This seems very interesting, at least from a pure coffee nerd standpoint and what it could mean for improving espresso brewing in general.

However, I'm going through the research paper, and am a bit skeptical of the energy savings angle, especially considering the many variables with espresso machine in terms of how they heat and brew (single vs dual boilers, heat exchangers vs dippers, spring lever machines vs pump driven). I'm weary of how they are doing a baseline comparison here, especially because the paper states that the comparison was done between a modified Ascaso machine (with the ultrasound gizmo) vs an entirely different machine (Sanremo Cube); and also that they swapped the Ascaso machine's original brew pump and put in a seemingly expensive, but more efficient "positive displacement magnetic gear pump". They still use the pump to drive about 11 bar of pressure during brewing with it run on some sort of interval schedule throughout the 3 minute cycle. They did factor out the initial heat up times which I guess makes sense.

However, another thing (on top of the obvious "room temperature espresso" problem) is that you'd still need steam / heat to produce milk based drinks (relevant for both home and especially cafes). Depending on the machine (including the Sanremo Cube they tested with) some of the "idle energy" usage is to support on demand steam generation. This doesn't seem to have been factored into their energy model which is pretty sketchy.

"room temperature espresso" was the first thing I thought of - espresso is meant to be drunk hot, right away. If you let a good shot cool off and compare it to a bad shot you're not going to notice the difference as much because you made them both worse by letting them sit and cool.

For industrial processes it probably doesn't matter - look at how nescafe is manufactured.

Ok, I just looked it up and the Ascaso Uno is a thermoblock design, while the Sanremo Cube is an HX machine with a full on steam boiler. Therefore, the Ascaso wouldn't even have instant on steaming and has basically no stand-by power usage. So yea... their comparison is bogus, unless I'm missing something from the paper.

Very interesting for industrial use, that’s for sure.

For domestic use, in the home of somebody whose coffee snobbery is dialled to 11, I need far more information.

What beans were they using, freshness, etc? (Edit: Campos coffee… not on my shopping list that’s for sure…)

How did they control for extraction method differences to maximise output quality for all brew methods? (Edit: TDS and EY)

Were the “regular” coffee drinkers regular consumers of espresso?

Most importantly, how long until Hoffman does a deep dive and much will it cost so I can allocate budget for yet another coffee making device?

> Did the espresso drinks have milk in them?

I felt a great disturbance in Italy, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

Espresso does not have milk.

Macchiato, is an espresso based drink with milk.

Edit: it's bad form to change your message after-the-fact to remove the thing that was quoted.

Even if that quote was left in, "espresso drinkS" usually stands for drinks based on espresso, not espresso itself. You know, like cappucino or macchiato.

My dad was stationed on a submarine in the navy and he and a few others used to dump their laundry in the ultra-sonic cleaner normally used to clean engine parts. Said it did a great job....

After the last one of these posts talking about cold brew coffee I attempted to replicate the results by just throwing some water and coffee into an ultrasonic jewelry cleaner. Results were not satisfactory. I wonder if extracting the transducer from the jewelry cleaner and attaching it to my Portafilter would work.

It'd be a learning experience to find the right settings.

Coffee usually goes in two directions. Under-extracted (sour) or over-extracted (bitter). Things that will affect the extraction are temperature (hotter usually means more extraction), time (longer = more), grind size (more surface area in smaller grinds = more), pressure (higher = more) etc. Roast levels also matter.

I often produce espresso that is bitter and sour.

The best coffee that I've drank for the past five years have all been pour overs (my favorite was at a place called The Library in Toronto). I sometimes wonder if all the time, effort, and money I've dumped into espresso has been a huge mistake and maybe I should just buy a pour over setup...

I tend to wake up before my partner, and I can only imagine the look on her face when the ritualistic grinder noise gets joined by a noisy brewer.

In all seriousness, people tend to have a routine around coffee, but I think the Aeropress showed that people will change if the result is meaningfully better.

but that could be fixed by isolating the device from the environment, the ultrasound would not be heard, unless you're a bat.

