Carbonating water at home.
We’ve had an article from MAKE Magazine starred in Google Reader forever, and only recently got around to seriously looking into building a home carbonation system ourselves. The Cool Tools article linked to by MAKE describes a simple system for carbonating beverages at home, and is pretty dead on in regards to its description of savings potential. In summary, the system described can make over 1133 liters of carbonated water per refill of CO2. We’ll simplify this number some more, and downgrade the estimate to 1000 liters of water per 20-pound CO2 canister.
In the city of San Francisco, where bubbly water is sold cheaply at around $1.30 per liter, that thousand bottles of unflat water we’d like to drink would run us $1300, while the system we decided to put together, which is practically identical to the one featured at Cool Tools, ran us a measly $208. (We did opt for a smaller CO2 tank, though, at five pounds, rather than the 20-pounder at Cool Tools.)
At Cool Tools, the price was cheaper yet, because they were able to find many of the parts used online, while we were less patient and instead grabbed the requisite materials from San Francisco Brewcraft. The lesson here is that the parts for a home carbonation system don’t need to be scrounged up, but can instead be found at a one-stop brick and mortar retailer, in the form of one’s local brewing shop. Naturally, there are also a number of online brewing stores one can purchase the parts at also, but we found that San Francisco Brewcraft was reasonably competitive with online vendors.
Admittedly, the 250 bottles of water we can carbonate is a rather irrelevant number compared to more practical comparisons. At a fair estimate of consuming six liters of store-bought carbonated water per week, we’re leaving $7.80 at the grocery store each weekend, which comes out to $31.20 per month, or $405.60 per year. In other words, our home carbonation system pays itself off in about half a year, which is substantially better than buying bottled seltzer, and also better than buying proprietary carbonation systems, as the latter have more overhead in terms of CO2 refills or in parts replacement.
Beyond that six-month timeframe, we’re talking pure savings, since the system is already paid for, and the water we carbonate is then effectively free. At least, it’s free until we’ve gone through 250 liters, at which point we’re looking at a CO2 refill which will set us back another $20 or so. For completeness-sake, 250 one-liter bottles of seltzer means that our five-pound CO2 canister will last for about 42 weeks, or about 10 months.
Some may decree that bottled seltzer is cleaner, but to this claim, we merely counter that we can easily filter water with our Brita pitcher before carbonating, and though Brita filters will cost some additional overhead, the cost is negligible compared to the amount of money we’ll save on home carbonation after six months.
As for procedure, the steps over at Cool Tools are a good start. The regulator we purchased has a nice fail-safe should our hose connections suffer terminal failure. The professionals at San Francisco Brewcraft affixed the hoses to the regulator, however, so we have no doubts as to the hose’s security. Basically, we fill a water bottle with water, afix the carbonator cap, and then squeeze out whatever air is left inside. We then attach the hose running off the regulator to the cap, turn the valve on our CO2 canister, and then pop the valve that runs to the regulator. There’s a small surface dial on the regulator that lets us control the PSI entering the water bottle. (Numerous sources claim that most plastic water bottles can hold 40-50 PSI, not the 200 claimed by Cool Tools.) We ran our PSI just past 30, shook the water bottle vigorously, then switched the system off. Voila - cheap, home-made seltzer, which tastes just like the stuff we were buying for $1.30+ per liter at the grocery store. (Instructables has a keen video of the process.)
While we’re quite happy with the system we’re using, the downside is that we’re still forced to keep plastic bottles around. In reality, what we want to do is get rid of any sources of BPA, and this we can do by simply carbonating our water in a three-gallon cornelius keg, which is made out of stainless steel. This setup would allow us to carbonate 11.3 liters of water in a single go, and with a spigot attachment, we can pour our carbonated water directly into our drinking container of choice, or into any BPA-free storage bottle for portability. We’re aiming for a three-gallon keg because it can be stored away more easily and in more places, including the mini-fridge we use for beverages. The three-gallon cornelius keg runs for more than a five-gallon keg, but the trade-off is worth it. This three-gallon accessory runs for $120 through San Francisco Brewcraft, with comparable prices online.
The total cost of our completed system will be around $350, which is still cheaper than a year’s worth of bottled carbonated water. Plus, compared to the latter, our system will have much less of an environmental footprint, since we’re significantly reducing the amount of plastic bottles that need to be produced, destroyed, and transported. In effect, carbonating water at home makes you green, and fancier than your flat-water drinking friends.
Popularity: 4% [?]
