Case study
Pasteurizer water down from 28.0 to 5.5 m³/day
WaterBreweries & BeverageFood & Beverage Processing
Pasteurizer water down from 28.0 to 5.5 m³/day — $38,400/yr, no capital cost.
Carlsberg Canada
Photo slot · case-carlsberg-pasteurizer — pending the photography cull (§K.3 #27).
How it went.
Every study on this site runs the same four beats, in the same order.
01
Alert
One monthly water bill, one big number, and almost no visibility into where that water was going.
02
Cost
$38,400 per year — Can Line Pasteurizer 2: 28.0 m³/day → 5.5 m³/day with no process changes.
03
Fix
Flow meters on the pasteurizer water circuit · Existing Neptune Mach 10 meters connected, not replaced · Existing Endress+Hauser and IFM meters connected · PLC data brought in via Scadametrics signalizers
04
Restored
5.5 m³/day, on a schedule informed entirely by the data
In full.
The problem
“They came to us with a specific challenge: one monthly water bill, one big number, almost no visibility into where that water was going.”
[COPY-TBD] — one paragraph of connective prose setting the brewery scene, per §C.5 step 2. Keep the verbatim quote above as the opening.
What we installed
Flow meters on the pasteurizer water circuit, plus connection of the meters Carlsberg already owned — Neptune Mach 10, Endress+Hauser, IFM — and PLC data via Scadametrics signalizers. Nothing was ripped out.
What the data showed
“Within the first few weeks: the pasteurizer was consuming water outside of production hours. When the line was idle — between runs, overnight — water was still flowing.”
The fix
“The fix was a scheduling adjustment. No new equipment. No capital expenditure. Just a change informed entirely by data.”
The number
28.0 → 5.5 m³/day. $38,400 annualized. Source: NB Power RFP 0770-25-S510, Reference 3.
Also true
Carlsberg’s work received recognition in the AIM2Flourish global sustainability programme, and Carlsberg Group’s European ESG team cited the site as a model for potential global replication.
Closing
“You can’t fix what you can’t see.”
What the data looked like.
Hover or arrow-key across the trace to read any interval. The flagged point is the one that started the conversation.
| Interval | Before — 28.0 m³/day (L/min) | After — 5.5 m³/day (L/min) |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00 | 14 | 0 |
| 00:30 | 15 | 0 |
| 01:00 | 16 | 1 |
| 01:30 | 15 | 0 |
| 02:00 | 15 | 0 |
| 02:30 | 15 | 0 |
| 03:00 | 16 | 0 |
| 03:30 | 15 | 0 |
| 04:00 | 15 | 1 |
| 04:30 | 16 | 0 |
| 05:00 | 14 | 0 |
| 05:30 | 15 | 1 |
| 06:00 | 14 | 0 |
| 06:30 | 15 | 0 |
| 07:00 | 15 | 0 |
| 07:30 | 15 | 0 |
| 08:00 | 33 | 14 |
| 08:30 | 33 | 14 |
| 09:00 | 33 | 15 |
| 09:30 | 34 | 15 |
| 10:00 | 33 | 14 |
| 10:30 | 34 | 15 |
| 11:00 | 14 | 0 |
| 11:30 | 14 | 0 |
| 12:00 | 15 | 0 |
| 12:30 | 16 | 1 |
| 13:00 | 33 | 14 |
| 13:30 | 32 | 14 |
| 14:00 | 32 | 15 |
| 14:30 | 33 | 14 |
| 15:00 | 33 | 15 |
| 15:30 | 33 | 15 |
| 16:00 | 16 | 1 |
| 16:30 | 15 | 0 |
| 17:00 | 14 | 0 |
| 17:30 | 15 | 0 |
| 18:00 | 15 | 0 |
| 18:30 | 15 | 0 |
| 19:00 | 15 | 0 |
| 19:30 | 16 | 0 |
| 20:00 | 15 | 0 |
| 20:30 | 15 | 0 |
| 21:00 | 15 | 1 |
| 21:30 | 16 | 0 |
| 22:00 | 15 | 0 |
| 22:30 | 15 | 0 |
| 23:00 | 16 | 0 |
| 23:30 | 15 | 0 |
| Before | 28.0 m³/day, with water flowing between runs and overnight |
|---|---|
| After | 5.5 m³/day, on a schedule informed entirely by the data |
| From | To | Value (L/min) |
|---|---|---|
| Municipal supply | Brewhouse | 41 |
| Municipal supply | CIP | 28 |
| Municipal supply | Pasteurizer | 19 |
| Municipal supply | Packaging washdown | 17 |
| Municipal supply | Boiler and tower | 12 |
| Recovered loop | CIP | 9 |
| Recovered loop | Packaging washdown | 6 |
The published totals are the §H.1 figures. The interval shape is a representative reconstruction and is flagged as such in the dataset; the measured series drops into the same file under G6 with no markup change (§K.3 #28).
What changed.
Before
28.0 m³/day, with water flowing between runs and overnight
After
5.5 m³/day, on a schedule informed entirely by the data
$38,400
per year
Can Line Pasteurizer 2: 28.0 m³/day → 5.5 m³/day with no process changes.
Source: NB Power RFP 0770-25-S510 FINAL, Reference 3 (§H.1 claim 1)
In their words.
…unprecedented visibility…
Derek Cairney, Maintenance Reliability Specialist, Carlsberg Canada
G2 — quoted verbatim from the archive. Where only a fragment is on file it renders as a fragment with its attribution; the middle is never invented. Full verbatim text required before launch — [TOM-REVIEW].
Where to go next.
The sector, the sibling studies, and the calculator that runs this same arithmetic on your own numbers.
Predictive maintenanceWaterBreweries & Beverage
A failing diaphragm pump, caught before it failed
Carlsberg Canada
A failing diaphragm pump caught before it failed — 540,000 L/day of loss prevented.
540,000 Lper day
Compressed airWaterFood & Beverage ProcessingBulk Handling & Rail Logistics
Over 450,000 litres saved in four months — and the clearest compressor graph we've produced
PDI Bulk
>450,000 litres of water saved in four months, and the clearest before/after compressor graph we've ever produced.
>450,000 Lin 4 months
WaterManufacturing — automotive, plastics & rubber
Chiller circuit leak isolated without a shutdown
An automotive plant
A leaking cooling loop found and isolated with the line still running.
1 loopisolated
Illustrative scenario
Find out what’s hiding in your plant.
Half a day on your floor, no charge and no obligation. At the end of it we tell you what we saw, what we would meter first, and what the return looks like.
Your first opportunity assessment is free.
Book a free consultationAll case studies
or call 1-833-QUANTFY (1-833-782-6839)