Most cost effective coffee maker

[ericbonabike]

Does anybody have any insight as to the various cost efficiencies of operating a coffee maker?

We have a little 4 cup maker, and we drink between 4 cups on weekdays to 12 cups on weekends.
I spent maybe $20 on it, but we burn through a 2 lbs bag of coffee about every 10 days.

It struck me that coffee makers and coffee is to printers and ink.
You can spend $100 on a printer, that you gotta put $30 ink blocks every 6 months.
But you might be able to spend $200 on a printer, and then you only need a $30 ink cartridge every 9 months.

So, what is the MOST cost efficient way to brew between 4 -12 cups of coffee per day which uses the LEAST amount of coffee?

[nereo]

There was a thread about this years ago, but I can't seem to find it with the search function.

As I recall, a simple french-press method winds up costing the least for cups of coffee, as it needs less coffee per cup than drip or pour-over machines, an you can get a french-press for under $20.  A coffee cone and reusable filter is a bit cheaper upfront (~$10) but you wind up paying more for the beans in the long run since each cup requires more. Conventional countertop coffee machines basically are automatic versions of pour-over coffee (higher upfront cost, same amount of coffee). 

But if you're willing to consider espresso then a stove-top Moka wins out, since it uses the least amount of beans per serving and costs around $20.

None of these considers which method 'tastes' the best to you, which of course is subjective.


tl;dr - if you find a good source for coffee beans the cost-per-cup for any of these methods is paltry regardless.

(realized after writing that I left out the aeropress, but since you can't easily make 12 cups without buying multiple aeropresses it doesn't seem to slot well into this dicussion.

[Steeze]

+1 for French press, but making 12 cups at once is tough, have to clean and re brew. No warmer to keep it hot all morning either. I usually make 2-3 cups in mine for just me, by cup 3 it is cold.

[nereo]

+1 for French press, but making 12 cups at once is tough, have to clean and re brew. No warmer to keep it hot all morning either. I usually make 2-3 cups in mine for just me, by cup 3 it is cold.

They make '12 cup*' (1.5 liter/51oz) and even '16 cup' (2 liter) models if one were so inclined - though I find it easier to just brew 1 liter at a time and replenish as necessary.  Or own two (which we do, since we inherited a friend's when he moved).

https://www.amazon.com/Grunwerg-Double-Insulated-Stainless-Cafetiere/dp/B00KHXFUJQ/ref=sr_1_15?keywords=french+press+2+liter&qid=1549918095&s=gateway&sr=8-15

*apparently manufacturers measure 'cups' in little 4oz servings, which is like a small diner mug.  A 1.5 Liter french-press will give 4 people a sizable 12oz cup of joe.

For whatever reason I can't load any of the searched topics.  The thread comes up but I can't access.  Shrug.

[socaso]

My husband loves his french press! A piece of advice: just get the stainless steel model. We initially bought the glass models because they were cheaper and we had 4 of them break and finally bought the stainless steel model. The glass ones were about $10-12 each and the stainless steel was about $20 so we could have bought 2 unbreakable stainless steel models for what we spent on the glass ones. Live and learn.

[OtherJen]

We use a glass-walled electric kettle ($40) to boil water for our 1-liter glass pour-over carafe with reusable filter ($25). The 6-cup setting on our electric burr grinder ($50) yields the correct amount of ground coffee for a 1-liter pot. We make a pot of coffee every morning and go through a 3-lb bag of coffee beans from Costco ($16) approximately every month. We bought all equipment about 2 years ago, and everything is holding up very well.

If I think I might want an afternoon cup of coffee, I grind enough beans for 8 cups and set aside a couple tablespoons of grounds. Then I use my single-serve pour-over ($8) and paper filter to brew a single cup (we also use this setup for camping).

[worms]

I know this will offend the coffee purists on here and each to their own, taste-wise, but I use a simple, old-fashioned, enamel coffee pot.  It takes four tablespoons of ground coffee and filled to the brim makes four decent mugs of coffee. It sits on the edge of the stove-top with a “cosy” over it and remains at a reasonable temperature all morning (mugs given a 15s zap in the microwave if not up to temperature).  With the right grind, and the correct pouring technique, there are no problems with sediment in the cup, unless you really stretch that last cup!  No filters, no problems to cleaning after use, just simple easy good coffee.  Visitors enthuse over the coffee and come back for more, so perhaps this is one area where you can get simple, cheap and good all at the same time!

