiskey production, it seems to me like we should
| likely applaud the effort.
| User23 wrote:
| Isn't fossil-derived carbon the problem? The whole point is
| that fossil carbon was sequestered. How does using non
| sequestered carbon in place of sequestered carbon not massively
| reduce the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase in the long run?
| laurencerowe wrote:
| > but it absolutely still produces lots of CO2. It is
| definitely not cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 95% or 99%!
| The important difference is that the carbon is not from fossil
| sources. This is vital! But CO2 is still being emitted!
|
| Isn't the presumption here that otherwise the CO2 would have
| been emitted anyway when the waste decomposed in landfill? So
| using it as fuel doesn't emit additional CO2 beyond the energy
| used processing it.
| ac29 wrote:
| Landfilling organic waste leads to methane forming during
| decomposition, which is a substantially more potent
| greenhouse gas than CO2.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| More potent but shorter lasting, by a lot. Once CO2 is in
| the atmosphere you are stuck with it for centuries.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Yes, but CH4 degrades into CO2 and water (in the presence
| of oxygen).
| IgorPartola wrote:
| Shh. You are going to spoil HN poo pooing another
| renewables initiative with your science.
| hinkley wrote:
| Cogeneration is generally good, but it's not perfect. It
| tends to include perverse incentives. As someone pointed out
| in a recent thread, when you sell the byproduct you have an
| incentive to keep producing that byproduct. No incentive to
| remove it, reduce the volume, or reduce consumption. "The
| fuel is free anyway, so who cares?"
| throwawayboise wrote:
| The CO2 emitted is not a concern because it's carbon from the
| current environment. Just like it's fair to call wood-fire
| heating carbon-neutral (even though it's not so great from a
| particulate standpoint)
| moralestapia wrote:
| >The CO2 emitted is not a concern because it's carbon from
| the current environment.
|
| Nope, it doesn't work like that.
|
| Source: Business _very_ related to this exact activity.
| readflaggedcomm wrote:
| In what way? Regulations that don't consider the source?
| moralestapia wrote:
| Because the CO2 goes back to the atmosphere.
| sokoloff wrote:
| If you grow 2021 grain (taking CO2 into the grain's
| carbon), then burn part of that carbon back into CO2 in
| 2021, how is that not strictly better than taking millions
| of years old carbon and turning it loose into the
| atmosphere?
| moralestapia wrote:
| It's definitely better than doing nothing, but an
| hypothetical company doing business as usual and then
| buying the necessary carbons offsets from permanent
| carbon sequestration projects would be better for the
| atmosphere.
|
| Of course, the ideal scenario would be a company that
| does both things (reduce + offset).
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| _> Just like it 's fair to call wood-fire heating carbon-
| neutral (even though it's not so great from a particulate
| standpoint)._
|
| As long as you grow these trees specifically for burning.
| Once you start chopping down forests without replacing them,
| you're still adding to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Burning fossil fuels is the main issue with CO2 emissions
| because that it adds CO2 into the atmosphere by releasing
| carbon that was sequestrated underground.
|
| On the other hand, burning renewable plant matter is pretty
| much neutral: The plant absorbs carbon from the atmosphere
| while growing and that carbon is released back into the
| atmosphere when the plant is essentially burned to release
| energy.
|
| The main problem with biofuels is that they may compete with
| other crops for land, etc. But if they are produced from plant
| waste that was already being produced anyway then they are a
| pretty good option.
| hinkley wrote:
| It's also lack of systems thinking.
|
| When you turn a product liability into an asset, you increase
| the margins of the primary product, meaning you want to produce
| more of your primary product.
|
| When that growth is coming at a cost to your competitors, then
| this is an overall win. But if it increases the overall supply,
| then it gets very hard to call it a carbon reduction, in the
| same way that vehicle fuel efficiency and safety have also
| increased total miles traveled and total land converted into
| housing.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| I don't see how doing something like this increases the
| global demand for whiskey/hard liquor. Also if one distillery
| can do it, so can others which is also an overall win.
| ysavir wrote:
| It doesn't increase the demand. What it means is that if
| Glenfiddich needs more fuel to meet its own fuel demand, it
| will have to do so by creating more whiskey, even without
| demand for the additional whisky.
