Perhaps. But if we really go hard on green energy, we’ll likely have a lot of excess energy in the daytime, so it makes sense to look into alternatives to land and water intensive products (like dairy and beef) that are heavy on electricity. If it’s a more efficient use of land to have solar panels instead of cows eating grass (and solar panels work just as well on farmland as they do in the desert, unlike grass), then it makes a ton of sense even if it spikes electricity consumption.
Comment on Butter made from carbon tastes like the real thing, gets backing from Bill Gates
kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago“Savor says they take carbon dioxide from the air and hydrogen from water”
I’m no expert but direct air capture of Co2 and water electrolysis both use a lot of power. So using them for this purpose is likely just a marketing gimmick that doesn’t make any sense either economically or for the climate.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Butter is rather low volume, so maybe it’s doable. But it’s very hard to compete with self-replicating organisms that have evolved specifically to use the energy sources, materials and conditions that are abundant on this planet. I’d be more more interested if someone had made a plant make butter.
Having a bunch of machinery sit idle waiting for power to be cheap isn’t particularly good use of resources either. We’d be better off trying to store the power.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Storing power is expensive and many energy storage techniques require a lot of resources to produce. The more we move toward solar generation, the more we should plan on being opportunistic with energy when it is plentiful
For example, electrolysis isn’t the most efficient way to store power, but if energy is cheap, it may be better on net to do it opportunistically when there’s excess energy and use that hydrogen for things like producing artificial butter (and perhaps fuel mobile equipment like forklifts and delivery trucks).
Cows aren’t particularly efficient at turning biomass into human food. There’s a ton of waste in the process, and they need a lot of space. A factory doesn’t need to sustain life of an organism, it just needs to turn one set of compounds into another. Maybe it’s not there now, but getting it there will be a lot easier than genetically engineering a much better cow.
echodot@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
That depends entirely on the method used to generate the power. In fact carbon capture only works if you use renewable energy to capture the carbon, otherwise there’s literally no point.
How it is made in the lab may or may not be sustainable, but it’s a proof of concept so it doesn’t really matter. If this were commercialised then you would use renewable energy, perhaps solar panels on top of the factory building, although you could just connect to a green grid. Clearly the facility will be constructed somewhere other than the United States.