Now...off to pour another cup!

[Case]

Does anybody have any insight as to the various cost efficiencies of operating a coffee maker?

We have a little 4 cup maker, and we drink between 4 cups on weekdays to 12 cups on weekends.
I spent maybe $20 on it, but we burn through a 2 lbs bag of coffee about every 10 days.

It struck me that coffee makers and coffee is to printers and ink.
You can spend $100 on a printer, that you gotta put $30 ink blocks every 6 months.
But you might be able to spend $200 on a printer, and then you only need a $30 ink cartridge every 9 months.

So, what is the MOST cost efficient way to brew between 4 -12 cups of coffee per day which uses the LEAST amount of coffee?

Ok, so first off, you have to follow the laws of thermodynamics.  There is a finite amount of coffee in every bean, and you cannot change that.  You can extract more of the solubles within the ground bean by overextracting, but this will result in more bitter coffee.  You can re-use your spent grounds to make more coffee, and get something that vaguely resembles coffee, but it will contain far less coffee flavor/aroma than the first cup and will be bitter.

As people here have said, a French Press is cheap and will last forever.  I personally don't like French Press too much; it is PITA to clean up (mostly because I avoid putting coffee grounds down the drain), and I don't prefer the grittier dirtier tastes it produces (but many do like it).  Also, coffee that doesn't go through a paper filter by some accounts can have negative impacts on your heart health, because the filter removes some chemicals in the coffee which are problematic.  I haven't investigated this thoroughly, but recall seeing this on a few reputable sources.  It's not the worst thing in the world, but a small knick against french press.

I really like the Aeropress; it is fast and easy, costs $30 and comes with maybe 300 filters.  Similar to french press but superior in my opinion.  The downside is that you'd have to do it multiple times to get 12 cups.

Coffee-wise, ugh, a lot of the stuff people think is good coffee is Starbucks-style stuff.  It checks the following boxes:  1) hot,  2) caffeine,  3) liquid,  4) general coffee-like taste.  5) burnt and bitter flavors.   If this is what you like, no problems, you do you etc... The good news is that you can get this for dirt cheap.  Starbucks-style is over-roasted (their 'medium' or 'light' roasts are still very dark).  At dark roast levels, the individual nuances of coffees are lost, and all coffees begin to look more similar to each other.  In this case, just go to Costco, or coffeedirect or somethign like that, and find what is bulk and cheap.

If you like the more modern light-roasted coffees, these are unfortunately more expensive.  However, I've found some pretty decent ones at Aldi for suprisingly low prices.

[nereo]

Ok, so first off, you have to follow the laws of thermodynamics. 

What?  How has this anything to do with the laws of thermodynamics??
I mean, the rest of your post is good - but the laws of thermodynamics do not come into play

The three laws of thermodynamics:

• Energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system
• Entropy of any isolated system always increases
• Entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero

signed - a concerned scientist.

[PoutineLover]

I find the stove top moka pot makes super tasty coffee and they come in different sizes. I would get one that makes a round of coffee in your case, and then brew again as needed, it doesn't take too long to make and that way it's always fresh. I also have a french press for when I need to serve more people at once. I have my own grinder so I can make the right grind for the method I choose. Beans aren't too expensive, and it doesn't take that much for either of those methods. Costco has some good options, but I get mine at a local store where they are even cheaper and pretty good quality.

[trollwithamustache]

I have a passionate and ongoing love affair with my french press. Its efficient in in that we only make the coffee we intend to drink. Its a lot of overhead time, and far far form the most efficient man-hours labor to cup time. 

[sol]

None of these considers which method 'tastes' the best to you, which of course is subjective.

If we're ignoring how the coffee "tastes" then I suspect instant coffee is cheaper than any other kind of coffee maker. 

There is no device to buy.  You can make 12 cups just as easily as you can make 1 cup, with zero waste.  You reclaim all of the lost time you were previously spending on brewing and maybe grinding beans.  And one $4 container makes hundreds and hundreds of cups.