| roflc0ptic wrote:
| It doesn't necessarily change the demand, but it changes
| the supply curve by making it cheaper per unit to produce
| whiskey. Previously, you could sell whiskey, and the waste
| was garbage. Under this hypothetical scheme, now you could
| make money on the waste, too, reducing the price of
| production.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| Would this be an example of the Jevons paradox?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
| roflc0ptic wrote:
| I can't really tell. Certainly jevon's paradox adjacent.
| ohyeshedid wrote:
| Reminds me of Kingsford Charcoal.[1]
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsford_(charcoal)
| ReactiveJelly wrote:
| It's already a metonym for CO2, and I'm already not happy about
| that.
|
| There's lots of other tailpipe emissions worth asking about.
| Isn't that how Europe wasted years trying to make clean diesel?
| dexterdog wrote:
| Not to mention tire and break emissions which are still
| considerable on any vehicle.
| ianai wrote:
| My hybrid uses the brakes significantly less than a
| nonhybrid ICE. The motors do a lot of the stopping work
| instead of the brakes. It's easiest to see this going
| downhills. My cars recharging while other cars are using
| brakes. Tire wear though is definitely not abated.
| simondotau wrote:
| Is tyre wear really a comparable concern?
|
| Think about how many times you refuel your car between
| tyre changes. Contemplate the volume of fuel burned
| versus the volume of material scraped off your tyres over
| their lifetime. Whatever the environmental cost of tyres,
| they cannot compete with liquid fuel.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| It's not just how much stuff is consumed. Different
| materials break into different size and shape particles.
| Tires may wear out slower but the particles they release
| may cause more damage.
| ianai wrote:
| It's more about PM2.5 and similar particulate pollution.
| But absolutely there are bigger concerns. Tire and brake
| pollution gets brought up as a false equivalency between
| ICE and EV car emissions often. Just wanted to add a
| factoid about how electrified vehicles really are more
| efficient.
| hinkley wrote:
| They've also banned certain materials from brake pads
| that were causing problem. Copper is a no-no in the time
| between when my car was built and I last talked to
| someone about replacements (my car didn't need it because
| while it's an ICE, the computer is smart enough to do
| engine braking much of the time).
| nick__m wrote:
| That carbon is not a green house gas so its okay :P
|
| But seroulsly, a review found on pubmed1 made me realise
| that brakes and tires emissions are an understudied public
| health threat. Breaks emissions accounts for 16% to 55% of
| the PM10 emitted by an ICE car and those particles are an
| healthy mix of iron, copper, barium, lead, inorganic carbon
| (probably as soot and graphite, I would be terribly
| surprised if it was as diamonds and graphene) and various
| unlisted and unstudied organic compounds!
|
| 1- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4315878/#Se
| c8ti...
|
| P.s. I tried to link directly to the conclusion but the
| pubmed reader sometimes show a seemingly random page... so
| the correct page is 40
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Of course, all that carbon comes from the crops grown to make
| whiskey. So it's 99% from the atmosphere on the first place, so
| emitting it is really "re"-emitting it.
|
| And it the waste were just dumped, it would likely produce a
| lot of methane, itself a greenhouse gas...
| WheelsAtLarge wrote:
| To me it's always hard to figure out whether this is good,bad, or
| just propaganda.
|
| My guess would be that Glenfiddich would make a greater impact on
| the environment by reducing the whisky waste and go electric with
| their trucks. But I have no way to know since there is no real
| mechanism to measure the benefits. A problem that's endemic to
| all these GREEN projects.
|
| I think society would greatly benefit by creating a branch in
| economics that focuses on the pluses and minuses of carbon
| emissions. Anyone looking for a PhD project, here's an idea that
| would certainly help society.
| StreamBright wrote:
| Artificial, low emission fuel has a great potential.
| jagger27 wrote:
| Glenfiddich makes some damn fine Scotch.
| staticassertion wrote:
| I like Glenfiddich (15)... but apparently others disagree. I
| like Laphroig a lot as well, though they're totally different.
| bdcravens wrote:
| I don't drink anymore, but the GF15 was always my favorite
| scotch.
| purple_ferret wrote:
| Heh, be careful. There are no bigger connoisseurs than American
| whiskey/whisky drinkers. Scotch is out. Small batch bourbon and
| Japanese whisky are in.
| 1MachineElf wrote:
| Their 15-yr Solera is one of my favorites.
