Hacker News Reader

Comment by gallerytungsten | Hacker News Reader

Among other reasons, it's relatively easily to have a catastrophic fire. Unlike winemaking and brewing, where your end product will be in the range of 4% to 13% ABV, which generally won't burn, you can easily distill to 150 proof (75% ABV) with a simple pot still (or 190 proof with a column still).

150 proof is a highly flammable liquid. The vapor is flammable. If you have a vapor leak it can ignite. The flame is invisible. In other words, it's not something to take lightly.

In the micro distilling industry, I personally know of a half dozen fires over the past couple years. It's easy for something to go wrong very, very quickly.

Here is an article on the most recent fire: http://newsok.com/blast-rocks-moore-distillery/article/49079...

View on HN

Yeah, catastrophic fires are an issue. And yet we've no problem with home storage of gasoline for lawn mowers (and yes, we don't typically collect gasoline in gaseous form over heat sources).

Catastrophic fires are also an issue with deep-frying turkeys, and in fact with deep-frying anything.

And we do already have a well-formed body of law dealing with responsibility for fires, damage to neighbour's homes &c.

'Someone might maybe do something wrong' isn't really a good reason for there to be a federal ban on most behaviours. I'd be much less incensed were it at the city or even neighbourhood level.

I mentioned fires as a point I would be concerned about.

While distilling is heavily regulated at the Federal, state, and local levels, the Feds did not ban it due to concerns over fire safety. Rather, a chief reason is "to protect the revenue," which, in the case of Federal excise taxes, is substantial. ($13.50 per proof gallon; a proof gallon is 1 gallon at 50% ABV.)

The Feds don't really concern themselves with fire safety. Rather, just as you desire, that's regulated at the state and local level. The TTB outlook is that you have to satisfy the local and state levels as far as fire safety is concerned.

Sort of off-topic, but back when I worked in a lab, we often needed 200 proof ethanol that wasn't denatured with methanol or some other noxious substance. The company I worked for had an ATF license to purchase ethanol without the associated tax.

The cost of 1 gallon (3.79 L) of 200 proof ethanol was $8. You could dilute this with 1 part water and end up with the equivalent of vodka for $4 per gallon. It goes to show how much alcohol taxes are.

That being said, the 200 proof alcohol was pretty vile. It smelled like the cheapest vodka you could buy. I remember a few gallons going missing over the years, so somebody didn't mind the taste.

> And yet we've no problem with home storage of gasoline for lawn mowers (and yes, we don't typically collect gasoline in gaseous form over heat sources).

I'd have a problem if someone was doing that in my building (and they'd be violating the terms of the lease if they were).

> Catastrophic fires are also an issue with deep-frying turkeys, and in fact with deep-frying anything.

Which is why chip-pans were the biggest cause of home fires when I was growing up, and nowadays no-one has them.

> 'Someone might maybe do something wrong' isn't really a good reason for there to be a federal ban

Sure, I don't think it should be illegal. But it's bad advice.

> > And yet we've no problem with home storage of gasoline for lawn mowers (and yes, we don't typically collect gasoline in gaseous form over heat sources).

> I'd have a problem if someone was doing that in my building (and they'd be violating the terms of the lease if they were).

Well, sure, but if you live in a multi-tenant building, you won't have to mow a lawn, either. These days, though, a battery-powered mower is just as good as some gasoline mowers. Not having to deal with gas and oil is a large bonus.

Also, houses are made of wood and have carpeted floors. Highly flammable.

Sure. But it's not illegal to distill alcohol for fuel--or any of the other various laboratory operations that are similarly dangerous.

If that reason had anything to do with the law, it would be a fire code thing.

No, the real reason is a coalition between moral purity (left over from the temperance movement) and revenue protection. Ever heard of "Baptists and bootleggers"? Same thing, except the bootleggers are the government.

If you want to distill fuel alcohol, you do need a permit. Without a permit, it's illegal.

I mentioned fire in relation to a "problem" with home distilling, not as a legal issue, although fire codes related to distilling are quite extensive and restrictive.

I also mentioned the revenue issue in several other comments.

The so-called "moral" issue is generally only relevant to consumption, not distilling, and only at the state level or below, where some states have "dry" counties and other restrictions on access.

Indeed. I remembered incorrectly.

But the only reason you need a federal permit for making the fuel is so you don't go making any demon rum on the sly and avoiding the tax.

Under the same law, it's illegal to put your brew in the freezer to remove the water (freezing point of water is higher than that of ethanol). No chance of harm in that process, yet still severely punished.

In the case of freeze distillation, the punishment would be for evasion of (Federal and state) excise taxes, along with distillation without the proper permits. If some law enforcement agency busted your freezer, they'd probably come up with some other violations on top of those obvious ones.

In reality, I think the likelihood of a "freezer bust" and consequent punishment is pretty low. Moonshine busts are generally carried out on the state level, and the typical charges are possession and transportation of untaxed spirits.

Actually, the chance of harm for frost distillation is slightly higher than steam distillation. The volatiles that are ordinarily removed from the distillate as "heads" and "tails" stay with the alcohol fraction instead. As frost distillation is the traditional process for going from hard cider to applejack, additional care must be taken in the fermentation step, because if the Saccharomyces are contaminated by bacteria that ferment sugars to acetone, butanols, propanols, or fusels, those contaminants will be present in the final product. They probably won't kill you, but your hangover is going to be terrible.

In a clean, well-controlled fermentation vessel, as one might find in an open commercial operation, this is not a problem. But when the process is outlawed, and the producers have to hide, often in places that cannot be biologically sterilized, this problem could occur more often.

But then again, it isn't really about public safety, but about people who want to control other people. Otherwise, the law would mandate adequate fire protection for steam distillers and establish upper limits on non-ethanol fermentation products in frost-distilled products. Either could address the safety concern without outright banning the practice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com