cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/34272214

A California-based biotechnology startup has officially launched the world's first commercially available butter made entirely from carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and oxygen, eliminating the need for traditional agriculture or animal farming. Savor, backed by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates through his Breakthrough Energy Ventures fund, announced the commercial release of its animal- and plant-free butter after three years of development.

The revolutionary product uses a proprietary thermochemical process that transforms carbon dioxide captured from the air, hydrogen from water, and methane into fat molecules chemically identical to those found in dairy butter. According to the company, the process creates fatty acids by heating these gases under controlled temperature and pressure conditions, then combining them with glycerol to form triglycerides.

top 94 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 136 points 1 year ago (27 children)

While I think this is pretty amazing science stuff, the writing is terrible. Here is the progression of the story as written:

They made butter from carbon...

Well, it's actually made from carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and oxygen...

OK, it's actually made from carbon dioxide, hydrogen, oxygen, and methane...

Well, no, it's actually made from carbon dioxide, hydrogen, oxygen, methane, and glycerol...

Wait, hang on, it's actually made from carbon dioxide, hydrogen, oxygen, methane, glycerol, natural flavor, and lecithin...

Now, the source of glycerol is in question, because they say this butter is both animal and plant-free. Glycerol can be made synthetically, but it's WAY more expensive to do it. Also, I'm not seeing any way to create lecithin without plants. They never say what the "natural flavor" is.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    They never say what the "natural flavor" is

    ...it's people?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 69 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    They never say what the "natural flavor" is.

    A reminder that "natural flavor" doesn't mean healthier or even something you might want over the artificially created flavors. It just means it comes from a natural source and is not lab created.

    Castoreum, sometimes used for vanilla and raspberry flavoring, comes from beaver anal secretions. That would be labelled under a "natural flavor" and you'd never be told more than that.

    I'll take the artificial stuff any day just on principle there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    I think it's worth pointing out that vanilla extract is from vanilla beans and artificial vanilla is whatever the fuck they feel like that tastes like vanilla. Also, modern artificial vanilla extremely rarely, if ever, is derived from Castoreum because it's hard as hell to farm beavers and expensive as all fuck. The "artificial vanilla comes from beaver anal glands" is basically a prevalent internet myth that gets passed around like the, "You eat 7 spiders a year in your sleep." myth.

    Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/does-vanilla-flavoring-actually-come-from-beaver-butts-180983288/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Incorrect, vanillin is the primary component of real vanilla beans and responsible for like 90% of the flavor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I don't understand what this would be correcting in what I said above. Can you show me what part this is correcting? Cause I'm legitimately confused.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You said artificial vanilla is whatever the fuck. It's not, artificial vanilla is the main ingredient of natural vanilla, but without the other flavors

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Ah gotcha! I for sure was not following what you were saying. I don't know if that's he real thrust of the point in my above comment, but I was more referring to the fact that artificial vanilla doesn't necessarily come from vanilla beans. I should've been more precise with my language, but it's worth noting that artificial vanilla is largely synthesized and comes from a variety of sources, not just vanilla beans (see below for the source/pertinent excerpt).

    It also gets weird as to how the FDA regulates the term. I believe the key term is actually "Pure" in the "Pure Vanilla Extract" but don't quote me on that. Not sure how it's done by other regulatory agencies but it's probably equally convoluted in a lot of places.

    Source: https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/technical-article/food-and-beverage-testing-and-manufacturing/flavor-and-fragrance-formulation/vanilla-regulations

    Pertinent excerpt:

    However, many alternate routes to vanillin are well documented, including vanillin derived from spruce tree lignin, corn sugar, rice or wheat bran, clove oil, curcumin, or guaiacol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Also, poop has natural flavour. Natural flavour also doesn't mean it tastes good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    My ex wife's uncle was the director of the south American division of the arm that made coloring and flavorings of one of the big Food/Chem groups, Procter & Gamble, or unilever, or one of those. Can't remember.

    No one in his household ate any processed/ultra processed foods.

    Do the math.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It kind of sounds like the beginnings of star trek's replicators...

    But that aside, somehow I doubt those are the exact only "ingredients" they use.
    And it wouldn't surprise me at all if the end product contains all kinds of trace elements of various not so healthy chemicals used to get the parts to combine into the actual butter.
    Like the process to get the glycerol or lecithin in a state they can use.

    Ofcourse a lot of our dietary ingredients are contaminated in various levels anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • All butter is made from CO2 it simply goes through a processing step known as cow.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    To put it in simple terms, Savor says they take carbon dioxide from the air and hydrogen from water, heat them up, oxidize them and get a final result that looks like candle wax but is in fact fat molecules like those in beef, cheese or vegetable oils.