Personally, I don't mind the taste of instant coffee at all.  Especially if I'm going to doctor it with cream and sugar or hot chocolate, I find it indistinguishable from regular coffee.  I think lots of people treat coffee the way they treat wine, overpaying by several orders of magnitude for relatively small improvements in quality.

Especially if you're a person who drinks coffee just because they want the caffeine, instant seems like the obvious choice to me.  If you're more into the ritual of it, and enjoy the process of making something complicated and inefficient, then go crazy with your fancy devices I guess.

[GuitarStv]

None of these considers which method 'tastes' the best to you, which of course is subjective.

If we're ignoring how the coffee "tastes" then I suspect instant coffee is cheaper than any other kind of coffee maker. 

There is no device to buy.  You can make 12 cups just as easily as you can make 1 cup, with zero waste.  You reclaim all of the lost time you were previously spending on brewing and maybe grinding beans.  And one $4 container makes hundreds and hundreds of cups.

Personally, I don't mind the taste of instant coffee at all.  Especially if I'm going to doctor it with cream and sugar or hot chocolate, I find it indistinguishable from regular coffee.  I think lots of people treat coffee the way they treat wine, overpaying by several orders of magnitude for relatively small improvements in quality.

Especially if you're a person who drinks coffee just because they want the caffeine, instant seems like the obvious choice to me.  If you're more into the ritual of it, and enjoy the process of making something complicated and inefficient, then go crazy with your fancy devices I guess.

I made cold brew coffee all summer last year with a water bottle, ground coffee, a strainer, and paper coffee filters.

- Put water and ground coffee into water bottle
- Leave in fridge overnight (or two or three days, whatever works)
- Put paper coffee filter into straner, put strainer over coffee mug
- Pour water/ground coffee mix into coffee filter

So it's pretty much just the cost of a paper filter and as a side benefit tastes great.

[Hula Hoop]

Here in Italy, everyone uses the moka pot to make espresso and it's very mustachian.  I just got a new 3 cup one for Euro 5 but I guess they cost more outside Italy.  They use very little coffee and they are cheap to buy.  Very simple technology too and you can buy all the spare parts when needed.  Make sure you use finely ground espresso coffee.

[Case]

Ok, so first off, you have to follow the laws of thermodynamics. 

What?  How has this anything to do with the laws of thermodynamics??
I mean, the rest of your post is good - but the laws of thermodynamics do not come into play

The three laws of thermodynamics:

• Energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system
• Entropy of any isolated system always increases
• Entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero

signed - a concerned scientist.

My initial read was looking at this part:

"You can spend $100 on a printer, that you gotta put $30 ink blocks every 6 months.
But you might be able to spend $200 on a printer, and then you only need a $30 ink cartridge every 9 months."

There are different ways to interpret the OP's message, but one might interpret it as a printer using ink more or less efficiently.  With coffee, there are different ways to interpret the 'bang for your buck', but I wanted to point out that for the most part, one coffee maker is not going to give you more cups of coffee than the other.  You cannot create coffee from nothing.  You cannot expect the coffee maker to more efficiently make you coffee, (unless of course you count diluted coffee as the same as undiluted).  Sure, there might be differences in one brewing method versus another, but these are generally more dependent on the coffee water ratio, the brew time, the temperature, the grind particle size and distribution, etc...  And these are all not changing the amount of coffee.  Rather, they are changing the separation of the coffee components.  Therefore, for the purposes of saving money, the concept that getting a more expensive coffee maker in order to more efficiently (cost efficiency) produce cups of coffee is not how it works.  But, if you want to improve coffee quality, that is a different story.  This is why I called out thermodynamics; First Law.

The exception is the cost of operation of the coffee maker (dwarfed by the cost of the coffee) and the cost of maintenance/replacement when it breaks (dwarfed by the cost of coffee unless you buy a POS machine).

Signed - a scientist also, as well as a coffee roaster.

[Case]

None of these considers which method 'tastes' the best to you, which of course is subjective.

If we're ignoring how the coffee "tastes" then I suspect instant coffee is cheaper than any other kind of coffee maker. 

There is no device to buy.  You can make 12 cups just as easily as you can make 1 cup, with zero waste.  You reclaim all of the lost time you were previously spending on brewing and maybe grinding beans.  And one $4 container makes hundreds and hundreds of cups.

