The best way to make coffee

One of my birthday presents this year was a new AeroPress coffee maker. I had put this item on my gift wish list because I was intrigued by its versatility. You can use it to make either regular-strength or espresso-strength coffee, and you can make either one, two, or three cups' worth at a time. And since I can't remember the last time I needed to make coffee for more people than that at once, I thought the AeroPress could potentially take the place of all the coffee-making apparatus in my cabinet: my big 10-cup drip machine, my single-cup pour-over cone, the filters for both, and the little moka pot I use for espresso. And on top of that, it was reputed to make a pretty darn good cup of joe.

Having tried it several times now, I can report that the AeroPress does everything it claims. It does indeed brew up a very good cup of coffee: rich, not too bitter, and free from sediment. (And I haven't even tried using it in cold brew mode yet, which could potentially be even better.) It's also very easy to use and very easy to clean. But what struck me most about it, after a week of use, is that it's probably the most ecofrugal way to brew coffee.

The method I've been relying on most for my everyday coffee was my little pour-over cone. It's quite simple to use, with minimal equipment, but it does require the use of disposable filters. True, they go into the compost bin (used grounds and all) rather than to the landfill, but they still require resources to produce. And of course, they're not free to buy either. The last box I bought was from Trader Joe's and cost $2.00 for 100 unbleached filters (size 2), so that's 2 cents apiece — not a lot, but it adds marginally to the cost of each cup of coffee. And the filters take up additional space in the cabinet.

I could, of course, eliminate the cost and the waste of paper filters by using a reusable filter made of cloth or metal. I even tried it for a while, but I quickly gave up on it because it was such a hassle to clean the grounds out of the filter. Even after I'd dumped the contents out into the compost bin, there was still quite a large volume of wet coffee grounds clinging to the cloth filter, and I had to run water through it for at least 30 seconds to get the thing clean. So whatever resources I saved by not using the paper filters were offset, maybe completely, by the amount of water it took to wash it. Not to mention all the grounds that ended up going down the drain, which probably weren't the best thing for the plumbing.

Other methods of brewing coffee have similar problems. A French press uses no paper filters, but requires just as much water (and work) to clean. An automatic drip machine uses even bigger paper filters and requires a significant amount of water (and work) to clean all the parts of the pot itself and the drip apparatus. They also waste the coffee itself if you brew a whole potful and only three people take any. And of course, the increasingly popular single-cup brewers, most notably the Keurig, produce a ludicrous amount of waste. According to the Story of Stuff project, the number of single-use K-cups trashed to date could circle the globe more than 10 times.

The AeroPress isn't zero-waste, but it's pretty close. It does have a filter, but only a tiny one, a flat disk just 2.5 inches in diameter. These "micro-filters" cost $5 for a package of 350 — only 1.4 cents each — and the amount of space they take up in the cabinet is negligible. And best of all, they make it incredibly easy to clean the press. When I finish brewing a cup of coffee, I just remove the filter cap, position the chamber over my little bathroom compost bin, and ram the plunger home. This ejects filter and grounds together into the bin, and all I have to do is rinse off any grounds clinging to the plunger. Then the whole gadget can go into the dish drainer to dry, and it's ready for its next use.

All in all, this coffee maker seems make the best possible use of limited resources compared to other methods. It saves paper by using such tiny filters. It saves both water and time by reducing the need for cleaning. It also saves time by brewing up a cup of good coffee faster than any other method I've tried. It saves cabinet space by replacing three different coffee gadgets with one. It saves energy by brewing coffee with water below the boiling temperature (ideally around 175°F, though to be honest, I usually just guesstimate it), so I don't have to bring the kettle to a full boil. And all of this, of course, saves money.

Please note, I am not trying to shill for AeroPress here. I was not paid anything to write this post (like they'd waste the money on a blog as tiny as this one, anyway), and I'm not trying to convince anyone who already has a coffee brewing method they like to switch. Indeed, I'd be delighted if you'd share your experience in the comments and tell me why you think your favorite method is superior. I don't promise to be convinced, however, because I'm pretty darn pleased with my new coffee maker — and with all the extra space I have now in my cabinet.