31–40 of 94 posts
75% energy save to make a room temperature expresso. I am ok spending a bit more energy to have it warm.
I'm _very much_ a coffee nerd. There's a semi-famous, super hipster cafe near me in Tokyo, that I sometimes go to. Once, they had a special on the menu, when they give you a flat white, and a double shot of espresso on the side, with a thermometer hovering over the shot, with suggestions of tasting notes that you can get out from sips at different temperatures. Now, that's generally very much a thing — things definit…
But people want to drink coffee/espresso hot, not room-temperature. So you have to heat the water afterward anyway. I'm not seeing that much potential for energy savings here, unless you're comparing setups with large boilers inefficiently used for small amounts of coffee.
But people want to drink coffee/espresso hot, not room-temperature. So you have to heat the water afterward anyway. I'm not seeing that much potential for energy savings here, unless you're comparing setups with large boilers inefficiently used for small amounts of coffee.
But people want to drink coffee/espresso hot, not room-temperature. So you have to heat the water afterward anyway. I'm not seeing that much potential for energy savings here, unless you're comparing setups with large boilers inefficiently used for small amounts of coffee.
According to the article they see the main use for industrial scale production of coffee/espresso based drinks, in that regard it does make sense. For home use not so much even if there could be some niche market for cold espresso drinks at home, using less ice would allow for less dilution and faster than prepping and then refrigerate the coffee. I sometimes put concentrated ice coffee into my whey/oat shakes, but t…
Makes nice coffee, but I don’t think it’s worth the cost (but he has a lot of money, so it’s not a big deal for him).
I envision some fairly high-end kit, coming from this.
The crema looks like terrible, more like Nespresso, and having the coffee warm is kinda important. But perhaps this can be used in the instant coffee industry or something.
For certain styles of coffee, crema in espresso is not necessarily desired — it typically has a high concentration of more bitter flavor compounds. If you're drinking light, floral and acidic coffees, it's been relatively "trendy" recently to skim the crema off before drinking it. I don't bother with that, but pulling two shots and removing the crema from one of them and trying them side by side is an interesting sen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For certain styles of coffee, crema in espresso is not necessarily desired — it typically has a high concentration of more bitter flavor compounds. If you're drinking light, floral and acidic coffees, it's been relatively "trendy" recently to skim the crema off before drinking it. I don't bother with that, but pulling two shots and removing the crema from one of them and trying them side by side is an interesting sen…
In that case I'd say espresso is not the right brewing method : )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this is why you can't use "100 regular coffee drinkers" to judge the quality of the brewing method. Most people can't even taste (or care about) the difference between arabica and robusta beans or whether it's red or white wine.
Sure you can. You can absolutely use those 100 participants if your aim is to develop and market a process that can then be used to make a product for those same types of people. Samples generalise if your sample is representative, and in this case, for large commercial coffee extraction companies, third wave coffee aficionados are not in their target audience.
Technically you can also buy a bottle of grape juice from the grocery store, let it sit on the kitchen sink with a yeast lock for a few weeks and call it wine, and technically it even is, but it's also going to taste quite shitty.
[1]: https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2024/05/Ultrasonic_col...