Sir although I am amused, amazed, and impressed by your $200 solution to give yourself gas, I need to remind you that BPA has not been proven harmful in the concentrations found in humans. To make an analogy, potassium is great in your blood to reduce muscle cramping, but overloading yourself with it can cause a heart attack. For more on my take on the BPA scare factor and an amusing shark kitten see…
http://theworldofmaxator.blogspot.com/2008/03/whats-in-your-water.html
The blog post you linked to doesn’t address the “BPA scare,” but rather looks at the media’s brief explosion over the quality of municipal tap water, which, in reality, is among the highest quality tap water in the world. Perhaps that’s why something like 40% of bottled tap water sold domestically is, in fact, filtered tap water.
The issue of BPA is another matter entirely, because studies are convincing major U.S. retailers to drop BPA bottles from store shelves, especially in regards to baby bottles. REI not only pulled Nalgene bottles, but Nalgene quickly adapted by releasing new non-BPA bottles. Walmart pulled BPA-ridden baby plastic bottles, and Target is currently doing market tests for glass bottled baby food to replace plastic ones. Your favorite plastic bottle, mind you, is CamelBak’s answer to the “BPA scare”.
The fact is, BPA, in proportional doses in animals, does have a negative effect, and while the only way to determine whether or not these effects truly run parallel in humans is to perform said tests on humans themselves, taking the side of caution is not ridiculous, especially when the chief concern is for pregnant women and children. Your family has itself taken similar precautions when your daughter was born, be that in your wife’s diet, or elsewhere. I’m tempted to claim that there are numerous precautions you took in which the respective dangers are less studied and documented than the effects of BPA leaching.
Heck, Canada recently banned BPA in baby bottles, and measures are being taken for domestic bans in certain States as well. Furthermore, the National Toxicology Program recently released results of a study, in which they state:
Chiefly, homebrew water carbonation is a great way to save money if one normally purchases carbonated water. The BPA issue is an afterthought, but not one to be downplayed given the amount of discussion it’s getting of late. In all likelihood, the U.S. will follow in Canada’s lead on this matter, which is just another reason to be proactive and shed one’s existing BPA-positive plastics for storing digestible liquids and foods.
Funny, I thought for sure I blogged about the BPA nonsense in that article, but low an behold I did not. Shrug. As for the BPA scare, Walmart is purely profit, not science driven and Nalgene’s entire product line is advertised as healthy and green so it makes sense they remove an ingredient that concerns their core customer base. That sure is a nice quote from the NTP, whoever they are, but “concerned” is scientist speak for we don’t know and haven’t taken the time or effort to actually study it. No animal study has shown negative effects at the levels found in humans. I would wager like most such studies they overdose the animal and then point to the effects as proof the material is bad. I will consider their study before I chose to inject myself with 20 pounds of plastic. As for my Camelbak bottles, they do contain BPA and I could really careless.
Until I see a study that shows BPA is harmful in low concentrations, or the American or Japanese FDA change their stance (both certify BPA as safe), I won’t let Oprah and Brian Williams scare me into more expensive products. The truth is, unless you want to avoid canned foods (the liners contain BPA), plastic water piping, and many other products that contain BPA, just changing your water bottle won’t make mush of a difference.
I fixed that quote for you.
The NTP is part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and contrary to your claims, their quote is based on their current, ongoing study of BPA, so let’s stop with your “definition-relativity” based on who’s using which and what word.
Furthermore, NTP’s quote is not based on danger posed from the amount used in animals, it’s based on current levels humans (primarily young children) are exposed to, not 20-pound plastic overdoses.
An again, CamelBak bottles are BPA free, as per the very clear designation of such on CamelBak’s homepage.
As for Japan, they’ve already begun reducing BPA via industry-wide volunteering.
I quite intentionally used “concern.” If the “concern” was backed up by science, IE repeatable established results, they would have stated more than a “concern.” Concerns without science just doesn’t cut it for me. Here are a couple facts supported by numerous studies, but admittedly not by Oprah and the nightly news who profit from scarring the public:
Safety assessments of bisphenol A (BPA) conclude that the potential human exposure to BPA from polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins is more than 400 times lower than the safe level of BPA set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This minimal level of exposure to BPA poses no known risk to human health.
The use of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins for food contact applications has been and continues to be recognized as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Food, the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency, and other regulatory agencies worldwide.
Researchers from government agencies, academia, and industry worldwide have studied the potential for bisphenol A (BPA) to migrate from polycarbonate products into foods and beverages. These studies consistently show that the potential migration of BPA into food is extremely low, generally less than 5 parts per billion under conditions typical for uses of polycarbonate products. At this level, a consumer would have to ingest more than 1,300 pounds of food and beverages in contact with polycarbonate every day for an entire lifetime to exceed the safe level of BPA set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Consequently, human exposure to BPA from polycarbonate plastics is minimal and poses no known health risk.
