CO2 Emissions from Asheville’s Craft Brewing Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the relationship between two foundational identities of Asheville, North Carolina — its environmentally mindful community and the craft brewing industry. We quantified CO2 emissions from the fermentation process of brewing beer at several local breweries in Asheville. Additionally, this project determined whether emissions from fermentation were substantial compared to CO2 emissions from the breweries’ electricity usage. We analyzed data from four breweries of varying size. Our results showed that the emissions from fermentation were small compared to emissions from electricity usage. Total CO2 emissions from electricity usage from all four breweries were slightly less than 180,000 tonnes compared to just over 600 tonnes from the fermentation process. Emissions from fermentation were less than 0.5% of emissions from electricity usage at all four breweries. While 600 tonnes of CO2 may not seem substantial, this study was limited to just four of the more than 35 breweries in Asheville as of 2016. Given the size and rate of growth of the craft brewing industry in the region, it is too soon to dismiss fermentation emissions as unimportant to Asheville’s total carbon footprint.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".