Talk:New Belgium Brewing Company/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

I must have missed this when I was looking, but I've also created New_Belgium_Brewery. I used the name they chose for themselves, so I think we should probably merge these two. I'm open to the merge either way. Wikibofh 14:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"One of the largest?" I'd be interested in the source of this particular citation. They are certainly nowhere near the league of Coors, Budweiser, etc., so it seems like a bit of puffery. I think it would be better if it were more specfic, for example, are they in the top twenty, etc.? -- Decumanus 04:01, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

I replaced "one of largest" with the production figure of 300,000 bbl according to beerme.com. This is compared to Coors, which is listed at 25,000,000 bbl annual [1]. It could perhaps be considered one of the largest microbreweries (so much so that it is no longer "micro", but certainly not one of the largest brewers or breweries (e.g. the brewery facility is dwarfed by the Budweiser plant also in Fort Collins). -- Decumanus 04:24, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

• They are #13 in terms of volume in the US according to the American_breweries page, which has it's source at the bottom. I'll update it's taxobox with the volume. Wikibofh 04:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Well if we are talking brewing beer can we really include Coors, and Budweiser? Ok, I'll leave now —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quadfire (talk • contribs) .

Manchiu 23:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC) added the section on La Folie. I live in Fort Collins and wanted to add a bit more about this brewery.

This article contains incorrect information.

New Belgium's Fort Collins brewery is not entirely wind powered as this article and the company's marketing information states. New Belgium elects to pay an increased rate for their ELECTRICAL energy which is supplied by the City of Fort Collins Utilities in order to subsidize the generation of an amount of electricity from wind generators equivalent to their usage. This does not mean that when the wind is not blowing they are not operating thier plant. At such times they are using power from the grid which is primarily fossil fuel based.

The biggest fraud here is that the overwhelming majority of energy used at the brewery comes from burning natural gas for thermal energy. This is straightforward fossil fuel usage that does not qualify as renewable.

The constant references to their self professed eco-friendly practices, complete lack of independent validation of their purported efficiencies and fraudulant descriptions of their energy sources qualifies New Belgium as one of the worst greenwashers in the US.

Thanks for clarifying exactly what New Belgium means when it claims to be "100% wind powered." The critical tone of your edit, however, did not meet Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View standards (see Neutral Point of View and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I edited your changes to the article but they are still duplicated here on the talk page. --Ginkgo100 01:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for editing out my rant. Work such as this is what makes Wikipedia truly "sustainable". --sutherix 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The section still seems disproprtionately long (I don't know how notable this aspect of NBBC is, but I doubt it is so important as to take up more than a quarter of the article). I also think it still reads as biased. Finally, the (controversial) claims aren't sourced & I could not immediately find anything confirming the claims of the quantity of natural gas which is still used. --Karnesky 05:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, the article as it stands right now is incorrect. I'll adjust at the end of this. The article says:

New Belgium's promotional materials inaccurately claim it is the nation's first brewery which is entirely wind-powered

when in fact, their materials say:

In 1998, New Belgium took an employee vote and decided to commit to being the nation’s first 100% wind-powered brewery.

They never claim to be 100% wind powered. They do claim that it is a goal. I've also added in their methane information. We should also change the article over to reference citation. I'll do that in subsequent edits. I also believe that this section isn't overly long...it's just the rest of the article is overly short.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 14:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Good catch on that detail ... although I thought I removed the word "inaccurately" from that sentence; was it added back? Also, the more I think about it, the more I think the complaint that NB is "greenwashing" is incorrect. Since they're on the FC power grid, they can't use "only" wind-generated electricity, but they can subsidize an amount of wind power equal to the amount of power they consume, meaning that they take no net fossil fuel power. --Ginkgo100 16:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, inaccurately must have been added back. I think it's a bit more complicated. From FCgov.com it handles/audits it through renewable energy certificates (which you have obviously noted is a red link  :). The FAQ states:

When a customer signs up for the Wind Power Program, Fort Collins Utilities ensures that wind energy is delivered onto the grid for that customer, displacing energy that would have been produced at a conventional power plant.

So, they're using wind power in the only way you really can without a windfarm. I'm not sure I see that as particularly disingeous. Wikibofh_(talk) 17:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I put 'inaccurately' back in, as a less biased rewrite of 'falsely,' which sutherix had used. I agree that the qualifier is not only unneeded, but also unwanted. --Karnesky 20:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the edits made since my last edit with the original. I will cite the following reasons;

1) New Belgium does constantly state "%100 wind-powered" or "%100 renewable energy" on it its marketing materials. Just because their web site does not carry these lies does not mean it is not happening, it does. Most recently at Fort Collin's Earth day celebration, New Belgium employees were handing out fliers that read %100 renewable energy right across the top.

2) Most of the energy consumed at New Belgium brewery is provided by natural gas. I have added a reference to Xcel Energy's web site so that the interested observer can confirm this for themselves with a phone call. One should know that a great deal of electricity produced from the grid comes from natural gas.