| smcl wrote:
| Seems there's a few of us here who are into the 15 :)
| orf wrote:
| Honestly, not really. A lot of the blended export stuff isn't
| great. Some of the older single malts are good (but then again
| which aren't?), but there are _much_ better ones out there.
|
| It's just got a good recognizable name that is easily
| marketable to consumers in the US and Europe as a "good"
| Whisky.
|
| Edit: So it's not bad, it's just super mass-produced. You find
| it in every single place that sells Whisky (corner-stores,
| supermarkets, petrol stations, etc etc) alongside Famous
| Grouse, Bells and the like. They make it for a particular
| audience is all I'm saying, and IDK if I'd define it as "fine".
| jdsully wrote:
| I don't understand the infatuation with single malts. The
| distiller has a lot more control when making a blend and
| assuming equal skill and care can make a better product
| te_chris wrote:
| Urban legend I've heard is it was a marketing ploy dreamed
| up by the Guinness company to charge Americans more. Seems
| to have worked.
| twic wrote:
| Not quite: "blended whisky" is a blend of malt and grain
| whisky. Grain whisky has very little flavour. Hence,
| blended whiskies invariably have less flavour than single
| malts.
|
| There is also "blended malt whisky", which is made entirely
| of malt whisky, but from more than one distillery. As you
| say, that can be very good, but for whatever reason it
| isn't a huge category. I think it's growing, though -
| Monkey Shoulder is a fairly new blended malt that has
| become a de facto standard workhorse Scotch in cocktail
| bars, and Compass Box has been grinding out good blended
| malts for years.
|
| Bear in mind that there is enormous variation between
| individual casks even at a single distillery. The blender
| at a distillery has an adequately broad palette to work
| with, even within the constraints of making single malt.
|
| Indeed, it is often the case that a blender will decide
| that some particular cask in their stock is too far outside
| the parameters of their house style to use at all. These
| casks go to independent bottlers, who put their own name on
| it, and try to find some niche to market it to.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| That really depends on the country/regulation, Irish
| blended whiskey is indeed a blend of Grain and Malt
| whiskey, Scottish blended is a mix of single malts and is
| usually labeled as blended malt whiskey instead of just
| blended.
|
| But indeed people tend to classify blended whiskeys as
| inferior for some reason they aren't, especially in
| tightly regulated countries or from good distilleries.
|
| Blended whiskeys allow for a much wider flavor spectrum
| and most importantly consistency which you can't get from
| single malt/single cask whiskeys as each batch and even
| cask will have quite a bit of variance.
|
| Once you get to the few PS1000 per bottle often from
| brands you never heard off including a lot of private
| clubs, the whiskeys are nearly always blended and they
| basically are blends of some of the most rare and sought
| off single malts.
| smcl wrote:
| Just to add a bit more regarding what we call Scotch,
| since there's a bit of confusion here. We have a few
| terms which are quite strictly legally protected:
|
| Single malt = a single distillery blending various
| barrels of malt whisky they produced themselves
|
| Single grain = a single distillery blending various
| barrels of grain whisky they produced themselves
|
| Blended malt = a whisky produced from barrels of malt
| whisky from various distilleries
|
| Blended grain = a whisky produced from barrels of grain
| whisky from various distilleries ... I don't think I have
| ever seen this :)
|
| Blended scotch = a whisky produced from barrels of grain
| or malt whisky from various distilleries
|
| If you were to randomly choose a cheaper whisky it'll
| likely be a blended scotch, if you were to randomly
| choose a more expensive whisky it'll likely be a single
| malt. There are exceptions of course - there are
| cheap(er) single malts and there are pricier blends - and
| "blended" does not necessarily imply bad whisky (nor does
| the presence of _grain whisky_ necessarily imply bad!).
| And indeed there are pricey single grains (Arbikie in
| Arbroath were doing a Rye whisky for a few hundred pounds
| a bottle). The only way to know anything for sure is to
| sample for yourself, which is a delicious and fun thing
| to do :D
|
| Edit: oh and "grain" refers to a bunch of things that
| aren't barley - it could be corn, millet, wheat, rye,
| rice or other things.
| twic wrote:
| How could i have forgotten Royal Salute Tribute to
| Honour:
|
| https://robbreport.com/food-drink/spirits/taste-royal-
| salute...