Personally, I don't mind the taste of instant coffee at all.  Especially if I'm going to doctor it with cream and sugar or hot chocolate, I find it indistinguishable from regular coffee.  I think lots of people treat coffee the way they treat wine, overpaying by several orders of magnitude for relatively small improvements in quality.

Especially if you're a person who drinks coffee just because they want the caffeine, instant seems like the obvious choice to me.  If you're more into the ritual of it, and enjoy the process of making something complicated and inefficient, then go crazy with your fancy devices I guess.

If you just want the caffeine, probably caffeine pills are the most efficient route.  Bypasses the energy intensive evaporation of liquid coffee to obtain the dry powder.  Plus, then you don't have to spend energy on heating up water again in order to drink a warm beverage.  Of course, this maybe it's too much of a gate way drug...

[Case]

None of these considers which method 'tastes' the best to you, which of course is subjective.

If we're ignoring how the coffee "tastes" then I suspect instant coffee is cheaper than any other kind of coffee maker. 

There is no device to buy.  You can make 12 cups just as easily as you can make 1 cup, with zero waste.  You reclaim all of the lost time you were previously spending on brewing and maybe grinding beans.  And one $4 container makes hundreds and hundreds of cups.

Personally, I don't mind the taste of instant coffee at all.  Especially if I'm going to doctor it with cream and sugar or hot chocolate, I find it indistinguishable from regular coffee.  I think lots of people treat coffee the way they treat wine, overpaying by several orders of magnitude for relatively small improvements in quality.

Especially if you're a person who drinks coffee just because they want the caffeine, instant seems like the obvious choice to me.  If you're more into the ritual of it, and enjoy the process of making something complicated and inefficient, then go crazy with your fancy devices I guess.

I made cold brew coffee all summer last year with a water bottle, ground coffee, a strainer, and paper coffee filters.

- Put water and ground coffee into water bottle
- Leave in fridge overnight (or two or three days, whatever works)
- Put paper coffee filter into straner, put strainer over coffee mug
- Pour water/ground coffee mix into coffee filter

So it's pretty much just the cost of a paper filter and as a side benefit tastes great.

I like an occasional cold brew.  Some will point out that cold brew does not extract the organic acids which give some coffees their liveliness, which can be a pro and a con.  I think it tends to have less body as well, but mellow, chocolatey, and preserve delicate aromas more easily.

A con for me is that cold brew has a higher caffeine content, which means I can't drink as much.  You get less 'coffee' out of it because less solids are dissolved.  The OP may perceive this as less efficient; this is why cold brew on a volume:volume basis tends to be expensive.

[GuitarStv]

None of these considers which method 'tastes' the best to you, which of course is subjective.

If we're ignoring how the coffee "tastes" then I suspect instant coffee is cheaper than any other kind of coffee maker. 

There is no device to buy.  You can make 12 cups just as easily as you can make 1 cup, with zero waste.  You reclaim all of the lost time you were previously spending on brewing and maybe grinding beans.  And one $4 container makes hundreds and hundreds of cups.

Personally, I don't mind the taste of instant coffee at all.  Especially if I'm going to doctor it with cream and sugar or hot chocolate, I find it indistinguishable from regular coffee.  I think lots of people treat coffee the way they treat wine, overpaying by several orders of magnitude for relatively small improvements in quality.

Especially if you're a person who drinks coffee just because they want the caffeine, instant seems like the obvious choice to me.  If you're more into the ritual of it, and enjoy the process of making something complicated and inefficient, then go crazy with your fancy devices I guess.

I made cold brew coffee all summer last year with a water bottle, ground coffee, a strainer, and paper coffee filters.

- Put water and ground coffee into water bottle
- Leave in fridge overnight (or two or three days, whatever works)
- Put paper coffee filter into straner, put strainer over coffee mug
- Pour water/ground coffee mix into coffee filter

So it's pretty much just the cost of a paper filter and as a side benefit tastes great.

I like an occasional cold brew.  Some will point out that cold brew does not extract the organic acids which give some coffees their liveliness, which can be a pro and a con.  I think it tends to have less body as well, but mellow, chocolatey, and preserve delicate aromas more easily.