In your edit, you claimed the natural gas was burned on site (presumably by NBBC). Since you have apparently back-pedaled from this position & because I could find nothing supporting it, I have removed it. --Karnesky 17:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

3) Lots of companies do the same thing New Belgium does as far as subsidizing wind power proportional to their electrical demands. This does not make them wind powered and I have never seen another company who participates in this type of program make this claim. They are every bit as dependent upon grid power with its fossil fuel inputs as anybody else, they are making a financial decision to capitalize other sources in their input stream. Period.

4) The methane recovery plant constructed as part of New Belgium's waste water treatment plant is hardly a shining example of green technology. Prior to building the waste water plant, NB relied on the City of Fort Collins wastewater treatment facility for all their waste water disposal. After a growing number of complaints that the residential rate payers were subsidizing New Belgiums clean up, and after intermittent discharges of highly polluted waste actually incapacitated sections of the City's plant, the company agreed to build there own pre-treatment facility. It's operational record has been very poor to date. It is worth noting that Budweiser also has a large brewery in the Fort Collins area and it never has relied on muicipal facilities to take care of its waste.

The most significant inaccuracy sighted in the greenwashing of the methane recovery plant is that "the methane collected supplies %10 of the power that the plant uses." First, it only includes %10 of the ELECTRICAL energy the plant uses. Secondly, the amount of wind power that New Belgiun subsidises is reduced by %10 whenever the methane fired generator is working. Now remember, the plants largest energy input is fossil natural gas, which could be replaced by the methane collected, but natural gas is much cheaper than electrical energy with a wind power subsidy added in. Not quite as green as it looked, huh.

I cannot fault the wiki editors for changes that would appear to the distant observer as being more in keeping with the objectives of this great resource. But I believe that what is written now is factual. I have changed "falsely" to "inaccurately" for style points. I respectfully request that the content of this article be left to individuals who have first hand knowledge of the topic. The intent here as in all other articles is to present the truth. The distortions that NB passes off in its greenwashing campaign are not the truth. If you have questions, leave them on this discussion page and I will do my best to verify them. sutherix 29 april, 2006

I'm going to recommend again that you read Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Neutral Point of View. These are official policy on Wikipedia, and making controverial and/or disputed claims in an article are a violation of that policy. Also, no one editor has the corner on truth, and other editors will continue to correct articles when NPOV is violated. --Ginkgo100 23:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Whereas I will recommend No original research,Verifiability and Cite your sources. You are making statements that can not be verified, you are removing information that can be verified and is correctly cited [2], and encouraging original research (I respectfully request that the content of this article be left to individuals who have first hand knowledge of the topic [3]). Wikibofh_(talk) 00:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

(Moved from my talk)

What is verifiable to you? Anything that is written on a corporations web site? If only New Belgium would provide some verification of their claims, we would not be having this discussion. But they won't. In a pattern of behavior resembling the Bush administrations aproach to going to war (with us or against us) the company refuses any validation of their claims.

Using your standards anything a corporation wants to portray to the public is gospel as long as it appears on a corporation controlled website. If you would like evidence that NB falsifies information it provides to the public I would be happy to provide it. If ou want proof that they have no intention of being completely wind powered, I can provide that to you as well.

What's next for you, defending Shell Oil in the Niger Delta? Newmont Mining in South East Asia and Indonesia? They have lots of material for you to use on their corporate website.

Until you can verify using some independent source how much energy New Belgium uses from renewable sources, I will continue to post my factual information. I will give it a rest for a couple of days so that you can get back to me with some verifiable figures. Don't forget to let me know if you would like some proof of their lies. Post here or on the discussion for NB article.

Sutherix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.127.188 (talk • contribs) 19:44, April 29, 2006

• Obviously web content is the easiest for us to verify, but failing that any printed source will do. Something we can get from a library, a newspaper, or if you have hard copies, scan in so we can see them. Otherwise it's heresay. Simply put, something that can be verified and isn't original research. If you can provide proof that isn't original research, do so and we can work it into the article. Wikibofh_(talk) 16:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Cult aspects of New Belgium

Having worked at New Belgium for a while, I think it would be interesting to add a section detailing New Belgium's indoctrination and cult-like practices. Unfotunately, I am still living in the local area and am concerned with retribution by "employees" of the company. Is there anybody out there that is willing to take a chance to expose this wicked bunch of wannabe corporate sheep for what they truly are? Any input would be appreciated! WOW!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.105.144 (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

They may be a cult, but damn they make a good beer. S. Ugarte (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes they do! I'd be interested in starting a sect in the Chicago land area! 63.73.199.69 (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

New Logo

It's late and I don't have the inclination to do so, but somebody should really change the logo. It was changed almost two years ago!Balloonman (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

More on the History?

I see that theres only a little paragraph about the history of new new belgium company and I remember reading on their official website there was an interesting little story of how this became. Would anyone else agree that this should be added?--Thebigbearlouis (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum caution and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform the project members on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)