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| I'm also not sure why almost every whisky out there seems
| to be watered down to 40%.
| bboreham wrote:
| Bound to be for tax reasons.
|
| However, if you haven't read this story it's quite
| interesting.
|
| https://www.newscientist.com/article/2144353-why-adding-
| a-dr...
| [deleted]
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Doesn't it get pretty hard to actually drink it above
| 40%?
| te_chris wrote:
| Not at all. Acquired taste perhaps, but high-strength,
| well-made spirits can be wonderful. Need to treat them
| with respect though, as the downsides are obvious. Loads
| of the over-proof whiskys and rums are glorious.
| smcl wrote:
| The strongest you'll likely see is 60% (I have a
| Glenfarclas 105 at that ABV) but you are right it gets a
| little challenging at a higher ABV. However between
| 43-46% is a little richer in flavour without being too
| nippy even for beginners.
| dageshi wrote:
| 40% is the legal minimum to call it Whiskey in the UK.
| It's watered down to increase profit.
| OJFord wrote:
| I think in general (i.e. not just w.r.t. whisky) it comes
| from the constituents being non-vintage, since not many
| vintage crops declared a {relevant mark for 'good year'}
| wind up blended, and then since correlation of course
| equals, er, backwards causation, we end up with this 'all
| blends are worse than _any_ single X '. Which of course
| isn't true.
| scarytom wrote:
| A single malt is not made from a single cask, and each cask
| behaves slightly differently. The distiller therefore has a
| lot to work with, and will very carefully blend multiple
| casks to create the desired single malt product before
| bottling.
| randallsquared wrote:
| "blended export stuff"? Does Glenfiddich even have a blended
| expression? (Does the Solera vat count as a blending method
| for your statement?)
| orf wrote:
| I've not seen one locally, but I've definitely seen them in
| the USA and in a couple of airport duty free sections.
| Unless I'm going crazy
| detaro wrote:
| Glenfiddich is used in Monkey Shoulder, but other than
| that?
| orf wrote:
| Well this is weird. I have this distinct memory of seeing
| a blended bottle in NYC from them, and concluding that
| it's some export version that they don't sell to the
| domestic market because it's not very good.
|
| This was quite a few years ago though, so it must be a
| false memory or another brand entirely. And I can't find
| anything on Google...
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| I bought a bottle of some random scotch whiskey. I t was
| young and raw but not actually bad. I did a bit of
| research and it's common for distilleries to sell excess
| under a popup brand label or sell it for blending.
| twic wrote:
| "Blended" means a whisky combines both malt and grain
| spirit. Glenfiddich make malt spirit, but not grain spirit
| [1], so there's no way a "blended Glenfiddich" could exist.
| There could be blended whiskies containing Glenfiddich and
| grain spirit from another distillery, but those are just
| blended whiskies like any other; you couldn't consider them
| to be Glenfiddich.
|
| "Blended malt" means a whisky combines malt spirit from
| multiple distilleries, so "blended malt Glenfiddich" would
| be an oxymoron.
|
| A Solera system doesn't count as any kind of blending, as
| long as all the inputs are malt whisky from a single
| distillery.
|
| [1] these are the grain distilleries:
| https://www.whiskyinvestdirect.com/about-whisky/grain-
| whisky...
| GavinMcG wrote:
| Blended doesn't mean malt + grain. Blended means producer
| + other producer. That's why, as you said, blended malt
| means malt spirits combined from multiple distilleries.
| twic wrote:
| That had been my belief up until i started to write that
| comment, at which point i went to look it up. Having done
| so, i am moderately confident that the definition of
| "blended whisky" in the context of Scotch is that it
| combines malt and grain whisky. Since there are (almost)
| no distilleries that produce both, this also implies
| combining different distilleries. But it's the malt plus
| grain aspect which is essential.
|
| Note that if you combine malt whisky from two producers,
| you get "blended malt whisky" not "blended whisky".
| randallsquared wrote:
| This was my understanding as well, but I was confused
| about the statement that Glenfiddich produced blendeds,
| and wanted to draw @orf out about what they meant, but it
| turns out that they might have just been mistaken about a
| previous purchase.
| fergie wrote:
| The Speyside malts are pretty underrated in my opinion.
