Incredible 'protein reactors' create food from electricity and carbon dioxide...

By Daisy Dunne For Mailonline

Published: 04:31 EDT, 31 July 2017 | Updated: 05:06 EDT, 31 July 2017

...
The food is created in a laboratory using a series of coffee cup-sized 'protein reactors'.

Researchers added water, carbon dioxide, and microbes into a small bioreactor.

They then exposed these elements to electrolysis, the process by which complex substances are broken down using electricity.

This process allowed researchers to gather a small amount of solid material which had a nutrition profile matching that of basic food.

Within a fortnight, the reactors can create a spoonful of single-celled proteins using just solar energy and some microbe supplements.

'In practice, all the raw materials are available from the air,' said lead researcher Juha-Pekka Pitkänen, principal scientist at the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland.

...

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

The possible uses for this technology are quite a few. Of course, for now the created protein powder is a small amount, but with time the process will improve making it a feasible way to feed people with the much needed protein in poor areas in the world, including deserts, that are lacking the resources to raise products/animals that provide protein.

As the article mentions this technology can also be used as a "home reactor", or a new "home appliance" without the need to raise chickens, or other natural sources of protein.

In my case, I would also wait to see the results, and see if there are any side effects of using such a "protein processor appliance".

Mmm, basic food.

Curious to see where this technology goes. Would be neat to grow food out of the air, although I'm not sure what basic food consists of.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
What a bummer. You forgot to add the word microbes to your headline. That word makes the biggest difference in the world.
Please tell these scientists to contact me as I can provide food quite naturally with just microbes and water. You don't need the carbon dioxide bit.
PS. didn't you know that's how life on Earth began, primordial soup and electric storms.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Just one more point by Immanuel Velikovsky that is confirmed ...He says that the interaction of Venus which was a comet was what produced the Mana the Israelite's ate in their wanderings . It also speaks to the theory of the Electric Universe as a valid point ....

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Futurama did it.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Curious find, thanks for sharing!

My go on it however is with mixed feelings. I'd rather go on vegetable and weeds instead of this. You'd be amazed how many of my local weeds are edible... Not tasty.. but edible!

Already posted by me at 20th July

Finally!

The food replicators are finally here!

How could such a simple scientific process been missed (suppressed) for so long?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So they are about to figure out how Jesus made bread and fish.

They should go for the wine trick next.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It kind of makes sense, ya know? I mean, trees (and average plants?) derive the absolute majority of their mass simply from the carbon dioxide in the air, which in turn creates the food that feeds the fauna that we in turn eat (both flora and fauna). So, in theory, this sort of kind of maybe seems like a "no brainer," but the technology and processes needed to get there are what's really interesting to me.

Another step toward startrek replicators

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Trees & plants get their mass from the minerals they absorb from the soil & the from water they absorb. The reason seeds are so nutritious is because, like with eggs, they're filled with all of the minerals that the new sapling will need until it can absorb minerals from its surroundings.

Even vegetation that thrives in water (like seaweed) still absorbs the other minerals that have dissolved in that water. Plants grown through hydroponics still need fertilizer added to the water. And some vegetation are also carnivorous, so they get their needed sustenance from soil, water, and the insects/animals they kill.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Nope.

Michigan State University:

Have you ever wondered where trees get their mass from? One of the more common answers, ... is that the mass (increasingly bigger size) of a tree comes from the soil. Which makes sense, right? After all, we are taught that plants need soil (enhanced “dirt”) to grow. According to Michigan State University Extension, problems typically arise when asked to explain why there isn’t a big hole around a tree. If the tree is using soil, then there must be less soil around it. But studies show virtually no difference in the amount of soil in a pot when a seed is planted from the amount of soil in the same pot when the plant from that seed is harvested. So where does the mass come from?

The mass of a tree is primarily carbon. The carbon comes from carbon dioxide used during photosynthesis. During photosynthesis, plants convert the sun’s energy into chemical energy which is captured within the bonds of carbon molecules built from atmospheric carbon dioxide and water. Yes, the carbon from carbon dioxide in the air we breathe out ends up in “food” molecules (called glucose) each of which contains 6 carbon atoms (and 12 hydrogen atoms and 6 oxygen atoms).

NPR

The question was: Where do trees come from?

Meaning, when you see a tree, a big, tall, heavy one, and you wonder where did it get its mass, its thick trunk, its branches — the instinctive answer would be from the soil below, plus a little water (and, in some mysterious way, sunshine), right?

Nope, says the late Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, sitting in an easy chair, thinking out loud in a You Tube video clip from 1983: "People look at a tree and think it comes out of the ground, that plants grow out of the ground, " he says, but "if you ask, where does the substance [of the tree] come from? You find out ... trees come out of the air!"

Said video (mostly talking about fire, which is interesting in its own right)...go to 2:13 if you want to get to the point:

Wasn't it enjoyable to see his facial expressions when he talks about it?

Another video on the subject, just to really make the point:

Would it surprise you to find out that 95% of a tree is actually from carbon dioxide? Trees are largely made up of air. -- Dude in Video

Enjoy, and hopefully something was learned today! (yes, the other 5% is water, minerals, and the rest)

a reply to: SlapMonkey

And I counter that with this from a textbook:

Plants are composed of water, carbon-containing organics, and non-carbon-containing inorganic substances such as potassium and nitrogen.

The majority of volume in a plant cell is water; it typically comprises 80 to 90 percent of the plant's total weight. Soil is the water source for land plants. It can be an abundant source of water even if it appears dry. Plant roots absorb water from the soil through root hairs and transport it up to the leaves through the xylem. As water vapor is lost from the leaves, the process of transpiration and the polarity of water molecules (which enables them to form hydrogen bonds) draws more water from the roots up through the plant to the leaves .

The Chemical Composition of Plants
So is this an impasse?

ETA: Actually, nevermind. There's a chance you're referring to mass while I'm referring to volume. Either way, I'm getting a bit off topic. So I'll just say that I'm intrigued by the potential for the technology in the OP. Though I also think it will still be easier to just grow real vegetation, especially since I have my suspicions that the energy requirements will outweigh the benefits.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: SlapMonkey

ETA: Actually, nevermind. There's a chance you're referring to mass while I'm referring to volume.

No, not "a chance," but that's exactly what both of my comments specified: Mass.

Regardless, I do agree with you that the technology isn't quite there, and that just growing normal plants the old-fashioned way (or like some greenhouses choose to, with higher CO2 concentrations which yield a more massive plant).

No impasse, just different aspects of an argument.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
What a bummer. You forgot to add the word microbes to your headline. That word makes the biggest difference in the world.
Please tell these scientists to contact me as I can provide food quite naturally with just microbes and water. You don't need the carbon dioxide bit.
PS. didn't you know that's how life on Earth began, primordial soup and electric storms.

Except that it isn't my headline... It isn't my story so I can't change nilly-willy the headline just because some people want me to. The only reason why i didn't add the entire headline is because the headline was too long and ATS wouldn't let me post this article with such a long headline. Other than that that article was written by a reporter from the DailyMail, it wasn't written by me.