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.
The Nazis made coal butter. Apparently it was vegan, too. Just carbon, hydrogen, and glycerides.
Why is this uplifting news?
Just a hydrogen atom away from being plastic.
Interesting…Sounds totally safe.
I bet that price is the main issue. The reason all of these startups fall into oblivion is that price is astronomical.
How is this not just crisco, hydrogenated fat? Butter seems like it has more going on, traces of milk proteins & sugars that give it flavor.
Bill Gates PR. He’s definitely on the Epstein list.
Must own stock, like his ‘philanthropist’ medicine scam.
This isn’t butter, this is one type of butter fat. It’s missing the milk solids, proteins, and other molecules that contribute to butter’s smell and taste.
I can’t believe it’s not butter
Margarine?
Once we kill the Earth, this will be how food is manufactured. I am now going to finish my box of Soylent Green.
I’m not sure why people are so puritanical about this. I think Beyond Burgers and Soylent are great.
In case you don’t know, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
Soylent very much had that in mind when naming their product. It’s meant to serve the same purpose as the titular substance: a wholly complete food source. Also constantly referencing Soylent Green to denigrate Soylent was precisely what I was referring to lol
Yeah but you referenced Soylent when the original comment was about Soylent Green (which, as you tacitly acknowledge, came first) so you kind of got the cause and effect backwards
Yea maybe it wasn’t a good idea to name their product after something literally made from people. They opened themselves up it
Enjoy your heavily processed food full of saturated fat and more than 4x the sodium of beef burgers.
And a touch of GMO goodness with your soylent.Brother do you know what a GMO is?
Had a Beyond burger once. Once. I can’t put it words what I didn’t like, but it was revolting.
Funny because for me, the Beyond burger taste better than many joint patties, but the price is prohibitively expensive, so I don’t buy them that often (or eat burgers that much for that matter)
Shout out to the kirkland brand as well, damn good patties.
I like Beyond Burger more than hamburger but not more than black bean burgers or ground pork. I just dislike ground beef though. That Beyond Burger is made from isolated pea protein, flavoring and wishes. It does have a distinct flavor, and is a highly processed food.
I didnt care about the taste, but woooweee, the farts that it made were thunderous!
I think those burgers are made of compressed farts.
I’m not sure if that’s a bad thing. Current food sector is rotten to the core. For most, food is entertainment that is incredibly inefficient at what it does and causes incredible ethical harms that we choose to conciously ignore.
What is wrong with entertainment, though? Taste is one of our senses, like hearing or seeing, having food that tastes good is not inefficient , it’s lovely - I think having a good palate and appreciation for lots of flavors is a positive good in a life.
That’s a very shallow take. Food taste good thus must be good? You do not dare to explore this any deeper?
? I grow vegetables and fruit, make healthy meals, mostly homemade. Sourdough bread, fermented drinks with odds and ends to divert waste. Why do people think good food doesn’t taste good? Good food tastes great.
The animals we create are morally entitled to the exact same unconditional love and protection as our own children. The experiences of animals are real and matter. Their suffering is identical in nature to your own. It harms us when we take pleasure in cruelty and violence. Need additional reasons why sensory enjoyment must not be the primary criteria?
Why are you conflating animal foods and pleasure in eating? My vegan kid is a foodie, a good cook and a person who gets a lot of sensory enjoyment out of the texture and flavors of food. It’s important to her.
“Soylent Green is people!”
Bring me the corpse starch
This isn’t new technology. This is the Fischer-Tropsch process, which cracks and/or lengthens hydrocarbon chains to produce molecules of the specifically desired length. The Germans used this same process almost a century ago. They cracked coal to produce lighter chemicals (primarily methane) then re-lengthened those methane chains to produce a variety of products, ranging from fuels, lubricants, and yes: edible “butter”.
This article repackages the same technology the Nazis used to feed their U-boat crews in WWII.
You frame it like it’s a bad thing but even if the process is mostly the same isn’t that good? Also we can clearly improve on a 100 year old technology even if it’s “solved”.
My primary issue is that the entire article is somewhat deceitful. They use phrases like “never seen before”, “unprecedented”, “pioneering”, but those characteristics do not really apply to the +90-year-old technology. The only significant part of the “process” that is different from what was uses in WWII is the specific flavor packs they add to the product.
Their deceitful comments about the technology have me questioning the veracity of the rest of their claims.