| Equally, Bells and Famous Grouse, _are_ the purest expression
| of what Scotch is, and in fact not that easy to get hold of
| outside of Scotland as we scots might presume.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Bells and Famous Grouse, _are_ the purest expression of
| what Scotch is, and in fact not that easy to get hold of
| outside of Scotland
|
| Pretty sure you can pick them up at any basic petrol
| station anywhere in England, 24 hours a day. Sorry to
| shatter that illusion.
| orf wrote:
| Bells and Famous Grouse are available everywhere in the UK?
| Everywhere that sells any whiskey sells them almost by
| default.
| ecommerceguy wrote:
| When I think Speyside I think Macallan.
| jagger27 wrote:
| That's fair, and I'll say I've only recently been getting
| into scotches. I recently tried a flight of the following
| which influenced my above comment:
|
| - Glenfiddich (18)
|
| - Highland Park (18, my personal favourite of these)
|
| - Oban (14)
|
| - Auchentoshan (21)
|
| - Lagavulin (16)
|
| Yeah, a Glenfiddich 12 year old isn't anything near any of
| those.
| orf wrote:
| I'd highly recommend trying Laphroaig if you can, it's
| really smokey and delicious.
|
| But sorry, I didn't mean to crap on your taste in whisky. I
| live in a foreign country and I see all kinds of "genuine
| Scottish whisky" for sale that is absolute piss (hello
| Scottish Meadow). Something is wrong with places charging
| extortionate prices for not-great, young mass produced
| whisky.
| dexterdog wrote:
| I really like Laphroaig, but it's definitely an acquired
| taste. It's like eating moss so most people don't enjoy
| their first taste and many don't come back for a second.
| gmac wrote:
| Moss? Peat smoke, certainly. There's a hint of it even in
| the drinking water if you ever stay on Islay.
| ecommerceguy wrote:
| Bruichladdich Islay Barley, while being an nonpeated
| Islay, is the best deal in all of whisky.
| dctoedt wrote:
| My nephew-in-law's groom cake (at his wedding) was in the
| shape of a Laphroaig bottle. The whisky always struck me
| as like drinking diluted roofing tar.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| Or just get some liquid smoke and pour it into your
| scotch and ruin it the old fashioned way. Have had lafrog
| and it's like cancer with a hint of cancer.
| qeternity wrote:
| A few must haves:
|
| - Bunna 12
|
| - Nikka FTB
|
| - Craigellachie 13
|
| - Springbank 10
|
| - Ardbeg 10
| maqp wrote:
| HP18 is pretty damn good.
|
| Few other fine experiences from over the years
|
| - Aberfeldy 12y
|
| - Powers John's Lane 12y
|
| - Glenfarclas 40y
|
| - Glen Garioch 1994
|
| - Old Pulteney 21y
|
| - Old Pulteney 16y Bourbon Cask strength
|
| - Imperial 16y (Signatory Vintage / Rare Auld Duncan Taylor
| bottling)
|
| - Glen Moray 24y cask strength (Duncan Taylor bottling)
|
| - Port Ellen 27y
|
| - Bushmills 1988 14y (Cask strength, Rum Barrel)
|
| - Ardbeg Uigeadail/Corryvreckan
|
| - Laphroaig 18y (excellent; the 10yo tastes like exhaust
| fumes)
|
| - Laphroaig 1989 Vintage 23y
|
| - Royal Brackla 1976 (Mackillop's Choice bottling)
|
| - Caol Ila 1990 Mackillop's Choice bottling, single cask
| sherry wood
|
| - Evan Williams Single Barrel Vintage
| ravenstine wrote:
| It depends on what you're looking for. I've seen so much
| "trash" wine and spirits turn out to be total hits with
| people that I don't think anyone can outright say that any
| drink is objectively good or bad other than perhaps absolute
| bottom-shelf spirits. I was at a party back on fourth of July
| where someone brought this incredible scotch that literally
| everyone there found to be amazing. My parents decided to get
| a bottle and we shared it with a group of relatives who
| unanimously poo-poo'd it.
|
| Maybe a connoisseur looks for certain taste and smell
| profiles most people couldn't discern, but that doesn't mean
| a given whisky is bad.
| lostlogin wrote:
| What do you rate?
| jahewson wrote:
| If you're after Speyside then Balvenie and Glenrothes make
| some good bottles. Overall it's probably the least
| interesting variety of Scotch but it's light and drinkable.
| orf wrote:
| Anything from Islay is my jam, with Laphroaig having a
| particular place in my heart.