Every ultrasound device makes sound, sometimes a lot of sound, because it's vibrating all of the materials, liquids, and air around it.

I don't really care about the very small energy savings, but I'm excited about smaller espresso machines:

- The taste is apparently the same "There were no significant differences in aroma, flavour, bitterness or overall liking."

- That ultrasonic horn looks a lot smaller than both a modern espresso machine or a hand-cranked model like a Flair/Rok.

GMO etc is arguable but there’s limits around what you can call some things based around how they are made.

Not really I think, but it’s not uncommon to protect product by restricting production methods or ingredients to traditional ones. So name espresso could be legally restricted to only when it’s brewed in traditional way.

As I glance at my (checks notes) $200 power bill in San Diego apartment used entirely to run 3 ceiling fans and a box fan, I’m getting curious about all the ways power consumption can be reduced. No AC, LED lights, all gas appliances.

I am going to switch over to a bunch of DC tower fans which claim to cut energy usage substantially. I wish more appliances would just switch to DC motors.

Look into balcony solar, if you have a balcony with sun exposure.

California energy prices are among the highest anywhere, so anything you can do to cut usage will have a bigger payoff there, and justify some investment to achieve it.

You may want to do a basic audit of your electrical usage -- it's not unheard of for apartments to have messed up circuits where one pays for usage by another.

If you turn off all of your AC consuming devices is your meter still registering usage?

I don't know anyone who buys ready-to-drink coffee all that often. It's more of an impulse or convenience buy.

Cutting costs does make sense for this type of product, but is it enough to keep up with declining demand?

There's probably 10 types of ready to drink coffee at Costco. Someone is drinking them, in bulk. Including my wife and daughter (different people)

"Most of us think of espresso as a hot, high-pressure ritual." - No, most of us dont care how the sausage is made, and just want the end product. Sure theres lots of individual coffee enthusiasts who cares, but in % terms thats not "most of us", most of us do not care, and nobody in my 40 years of life has ever complained about coffee energy usage.

Extract with sound waves is an interesting idea, but dont romanticize demand that doesnt exist, it wrecks credibility, literally in the first sentence of the article

Guessing you like your espresso bitter?

“Saving up to 75% of energy by not heating the water is a minor benefit for home users or small coffee shops. But for companies making ready-to-drink coffee products at industrial scale…”

The instant and dried coffee market is $35B-$50B. Cold Brew another $3B-$4B.

I see the value for American-style "espresso-flavored" drinks, or similar bottled/packaged products.

But, yuck, who on earth wants to drink actual espresso at room temperature?

In the style of Benjamin Buford "Bubba" Blue:

"You got your cold brew, your Japanese iced coffee, your iced americano. Then there's your mazagran, that's coffee with lemon juice, real refreshing. Your espresso tonic. Your iced latte, iced cappuccino, iced macchiato. You got your iced mocha, your frappuccino, your Greek frappé. Vietnamese iced coffee with the condensed milk dripping down real slow. Affogato, that's espresso poured right over ice cream. That's... that's about it."

The target of this process is not the residential use, but industry processing.

Instead of heating water to extract coffee and then latter cooling it to freeze dry and make instant coffee you keep the whole process at low temperatures, saving lots of power.

I do!

I think almost everything tastes better at room-ish temperature.

(Some things need to be colder or hotter to keep their texture, but I can't think of anything that _tastes_ better outside of the 16~25°C range)

Sparkling water (8-10C is the recommendation on the bottle in my hand). Bread (fresh from the oven, toast). Chicken Soup. And leaving aside examples, many things do taste better when they are hotter then 25, the heat helps more particles reach the olfactory receptors in your nose.

I'm sure that is correct for many people, but as I said: to _me_ things taste better at around room temperature.

Even though I don't doubt your claim that some particles travel easier at higher degrees I suspect the difference is too small to notice before the rise in temperature becomes distracting to _me_.

Fine for iced drinks or Americanos. Even drinks with hot milk might be ok. I guess it's not so great at a neat shit of espresso.