A con for me is that cold brew has a higher caffeine content, which means I can't drink as much.  You get less 'coffee' out of it because less solids are dissolved.  The OP may perceive this as less efficient; this is why cold brew on a volume:volume basis tends to be expensive.

Solution:  Add more milk.


:P

[ericbonabike]

Well, physics aside, I guess my logic was:

1) I think we can all agree that making 12 cups of coffee via Keurig is woefully inefficient.  (both from a cost perspective and a volume of grounds necessary to produce 12 cups)
2) Therefore, there might be a spectrum of coffee making methodology that uses more or less coffee.  I imagine it looks like Gaussian distribution with Keurig on the 3sigma low end, and the "best" coffee solution on the 3sigma high side.

I have a 4 "cup" maker, which makes 2 decent sized mugs.  It's a basket drip filter. I use ~1/2 cup of grounds every time I make 2 mugs. 

If I could reduce the ~1/2 cup to ~1/3 cup, I would greatly reduce the amount of coffee I'd need to buy. 

So, follow up to the posts here:

If I buy a French press, or aeropress will it reduce the amount of grounds necessary per serving?
If I buy a macho pot, can I make coffee?  Or do I make espresso, then pour it into a mug of warm water for an "Americano"?

[chasesfish]

I may upset some coffee purists...

I get the best selling,cone filter drip coffee maker from Amazon whenever the one I have dies.  Cone seems more efficient than basket, then use good coffee beans, use unbleached filters, and good water.   Coffee tastes outstanding each time

[nereo]

If I buy a French press, or aeropress will it reduce the amount of grounds necessary per serving?
If I buy a macho pot, can I make coffee?  Or do I make espresso, then pour it into a mug of warm water for an "Americano"?

French press:  Yes.  For similar strength coffee you will use less grounds in a french press than a pour-over/drip becasue the water stays in contact with the beans longer.  This does change the flavor profile, which some (like myself prefer), and some do not.

Moka pot - this uses the least about of beans per serving, but typically your serving size will be less since it makes an espresso-like pour..  You grind (or buy ground) the beans to an esperesso consistency - which is very fine.  Then you gently pack them into the holder which sits above the part that holds the water.  STeam passes through the dense 'puck' of finely ground coffee and condenses on the lid, where it drips down into the pot.  Be advised - if you have a powerful gas range it's possible to melt the plastic handle (not that I did that or anything...)
You can then add boiling water to a shot of the espresso to make an 'Americano' - similar in strength to regular drip co ffee but (again) a different flavor profile.

[Case]

Well, physics aside, I guess my logic was:

1) I think we can all agree that making 12 cups of coffee via Keurig is woefully inefficient.  (both from a cost perspective and a volume of grounds necessary to produce 12 cups)
2) Therefore, there might be a spectrum of coffee making methodology that uses more or less coffee.  I imagine it looks like Gaussian distribution with Keurig on the 3sigma low end, and the "best" coffee solution on the 3sigma high side.

I have a 4 "cup" maker, which makes 2 decent sized mugs.  It's a basket drip filter. I use ~1/2 cup of grounds every time I make 2 mugs. 

If I could reduce the ~1/2 cup to ~1/3 cup, I would greatly reduce the amount of coffee I'd need to buy. 

So, follow up to the posts here:

If I buy a French press, or aeropress will it reduce the amount of grounds necessary per serving?
If I buy a macho pot, can I make coffee?  Or do I make espresso, then pour it into a mug of warm water for an "Americano"?

This is sort of my point:

The high end coffee maker will not use more or less grounds to make more or less coffee.  Coffee is just water with some fraction of the ground coffee dissolved into it.  What affects how much coffee dissolves are the process conditions (water temperature, contact time, grind size, coffee:water ratio, etc...), etc...  There are optimal ratios that produce the best tasting coffee, and this may matter a lot or only a little to you.

You can increase your 'efficiency' by making really weak coffee (e.g. dilute), but at some point it will be more like hot water than coffee and you wont enjoy it.  In order to get the same buzz (caffeine), you'll have to drink a larger amount of it.

In thinking about this problem, it's better to think about coffee as a finite resource.  If you keep the amount of coffee beans constant, then you can either make a lot of dilute coffee drink, or a little bit of highly concentrated coffee drink (or somewhere in between).