Maybe I don’t need to inject myself with 20 pounds of plastic, I just need to eat a half ton of canned peaches everyday for the rest of my life.
The concerns are backed by science, as per NTP’s study, which is not run by Oprah or the nightly news. That’s precisely why this issue is seeing industry-wide recognition, unlike the tap water scare you cited on your blog.
When were your quotes made? Old studies? The Washington Post recently stated:
Sounds a lot like Big Tobacco lobbying, to me. At present, the House Energy and Commerce Committee wants to investigate the Weinberg Group, who previously defended Agent Orange, tobacco, and teflon. They were hired to defend BPA by the industry who puts it into their products.
Where’s the independent review? The draft report issued by the NTP is the closest thing we have to an “overall” estimation of the dangers, having reviewed over 400 studies since 2007. Their concern is, at minimum, reflected in the FDA’s current task force on BPA, which all comes from a 10-year old study that the plastics industry conveniently dismissed.
With the exception of Canada, no first world nation has banned BPA. In fact, almost all civilized governments have said there is no real health risk. Here is an excerpt from the wiki article on BPA that followed the obligatory scary paragraphs about Canada’s ban:
In contrast to the recent actions in North America, in January 2006 the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment announced that polycarbonate baby bottles are safe and state that published research on the health effects of Bisphenol A are “difficult to interpret and [is] occasionally contradictory”. An assessment released later that year by the European Union’s Food Safety Authority reached a similar conclusion, expressing “considerable reservations” about the biological significance and robustness of the low-dose exposure studies on rodents. In 2007 Japan also concluded that “the current exposure levels of BPA will not pose any unacceptable risk to human health that a ban is not needed.”
“Concerns” and “possible health risks” just don’t cut it for me. Either give me scientific valid results or nothing, otherwise we are just dealing with fear and hypotheses. If studies confirm these “concerns” I will be the first to throw out BPA products, but until then I won’t let fear win the day. Certainly if the EU, Japan, Germany, the U.S. government, and the chemical companies don’t see a problem, I can’t see any validity in your statement of “industry-wide recognition.”
I never thought I would see the day when you side with Canada over the majority of advanced nations…
You’re right that no other first-world nation has banned it yet, but Canada just initiated their ban, so it’s still early to say that no one else will, particularly with the concern over the topic still out there.
I find it somewhat ironic that you take issue with terminology like “concern” and “possible health risks” from one side of the debate, but you totally dismiss what I’d consider even more abstract phrasing like “difficult to interpret”, “occasionally contradictory”, and “considerable reservations” from the other side. Sounds to me like the “BPA is safe” side, at least in Europe, isn’t being very concrete about their declarations either. Speaking of phraseology, what does Japan consider an “acceptable risk”, since their statement clear establishes that acceptable risks are possible given current exposure levels. Or, are you blaming this translation on Engrish?
You keep postulating that there are no scientifically valid results, and yet you can find many references to the study done by Frederick vom Saal from the University of Missouri at Columbia to get you started. But hey, if you want to dismiss anything but industry-sponsored studies and volunteer your daughter to “acceptable risks” as per the Japanese’s findings, so be it.
The Japanese are excellent at weighing what kinds of risks are acceptable, by the way. That whole bombing of Pearl Harbor thing really worked well for them.
A lack of anyone being ble to prove BPA is dangerous is exactly my point. No one knows or has proven it scientifically. I checked out Camelbak’s website per your advice and I am sorry to tell you my bottles do contain BPA, the newer versions do not. They also clearly state that numerous studies show that BPA is safe, including one from Harvard. Now I know Harvard is no University of Missouri at Columbia, but I will take their advice. I appreciate your attempts to make it an emotional argument with mentions of my wife and daughter, but I will stick to science not fear/emotion when deciding what is safe.
Yet you invalidate your point by ignoring the studies that quite specifically indicate BPA’s dangers. You even accidentally admitted that Japan has found risks associated with BPA despite not yet banning it, because those risks are “acceptable”.
As for your CamelBak bottles, I didn’t realize you had the “old” version, which makes it more interesting that CamelBak altered their manufacturing process, just like Nalgene did. And why would they admit that their old bottles were unsafe when it would just lose them customers, versus companies who have maintained BPA-free products for many years prior (like Sigg and Klean Kanteen)?
You’re very caught up on the “numerous studies” bit, and completely disregarding the source of funds for those studies, not to mention the difference in study context in older studies compared to those of today, where the hormonal issues of BPA weren’t considered in regards to their long-term effect on younger children.
Forgive my appeal to emotion by mentioning your family, but I find it ironic that you’ve made similar decisions regarding other issues (such as what your pregnant wife could and could not eat) and yet the BPA issue is something you ignore as pseudo-science.