Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meat made from recycled carbon dioxide

neo.life

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 178 posts

Re: Meat made from recycled carbon dioxide

#71

Post by myshpa »

koide wrote: post #70
pxeger1 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meat farming takes in CO2 (photosynthesis), and produces CO2 (cows breathing) and CH4 (cows farting). CH4 is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, so, even by your flawed simplified model, farming cows has a net negative greenhouse effect.

It's not farting, it's belching. Can be ameliorated adding algae to the feed. It's not very relevant to the point you're making in this case, but it's good to be precise and also might help you revisit your sources if you just didn't misspeak. https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/33/which-is-a-bigger-methane-so... https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/from-beach...

Also poop.

Re: Meat made from recycled carbon dioxide

#72

Post by elif »

plants are pretty efficient at recycling CO2.

plants are pretty easy to turn into meat.

the market has already turned those delicious.

there has to be a significant efficiency advantage for this to make any sense at all.

Re: Meat made from recycled carbon dioxide

#73

Post by detritus »

owl57 wrote: post #17
User23 wrote: post #9

Grass is made from recycled carbon dioxide and cows are made from grass. And we already know beef is delicious.

That's an interesting angle. I haven't pictured myself made from chicken before.

I've often joked that I'm at least 1/4 potato, given how many of them I eat.

Re: Meat made from recycled carbon dioxide

#74

Post by koide »

myshpa wrote: post #62
manigandham wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s nothing simple about changing human nature. If you have to start with "if people would just choose" then it's not viable.

It's not human nature. It's just a tradition. And a tradition is just a story (maybe even a lie) we've been taught, and which we tell ourselves. Stories are easily changed - like slavery or patriarchy, for example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7JE8j5Ncmw

Easily changed? Slavery is still real today in many places and took wars over centuries to get to where we are today.

Seems like you have a very special definition of easy.

Re: Meat made from recycled carbon dioxide

#75

Post by myshpa »

ibz wrote: post #56
dqv wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are recycled jokes made of? The point of the exercise is to find alternatives that aren't so hard on the environment. >“By contrast, our process takes a few days to make a steak, has very low water utilization, is carbon negative, uses zero arable land, and minimal land overall.” The point is not recycling carbon for funsies, but to actually have a positive impact on the environment. Whether the process describe…

> The point of the exercise is to find alternatives that aren't so hard on the environment. Cows and grass are "the environment". Millions of years of evolution refined cows to be the best mechanism for converting grass into meat. Some hippy scientists think they can do better? I doubt.

This is not a proper environment (= this is not right).

https://c7.alamy.com/comp/2AB4XKW/kersey-colorado-a-cattle-f...

https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/feedlot-picture-id17360...

https://www.africahunting.com/attachments/cattle-feed-lot-jp...

Re: Meat made from recycled carbon dioxide

#76

Post by koide »

myshpa wrote: post #69
aszantu wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to eat plants a lot. Just turns out they give me depression.(takes about 4 days after ingestion) There is something called bio-availability and there are nutrients in meat that you don't ever get from plants. But it would be nice if there were public pig pens where you could recycle food waste into bacon. Transportation is the biggest co2 producer...

> I'd love to eat plants a lot. Just turns out they give me depression.(takes about 4 days after ingestion) Eat a diverse low-fat, whole plant-based diet - if you don't how or what, find yourself a weekly vegan meal plan. Supplement with B12 and you'll be fine. Learn to cook, explore vegan meals/recipes from around the world, stay away from processed food. > There is something called bio-availability and there are nu…

It depends. Humans vary and, while you may thrive on a plant diet, you can't generalize your experience. There are people who have problems even supplementing B12. Others don't. You can't just tell those who have that they've been living a lie.

Re: Meat made from recycled carbon dioxide

#77

Post by dagss »

tomp wrote: post #53
pxeger1 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meat farming takes in CO2 (photosynthesis), and produces CO2 (cows breathing) and CH4 (cows farting). CH4 is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, so, even by your flawed simplified model, farming cows has a net negative greenhouse effect.

CH4 has a half life of like 10 years or so, so even if you deleted all cows from the world right now, in 20-40 years you'd be back to "only fossil fuel CO2 causing climate change". Furthermore, has CH4 from cows even increased historically? There are 30m cows in the US, compared to 60m bison 150 years ago.

2 things:

A common error about CH4 is misunderstanding half-life vs CO2e calculations. The half life is 10 years but that does not make it a non-problem; a commonly used number is that CH4 is 25 more potent that CO2 -- but that number 25x is OVER A 100 YEAR LIFESPAN that already INCLUDES the decay over those 100 years. So if you mention that half year is 10 years you also throw the number 25x out the window, then the multiplier is much much larger (forgot how much). Because of this scientists use different potebtial multiplier for CH4 for different time horizons. Anyway it IS a problem to have CH4 instead of CO2, how big a problem depends on your time horizon and over 100 years CH4 is 25x worse than CO2 INCLUDING decay.

You touch on the second point already. As long as lifestock is constant, CH4 is constant at a certain level. Still: Reducing lifestock will reduce CH4 to a lower constant level which will reduce greenhouse effects as CH4 decays to a lower stable level where emission and decay balance.

In a sense, reducing lifestock is the same as CO2 capture -- not the same as stopping to burn fossils.

Re: Meat made from recycled carbon dioxide

#78

Post by [deleted] »

myshpa wrote: post #62
manigandham wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s nothing simple about changing human nature. If you have to start with "if people would just choose" then it's not viable.

It's not human nature. It's just a tradition. And a tradition is just a story (maybe even a lie) we've been taught, and which we tell ourselves. Stories are easily changed - like slavery or patriarchy, for example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7JE8j5Ncmw

[deleted]

Re: Meat made from recycled carbon dioxide

#79

Post by virgildotcodes »

tomp wrote: post #59
shinryuu wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chemical composition matter. Scenario one: CH4 + 2 02 Scenario two: 2 H20 + C + 02 Scenario three: C02 + 2 H2 + 02 All of the above have the same molecules but they have a wildly different impact on from a climate change perspective.

Not long term they don’t. CH4 breaks down into CO2 in a few decades, forming a natural cycle. The only long-term climate impact is from additional CO2 from fossil fuels.

If you are constantly pumping CH4 into the atmosphere over the long-term then you have a long-term climate impact as a result.

This is without even taking into account whether the increased heating from the "short-term" impact of CH4 over a few decades causes us to hit tipping points sooner than otherwise, or that in the best case scenario we may have been able to avoid hitting at all.

Re: Meat made from recycled carbon dioxide

#80

Post by tomp »

virgildotcodes wrote: post #79
tomp wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not long term they don’t. CH4 breaks down into CO2 in a few decades, forming a natural cycle. The only long-term climate impact is from additional CO2 from fossil fuels.

If you are constantly pumping CH4 into the atmosphere over the long-term then you have a long-term climate impact as a result. This is without even taking into account whether the increased heating from the "short-term" impact of CH4 over a few decades causes us to hit tipping points sooner than otherwise, or that in the best case scenario we may have been able to avoid hitting at all.

No that’s not how physics works.

If you keep pumping a constant amount of CH4 into the atmosphere, it keeps degrading into CO2, which is transformed into grass, which is transformed into cows.

It’s a cycle. There is no long-term impact.

Post reply on HN