TLDR:  Just buy a cheap french press.  Pour boiling water into it, and stir/mix the mixture after you add the water to the coffee.  Stir for a long time, like 5 minutes.  You will get an overly strong coffee, which you can dilute to your taste by adding more coffee.  This is the most 'efficient' way, in that you will be dissolving as much of the ground coffee bean as possible.  The coffee will be bitter and lack balance, but you'll have consumed as much of the bean as possible.  If you really want to save money, eat the spent grounds as well.

[Mpenny1001]

I'm picky about my coffee, but I also prefer a "push a button and get some coffee" method at home in the mornings.  I'll do a pour over single cup at work because I like the ritual, but at home I just want an automatic drip machine.  I find a machine that lets you select the brew strength works best for me. I can select whatever the "bold" option is and I get a nice, rich cup of coffee without having to use more grounds.  So, if you're lazy like me, that might be an option for you.  I'd link to the one I have (a Hamilton Beach model) but it seems to be discontinued.

[trollwithamustache]

Ok, so first off, you have to follow the laws of thermodynamics. 

What?  How has this anything to do with the laws of thermodynamics??
I mean, the rest of your post is good - but the laws of thermodynamics do not come into play

The three laws of thermodynamics:

• Energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system
• Entropy of any isolated system always increases
• Entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero

signed - a concerned scientist.

My initial read was looking at this part:

"You can spend $100 on a printer, that you gotta put $30 ink blocks every 6 months.
But you might be able to spend $200 on a printer, and then you only need a $30 ink cartridge every 9 months."

There are different ways to interpret the OP's message, but one might interpret it as a printer using ink more or less efficiently.  With coffee, there are different ways to interpret the 'bang for your buck', but I wanted to point out that for the most part, one coffee maker is not going to give you more cups of coffee than the other.  You cannot create coffee from nothing.  You cannot expect the coffee maker to more efficiently make you coffee, (unless of course you count diluted coffee as the same as undiluted).  Sure, there might be differences in one brewing method versus another, but these are generally more dependent on the coffee water ratio, the brew time, the temperature, the grind particle size and distribution, etc...  And these are all not changing the amount of coffee.  Rather, they are changing the separation of the coffee components.  Therefore, for the purposes of saving money, the concept that getting a more expensive coffee maker in order to more efficiently (cost efficiency) produce cups of coffee is not how it works.  But, if you want to improve coffee quality, that is a different story.  This is why I called out thermodynamics; First Law.

The exception is the cost of operation of the coffee maker (dwarfed by the cost of the coffee) and the cost of maintenance/replacement when it breaks (dwarfed by the cost of coffee unless you buy a POS machine).

Signed - a scientist also, as well as a coffee roaster.

Ladies, in engineering we call this the mass balance.  Coffee brewing is a mass transfer (extraction) problem. The connoisseurs don't want to go too deep into the bean and extract other stuff they don't want. Our cheap OP wants it all.  The first law only comes into play in as much as it will be respected during the extraction. I guess the second law is playing out here in the forums.

-a grumpy engineer

[Case]

Ok, so first off, you have to follow the laws of thermodynamics. 

What?  How has this anything to do with the laws of thermodynamics??
I mean, the rest of your post is good - but the laws of thermodynamics do not come into play

The three laws of thermodynamics:

• Energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system
• Entropy of any isolated system always increases
• Entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero

signed - a concerned scientist.

My initial read was looking at this part:

"You can spend $100 on a printer, that you gotta put $30 ink blocks every 6 months.
But you might be able to spend $200 on a printer, and then you only need a $30 ink cartridge every 9 months."

There are different ways to interpret the OP's message, but one might interpret it as a printer using ink more or less efficiently.  With coffee, there are different ways to interpret the 'bang for your buck', but I wanted to point out that for the most part, one coffee maker is not going to give you more cups of coffee than the other.  You cannot create coffee from nothing.  You cannot expect the coffee maker to more efficiently make you coffee, (unless of course you count diluted coffee as the same as undiluted).  Sure, there might be differences in one brewing method versus another, but these are generally more dependent on the coffee water ratio, the brew time, the temperature, the grind particle size and distribution, etc...  And these are all not changing the amount of coffee.  Rather, they are changing the separation of the coffee components.  Therefore, for the purposes of saving money, the concept that getting a more expensive coffee maker in order to more efficiently (cost efficiency) produce cups of coffee is not how it works.  But, if you want to improve coffee quality, that is a different story.  This is why I called out thermodynamics; First Law.