| ericmay wrote:
| Same here. Laphroiag, Caol Ila, Bunna, and though not
| Islay, Talisker has a special place in my heart
| nyx-aiur wrote:
| That's the I don't know anything about whisky but I read
| on pretentious blogs that these are good list.
| twic wrote:
| They sell an awful lot of it, so someone must like it!
| marban wrote:
| I'm into wine but my sense was that GF is more like gas station
| Scotch in Europe.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| my thoughts exactly. But at least it isn't Jack Daniels..
| smcl wrote:
| Ehh not really. Some cheaper blends like Grant's (same parent
| company and bottle shape!) would be what you're thinking of.
| But Glenfiddich is generally considered to be an accessible,
| affordable single malt and is often recommended for beginners
| as an introductory Highland malt.
|
| I happily drink Glenfiddich 12 when I'm in the mood for a
| whisky in a bar that doesn't have a great selection, and I
| have a Glenfiddich 15 in my cabinet which is really pleasant
| avipars wrote:
| so they had to build a new engine?
| ac29 wrote:
| Article says they are using trucks already designed to run on
| liquid natural gas.
| ThePadawan wrote:
| That is the most infuriating license plate I have ever seen.
| 1MachineElf wrote:
| I'm more irked by the asymmetric "FUELLED BY Glenfiddich" text
| at the top.
| smcl wrote:
| Wait what am I missing, why is it infuriating? "WG51GAS" - I
| guess:
|
| - WG = "William Grant"
|
| - 51 = no idea
|
| - GAS = ... gas :)
| tialaramex wrote:
| When a vehicle is registered for use in the UK it is assigned
| a plate number, you can buy a different ("vanity") plate and
| do paperwork to change it, within limits, but most vehicles
| will keep this plate for their lifespan.
|
| The two digits (51 here) signify the six month period in
| which registration took place. So 51 means between the start
| of September 2001 and the end of February 2002. The two
| digits are the last two digits of the year (so 01 = 2001, 02
| = 2002, etc) and then 50 is added to indicate the second half
| of the year, thus a brand new car bought next month here
| would have a "71" plate, the second half of 2021.
|
| I presume the rationale is that nobody will be confused by a
| 2055 car and think it's from 2005, since both technology and
| aesthetic preferences change enormously in such a period of
| time.
|
| Vanity plates aren't supposed to be fitted to vehicles that
| logically could not have been registered with that plate,
| making it appear newer than it is, but it would be permitted
| to fit these 2001 plates to a vehicle built in say 2019.
| smcl wrote:
| I know about how UK car registration numbers work, i just
| couldn't figure why GP was infuriated by this vanity one.
| So I guess it's just the confusion that they chose a vanity
| plate that happens to have two digits in the year position
| that would normally imply the vehicle is ~20 years old. Hmm
| kaycebasques wrote:
| Title should be updated to "Glenfiddich _plans_ to use... " - the
| article is dated July 2021 and they're talking about making this
| transition. The current title makes it sound like it's an
| established practice at the company already.
| dang wrote:
| Well, it does include this:
|
| _its whisky waste-based biogas is already powering three
| specially converted trucks_
|
| I've added "will" to the title. We can call that the Hedberg
| tense (i.e. they're using, and they will use as well).
| ckosidows wrote:
| I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too.
| C19is20 wrote:
| ++1 for the Hedberg.
| malchow wrote:
| Whiskey makers sit on a lot of inventory in order to use a
| library of older spirits to backstop their highly imperfect
| annual production. Producers also lose an astonishing 20% of
| inventory to the "angels' share."
|
| The Bloom Energy guys -- fuel cell experts -- have now started a
| whiskey company doing interesting things.
|
| https://www.sfgate.com/shopping/article/bespoken-spirits-mak...
| steffen84 wrote:
| Seems they were influenced by YouTuber tech ingredients.
|
| https://youtu.be/meB09jXHhRY
| dctoedt wrote:
| FTA: "Sixteenth-century English chronicler Raphael Holinshed
| wrote that, when consumed moderately, whisky's many medicinal
| benefits include preventing the "head from whirling, the tongue
| from lisping... the hands from shivering, the bones from
| aching.""
|
| Just before reading the article, I had a shot of Famous Grouse (a
| blend), and it _caused_ , not prevented, head-whirling ....
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-08 23:00 UTC)