    So their process sounds like it creates synthetic lard, not butter. This can still be a good thing as the extra ingredients to make it "butter" aren't really the hard/impactful part of butter.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I don’t eat carbon-based foods. Exotic silicon lifeforms, fresh from Titan’s methane seas.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    I'd actually be willing to give it a try if it's vaguely price-competitive, but their website is all glam shots of butter and people doing things with butter and not only doesn't sell it but doesn't tell you where you can get it.

    https://www.savor.it/

    Also, they did not do a good job of choosing that name. It looks like there's a very-similarly-named French Canadian manufacturer of butter, Savör, which apparently isn't too religious about using their umlaut:

    At Savor, we believe the best butter starts with the best environment. That’s why we source our grass-fed dairy butter from New Zealand, a country renowned for its pristine landscapes, sustainable farming, and exceptional dairy quality.

    I foresee a collision between those two.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Pretty sure I know the factory that this butter comes from. The Miraka plant; north of Taupō. Geothermally powered, restricts it to a relatively small region in NZ.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Maybe the manufacturer is in New Zealand and the French-Canadian people are the guys who package and sell it or something. Dunno, just did a quick skim of their site.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I doubt it, I think the Miraka plant is produces mostly primary products not the secondary stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah well... I never liked Savör products too much. They go out if their way with all their branding and claims, but you can get very tasty butter from local creameries at similar prices, without the need to ship it frozen halfway across the globe. Especially with milk sourced from the eastern townships or the Saguenay region. And Quebec (where Savör is operating) runs on 100% hydro power, which is equal or better to geothermal. So whatever Savör is gaining from the Miraka plant, is lost on the need to import basically.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This is interesting...

    Lab grown meat have problem where they cannot create fat. So if this works, maybe this is the solution.

    "So you're using this gas right now to cook your food and we're proposing that we would like to first make your food with— with that gas," said Kathleen Alexander, co-founder and CEO of Savor.

    That doesn't sound appetizing... Lol.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    I'm a traditionalist, I prefer my butter silicon based. Maybe germanium or tin if it's a special occasion

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Didnt the Nazis also make something similar using coal?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    So, like every other butter and oil, that's why we call them hydrocarbon.

    I imagine this "butter" doesn't contain any glycomacropeptide, α-lactalbumin, β-lactoglobulin, serum albumin and immunoglobulins

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Thank goodness we have the assurances of a billionaire oligarch to help steer humanity in the right dietary direction.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago

    Global warming and ecological crises make shifting diets away from animal products a pretty good idea.

    Whether it's antibiotics resistance, deforestation, or greenhouse gas emissions, humanity is paying a very high price for animal agriculture at the current scale.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Problems come up: "BILLIONAIRES SHOULD DO MORE!" Billionaires do more: "WE CANT TRUST BILLIONAIRES!!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Ruminants creating greenhouse gasses is a problem that can solve itself by returning to huge fucking pastures and cooperative farming.

    Instead, we're getting synthetic food. We're a decade removed from human grade kibble at this point.

    Here again, capitalism is the problem. A capitalist offering capitalism solutions to problems created by capitalism isn't appealing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Of all things...butter! I'm sure it'll be more expensive than real butter with the way things work nowadays.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm not a scientist, but isn't EVERYTHING made of carbon?

    Source: Joni Mitchell, Woodstock -

    We are stardust, we are golden We are billion-year-old carbon

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    "Made of" can mean "composed of" or "constructed from". This is the latter:

    Savor says they take carbon dioxide from the air and hydrogen from water, heat them up, oxidize them and get a final result that looks like candle wax but is in fact fat molecules like those in beef, cheese or vegetable oils.

    The entire process releases zero greenhouse gases, uses no farmland to feed cows, and despite its industrial appearance, has a significantly smaller footprint.

    "In addition to the carbon footprint being much lower for a process like this, right, the land footprint is, like, a thousand times lower than what you need in traditional agriculture,"

    Good example of how choice of words can mislead, particularly when intentional.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    So, in essence, this, but with added marketing steps.

  • source
  • Should be a nice change from that silicon based butter I usually get.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    This could be great, but "proprietary". Gates is still the same Gates. If you want to save all the land and CO2 this could, release the IP free to all. Flood the market with cheap indistinguishable synobutter, real butter can't compete with. Milk, cheese and yogurt next please.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You had me in the first half

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 5 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Why not just make a fuel that can power cars if you're gonna go this far.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    cost :/ and low energy conversion efficiency. Whereas expensive novelty edibles may have a high price, fuels, not so much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    We focus too much on efficiency and cost sometimes. Sometimes efficiency is only a "nice to have" while being outweighed by practicality, convenience, safety, and any of the other factors we choose to make a priority.