The exception is the cost of operation of the coffee maker (dwarfed by the cost of the coffee) and the cost of maintenance/replacement when it breaks (dwarfed by the cost of coffee unless you buy a POS machine).

Signed - a scientist also, as well as a coffee roaster.

Ladies, in engineering we call this the mass balance.  Coffee brewing is a mass transfer (extraction) problem. The connoisseurs don't want to go too deep into the bean and extract other stuff they don't want. Our cheap OP wants it all.  The first law only comes into play in as much as it will be respected during the extraction. I guess the second law is playing out here in the forums.

-a grumpy engineer

"The first law only comes into play in as much as it will be respected during the extraction".

In other words, it comes into play.  The concept of mass balance is a direct manifestation of the first law.  Completely necessary to understand why you can only get so much extracted coffee out of a given coffee bean.  You are right though, the 2nd law took over and probably scared off the OP.

OP, here's another idea.  If you really want to maximize the use of your coffee, check out Turkish coffee.  It's like French press, except you use finely ground coffee, and don't bother filtering.  In this sense, you don't even have to buy a new coffee maker.  Plus, it will be faster since the grounds are fine vs coarse.

[DeltaBond]

We were given a Keurig, and it is our 3rd.  I won't have another one, won't buy another coffee pot unless it was made in the U.S. (or just anywhere other than China).... and I've learned that instead of a glass coffee pot that stays on a little heat pad, the ones that pour the coffee into a thurmos keeps the taste perfect.

However.... I use this thingy that sits over the mug, I heat the water in the microwave to boiling (in a 2 cup measuring thing that has a little pour spout) and that is the best coffee ever.  Cheap, as well.  Melitta is the brand.  Every grocery store has these and the little filters that sit in them.  I use a little stir thing to keep the grounds from sticking to the sides as the water filters through, and it works great.  Just make sure the water is boiling in the microwave before pouring - takes about 2 min.

[mountain mustache]

I use a Moka pot. My mom is from Sicily, and that's all they used in her family. I grew up drinking an entire Moka pot to myself every morning in high school, and that habit has lived on as an adult. I got a new pot about 8 years ago, and yeah I've melted the handle extensively on my gas stove..ha! I love how strong the coffee is, it doesn't use a lot of grinds, and it's so fast! I ventured into French press coffee a few years ago, but it takes forever, and just isn't as strong as my beloved Moka pot. I even bring it camping, works great on my little Primus stove.

[Firehazard]

My stainless steel stove-top percolator makes delicious coffee.  The pot itself cost me $20 on Amazon about 8 years ago.  There's not much to break, so it should last indefinitely without having to be replaced.  No filters to buy.

[Tyson]

Ladies, in engineering we call this the mass balance.  Coffee brewing is a mass transfer (extraction) problem. The connoisseurs don't want to go too deep into the bean and extract other stuff they don't want. Our cheap OP wants it all.  The first law only comes into play in as much as it will be respected during the extraction. I guess the second law is playing out here in the forums.

-a grumpy engineer

The first law of thermodynamics is "Do not talk about thermodynamics".
The second law of thermodynamics is "DO NOT TALK ABOUT THERMODYNAMICS".

Sorry, couldn't resist :P

[meghan88]

We have a Bonavita and it's great.  At its heart, it's a very basic drip machine.  It takes basket-shaped filters which do NOT seem to come in the brown/unbleached variety, so we do some creative origami with No. 4 brown cone filters.

We buy the brown cone filters in France for less than one Euro for a pack of 80.  Got some on sale last year at Monoprix for 0.76 Euro-cents per box of 100.

Why one box of 80 of the same filters cost $5 + tax in Canada is beyond me.

[Tyson]

I like the Aeropress - its only $25 and it does exactly what I want - make me a single cup of great coffee, no waste except the grounds, which are efficiently used because I only make enough for exactly what I drink. 

[chasesfish]

I like the Aeropress - its only $25 and it does exactly what I want - make me a single cup of great coffee, no waste except the grounds, which are efficiently used because I only make enough for exactly what I drink.