Don’t get me wrong: I think that Fischer-Tropsch is one of a few important technologies we need to be adopting. The reason we need to adopt it is because it is incredibly energy intensive, but not necessarily time critical. It can provide a profitable sink for excess solar energy production during long summer days, to produce hydrocarbon fuels for the transportation and aviation industries, yet switch offline overnight, overwinter, and during inclement weather, when solar can’t meet demand.
But we just don’t consume enough butter for this application to be useful to solar generation.
The Air Force experimented with Fischer-Tropsch “SynFuels” about 15 years ago. They actually certified most/all military aircraft to burn SynFuels, to lessen our military’s reliance on foreign oil.
If this process can tune how kling the R chains get, can’t we use it as a viable petrochemical substitute? To at least make various feedstocks, albeit being energy intensive?
We don’t need to make butter now - use it to fill niche applications where very precise chain lengths are needed (for cost/profits) then branch into other premium/environment sensitive applications?
can’t we use it as a
viablepetrochemical substitute?Yes, and no. It can be technically viable, yes. That was the primary objective of the Germans in WWII, and the USAF recently: to replace lost oil reserves.
But it is very unlikely to ever be economically viable. Oil producers can easily underbid Fischer-Tropsch production.
Most of agriculture is also rarely economically viable without strong subsidies. Iirc sea oil drilling is also only made viable after strong initial subsidies.
Very few strategically important industries are economically viable without strong subsidies or regulations to start/protect them.
Catalytic converters and switch away from CFCs would have never taken off without regulations for example.
If it’s not dairy, is this not margarine rather than butter?
Also, a
proprietary process
Ugh, capitalism
I mean, it was backed by Bill Gates, mr proprietary himself
if Gates is Mr Proprietary, Jobs is King Proprietary
Gates
just like he did the vaccines/.(not for himself but for the pharma companies.)
The basic process is not proprietary. It’s just the Fischer-Tropsch process. It’s been in use since WWII. It produces hydrocarbon chains of arbitrary length from whatever hydrocarbon feedstock you can provide.
Dietary fats are just certain short-chained hydrocarbons accompanied by certain flavorful compounds.
The “proprietary” part is what chemicals they add to the synthesized fat to make it sufficiently comparable to butter.
The Nazis used the same basic process to produce “butter” from coal feedstocks about 90 years ago. This is nothing new.
It is neither plant or animal based, the chemical composition is claimed to be like butter, so it is even less margarine than it is butter. Margarine is hardened plant oil or technically it can also be made from animal fat. So this is neither margarine or butter, it is synthetic butter, since it synthesized chemically, rather than made by the traditional more natural method.
But yes capitalism indeed. Why try to help the world if you can’t make money on it? 🙄
Yes, this has nothing to do with butter.
Don’t say the m-word, it makes milk boys nervous
proprietary process
Where the carbon is replaced with butter.
I would like to see the LCA analysis on this one. I would not be surprised if this ends up using energy causing more damage than the damage that dairy farming methane and land conversion is doing.
I’d be very impressed if this somehow created more methane than cow farts.
Mostly comes out the other end. Burps mainly, the farts mostly contain poo
I would like to subscribe to Cow Facts
If the energy used to run the plant comes from burning natural gas, it very probably could.
I once saw a company that advertised “Bio-Diesel”. Destilled out of Maize alcohol on heat from burning lignite coal… The entire process is an ecological disaster and a sham worse than just using straight up mineral oil products.
EDIT: I am not saying that this would have to be the case here, but why it is so important to do an LCA. Comparing environmental effects of different possibilities is not trivial and sometimes what seems to be the obviously better choice turns out being worse.
California does have many natural gas power plants. And it’s plausible that this start-up is relying on the public grid to develope their butter. But it seems unlikely that people trying to create animal and plant free butter are doing it without considering the environment.
If the energy used to run the plant
But that’s not a problem with the process. That could be applied to anything.
Power source isn’t part of the equation unless the process can only be done in a location with a specific type of power source. Otherwise, you just compare the power amounts used between the two options, and multiply by something like the national average CO2 burden from all power.
The process requires high temperatures and pressures.
In refineries this is achieved by burning some of the gas for heating. When this plant is also heated with gas it definitely is part of the equation
Harness cow farts
I don’t like it if it has Bill Gates’ smell on it.
