Protein made from a microorganism that can be cultivated with CO2
speciesunite.com
speciesunite.com
My guesses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_bioreactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-cell_protein#Microorgan...
(I would never have found this before AI search)
"To put that in perspective, Solar Foods explains that the newly-built factory’s bioreactor can grow the same amount of Solein protein per day as a 300-cow dairy farm would produce milk protein"
Is your complaint that they don't specify the micro-organism?
Nothing in the article mentioned the nutrition of the product. It seems only to have been used in snack bars and chocolate blocks which is "sometimes food".
The global per capita CO2 production is under 5 tons per year [1] so assuming people ate 5 kg of the stuff a day and it was pure carbon by mass, it'd be a bit more than third of the CO2 emitted.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
Adding non-animal protein sources to the market will lower the demand of animal proteins in aggregate when people consume them.
"Solein is 65-70 % protein, 5-8 % fat (primarily unsaturated fats), 10-15 % dietary fibres and 3-5 % mineral nutrients. The macronutrient composition of the cells is very similar to that of dried soy or algae. Solein provides iron, fibre and B vitamins.
While protein is found in both plant and animal-based foods, edible proteins are not all the same. They are made up of different combinations of amino acids and are characterised by the ratio and amount of essential amino acids they have.
Solein contains all of the nine essential amino acids that are required by the human body."
If it has a similar profile to soy or algae like they claim it is a complete protein, or else that’s a false statement.
The interesting question is the energy source.
It is in the name
US is ~1.8
Korea is 0.78
This site[0] says Global birthrate is around 17.3. However, it has been dropping ~1% a year. It was 19.3 in 2014 and today it is 17.3. So indeed growing more slowly, but a strong trendline downwards.
Table copied and limited to the decades:
Year Birth Rate Growth Rate
2024 17.299 -0.940%
2020 18.077 -1.120%
2010 19.991 -0.870%
2000 21.733 -1.090%
1990 26.094 -2.400%
1980 28.192 -0.530%
1970 32.995 -1.520%
1960 35.346 -0.110%
1950 37.844 0.000%
But in pretty much all developed countries the fertility rate is well below replacement rates and no signs of it levelling off.
In developed countries, more and more the norm is to not have children, or fewer of them later and later in live.
Personally I don't think it's a good thing when we start closing schools cause there's not enough children to attend them but that's just me.
I said: we will add about 3.5b then level off, implying that the population, for all intents and purposes, is ever growing
You said: but maybe it’s not 3.5b!
I said: in the context of “ever growing” what’s the difference?
I stand by that comment. Adding 2.5b in the next 26 years or 4.5b can both be considered “ever growing”.
That the population level will dramatically level off at that point is not in dispute.
Absent some extinction level event which will render solar foods ability to produce protein irrelevant I really don’t see why the choice of model has an impact on my point.