    It is expensive and inefficient for an airplane to have two engines instead of just one. We do it anyway because it's required for safety and redundancy. We made that the priority, and that was an active choice. We need to start making more active choices about what the priority is when it comes to our energy futures. All priorities have tradeoffs. Cost and efficiency have their own tradeoffs. Question it when people tell you that things can't be done because of "cost" or "efficiency". When they do that they're presupposing what the priority is, but often it's billionaires trying to cut corners to make themselves richer at our expense, our safety, our futures. We can do inefficient things. Sometimes it's even the right choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Or we could burn more coal so we can generate the energy needed for synthetic gasoline…

    The problem is, people can, do, and will use that exact same argument to say we don't need any more solar panels or wind turbines, because we don't need and can't use or store the excess power for anything and that's why we need to keep thermal plants as backup for base load generation. Look, when we produce too much electricity, the electricity cost goes to zero and negative! It's "wasteful and inefficient"! But these two problems can solve each other. Synthetic fuels (doesn't have to be gasoline, hydrogen is step 1, methane/LNG is a bit more manageable as a chemical fuel. As long as the carbon source is atmospheric, then it and other synthetic hydrocarbons are carbon neutral to burn) provide an on-demand energy sink/storage method that can support and drive more electrification and renewable power, it just has to be part of a consistent and systemic approach with strict regulation and a clear view of the big picture (something sorely lacking these days).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Nailed it.

    We need a solar grid that can meet our demand during a 9-hour, overcast, low-angle winter day. That same grid will be producing more than 4 times as much power as we need during a 15-hour, high-angle summer day, even after we include air conditioning loads.

    We need massive, seasonal loads to soak up that excess power and keep solar profitable.

    Fake butter isn't going to do it, but things like desalination, hydrogen electrolysis, and Fischer-Tropsch hydrocarbon production are all likely candidates.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    @MuskyMelon @Gsus4 hydrogen probably.. just need further development, I think we are in a technologic race, battery is still winning but it can change..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    hydrogen probably.. just need further development

    You can get a hydrogen car today. Just that if you're outside a few places like Japan and California, finding a fueling station might be a bit difficult.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai

    Sales in Japan began on 15 December 2014 at ¥6.7 million (~US$57,400) at Toyota Store and Toyopet Store locations. The Japanese government plans to support the commercialization of fuel-cell vehicles with a subsidy of ¥2 million (~US$19,600).[12] Retail sales in the U.S. began in August 2015 at a price of US$57,500 before any government incentives. Deliveries to retail customers began in California in October 2015.[13] Toyota scheduled to release the Mirai in the Northeastern United States in the first half of 2016.[14] As of June 2016, the Mirai was available for retail sales in the UK, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, and Norway.[15] Pricing in Germany started at €60,000 (~US$75,140) plus VAT (€78,540).[16]

    https://www.toyota.com/mirai/

    2025 Mirai

    Starting MSRP $ 51,795

    https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen-locations#%2Ffind%2Fnearest%3Ffuel=HY

    They do fuel up a lot faster than BEVs do, but the fuel cost is considerably higher than for BEVs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Good ol' Gates, always around to make a quick buck of the bloodied backs of humanity. Never an advancement meant to aid us all he can't swoop in to parasitize. That's right Billy boy, I didn't forget the COVID vaccine patents. Billionaires must be condemned to the rubbish bin of history.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    How much carbon is emitted to run the factory to make it though? Are we talking a net negative here?

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Some, as prepping the carbon and hydrogen will take energy. But it wouldn't be hard to be way better than the emissions associated with dairy farming for butter. Cost could still be higher, though depending on how much material is needed for the process.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I wonder where they source the methane from. Because I pictured a comicbook flip book of a balloon blowing up behind a cow

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • Methane is easy to produce. Basically, anything that rots produces methane.

    They didn't go into details, and I never took chemistry, but they may not even need methane. From my very basic understanding of chemical chains, triglycerides are made from carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and methane is hydrogen and carbon. So you could theoretically convert methane to triglycerides by combining w/ oxygen, but you could also do the same by extracting carbon and oxygen from CO2 and oxygen and hydrogen from water.

    Fertilizers are typically generated from natural gas (methane), but green ammonia exists and is produced from air and water and can replace the fossil fuels in fertilizer production. The same could absolutely make sense here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    "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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I must be losing my mind because I thought I saw this post 2 days ago except it said beer.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Cyberpunk shit getting real

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    but does it actually taste like the real thing? because I can already buy something that, supposedly, I should be unable to believe isn't real butter, but after doing so I remain suspicious

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    148 comments in c/upliftingnews@lemmy.world view that post