I'll second this for really good coffee.  Bonus in that its easy to pack and travel with if you can't stand horrible coffee

[alsoknownasDean]

12 cups a day? How many people?

If that’s for one or two people, maybe focus on having less?

I try to avoid having more than three coffees a day (ideally two). :)

[fuzzy math]

I should not have read this highly stimulating thread since I can't drink coffee this late at night :(

[Hibernaculum]

Another vote here for the French press. I find the cheap drip coffeemakers crap out after a couple of years and you have to toss them out. Another benefit of the French press is that it takes up a lot less space on the counter. They take slightly more time to clean day-to-day, but there are fewer surfaces to get dirty. I found with the drip maker, I'd clean the carafe and the basket, but all the other surfaces would get cleaned less often, and so they'd usually be a bit grungy.

It is definitely worth experimenting with different coffees, roasts, timings etc. as well as different machines. YMMV. The Aeropress, for example, I've heard filters the coffee in a way that takes out the bitterness, but also some of the flavor profile. Some like it, some don't.

I use my French press to make 680 ml of coffee with about 2.5 tablespoons of Sumatran coffee, house brand from Safeway. Infused for four minutes.

The only problem in your case is that a larger French press is probably a bit unwieldy and a bit more expensive.

[soccerluvof4]

Guess I am the boring one. I will stick to my Cuisinart Coffee maker with the hot water dispenser on the side for Tea or Hot chocolate. Last forever. I broke the pot once and had no problem finding a replacement.

[Kimm]

Check out goodwill or thrift stores. They always have French presses in various sizes and mine currenkly has a Moka pot.

[jeninco]

The "coffee gets cold" thing was a problem for us until we bought a double-walled thermal french press. I think ours is a standard (6 cups? 8 cups?) size, and the coffee stays hot for several hours.

We compost the grounds, so that solves the dumping them in the sink issue.

It's a little big to fly with, but we have two at this point, so we take one with us on driving trips. (If necessary, like we're staying in a hotel/motel room, we also take our cheap-o electric kettle -- then, boom, we can make decent coffee.)

[eyesonthehorizon]

I'd like to throw in another vote for the Aeropress. In the long run, hot brew will give you more bang for your buck than cold brew (although I love GuitarStv's cold brew method), and immersion brewing (french press, Aeropress) will give you more bang for your buck than a pour-over (e.g. drip makers.)

But as has been stated before, regardless of the brewing method, there's a personal line of coffee-to-water-ratio at which you find you aren't drinking coffee so much as coffee-scented water. (If you REALLY need a cheaper hot drink, get some inexpensive midgrade whole-leaf breakfast tea; you can steep a lot of teas six or so times before they're too weak to drink pleasurably.)

The press is $20-30. Filters - you get 350 with the press - can be reused a dozen or more times (after plunging, unscrew the filter cap, peel the filter off the grounds and drop it back in the cap, run that under the tap for a few seconds). Grounds can be pitched in the garden easily, cleanup is absolutely minimal (time and water are money). The only other cost is the hot water and the coffee.

It takes about a minute to make enough concentrated coffee for up to about three servings American. Since I use "minute" literally, it's not a problem usually to have to do a second or third brewing, although I brew three minutes and hoard the whole thing to myself.

Those three concentrated servings you can also water down/ milk up further if you prefer. You can tailor the taste to your liking by steeping longer or shorter periods, and because it's a hot brew method you don't have the lower output associated with cold brew.

I use mine with a double-walled vacuum travel mug, and the coffee stays hot for as long as I forget to drink it.

[Telecaster]

Here in Italy, everyone uses the moka pot to make espresso and it's very mustachian.  I just got a new 3 cup one for Euro 5 but I guess they cost more outside Italy.  They use very little coffee and they are cheap to buy.  Very simple technology too and you can buy all the spare parts when needed.  Make sure you use finely ground espresso coffee.

American here.  I love the Moka pot.  Like, freakishly love.  I take on vacation with me.  Every once in a while you need to replace the gasket, which is still vastly cheaper than filters. No filters to buy.   Clean up is dead simple, much easier than a French press.  And the espresso is damn near as good as you are going to get without spending  big bucks.  It is almost the perfect device.