
Solar foods - EastLondonCoder
http://www.solarfoods.fi/
======
tomp
The website is a bit sparse, I wonder where they get elemental hydrogen and
nitrogen from. Does anyone know anything more about their technology, e.g. how
they actually construct the proteins (I'm guessing either in cells, or using
some enzymes outside of cells - but then what produces the enzymes?).

Edit: Ah, an article posted by another comment includes more information:

 _> This sounds like science fiction, but it is already approaching
commercialisation. For the past year, a group of Finnish researchers has been
producing food without either animals or plants. Their only ingredients are
hydrogen-oxidising bacteria, electricity from solar panels, a small amount of
water, carbon dioxide drawn from the air, nitrogen and trace quantities of
minerals such as calcium, sodium, potassium and zinc. The food they have
produced is 50% to 60% protein; the rest is carbohydrate and fat. They have
started a company (Solar Foods) that seeks to open its first factory in 2021.
This week it was selected as an incubation project by the European Space
Agency._

 _> They use electricity from solar panels to electrolyse water, producing
hydrogen, which feeds bacteria that turn it back into water. Unlike other
forms of microbial protein (such as Quorn), it requires no carbohydrate
feedstock – in other words, no plants._

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/31/electr...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/31/electric-
food-sci-fi-diet-planet-food-animals-environment)

Edit2: I wonder how this (water + CO2 + solar power) compares with just
growing algae in water in the sun, in terms of energy efficiency and process
stability.

~~~
Geee
Here's some information about it:
[https://www.lut.fi/web/en/news/-/asset_publisher/lGh4SAywhcP...](https://www.lut.fi/web/en/news/-/asset_publisher/lGh4SAywhcPu/content/protein-
produced-from-electricity-to-alleviate-world-hunger)

They say that compared to photosynthesis, it's 10x more energy efficient.

~~~
tomp
Interesting, thanks! I wonder if that's algae photosynthesys, or plant
photosynthesis - arguable the latter is "less efficient" because we eat only
parts of the plant.

In any case, I'm surprised that electrolysis is so efficient. I remember
reading that it's so inefficient that the primary source of hydrogen is
currently actually natural gas! And I wonder how sustainable is the process -
doesn't electrolysis deplete the anode and catode, which need to be made of
expensive materials for reasonable efficiency?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _arguable the latter is "less efficient" because we eat only parts of the
> plant_

Solar cells are more efficient than photosynthesis.

“For...sunlight, where only 45% of the light is in the photosynthetically
active wavelength range, the theoretical maximum efficiency of solar energy
conversion is approximately 11%. In actuality, however, plants do not absorb
all incoming sunlight (due to reflection, respiration requirements of
photosynthesis and the need for optimal solar radiation levels) and do not
convert all harvested energy into biomass, which results in an overall
photosynthetic efficiency of 3 to 6% of total solar radiation“ [1]. Meanwhile,
“solar cell efficiencies vary from 6% for amorphous silicon-based solar cells
to 44.0% with multiple-junction production cells and 44.4% with multiple dies
assembled into a hybrid package” [2].

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency)

[2]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency)

~~~
tomp
To make the comparision meaningful, you need to compare the efficiency of the
whole cycle (sunlight -> solar power -> electricity -> electrolysis ->
hydrogen -> bacteria -> biomass) to photosynthesis (sunlight -> plant ->
biomass).

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _you need to compare the efficiency of the whole cycle_

Top line, plants are taking 11% while we’re taking—on average—double that.
We’re trying to turn the energy into stored calories. Plants are trying to
plant. First-order estimates rarely present a more-compelling case.

~~~
tomp
Cool, interesting and fascinating. I can't wait until this is more wide-
spread, both for terrestrial and space solutions. You seem to work in this
industry, or at least very knowledgeable about it - any other companies you
recommend I follow?

------
ligand
This is there whitepaper:

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/hsbi4amp0am0l5y/Solar_Foods_Flyer_...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/hsbi4amp0am0l5y/Solar_Foods_Flyer_03_2018.pdf?dl=0)

The website prompts you to sign up to the mailing list to get a copy. Its very
sparse on details unfortunately.

~~~
philipkglass
Here are more detailed papers that I found by way of the Guardian article
about this company:

"Carbon emission avoidance and capture by producing in-reactor microbial
biomass based food, feed and slow release fertilizer: Potentials and
limitations"

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ilje_Pikaar/publication...](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ilje_Pikaar/publication/326571432_Carbon_emission_avoidance_and_capture_by_producing_in-
reactor_microbial_biomass_based_food_feed_and_slow_release_fertilizer_Potentials_and_limitations/links/5b57cdbbaca272a2d66702a9/Carbon-
emission-avoidance-and-capture-by-producing-in-reactor-microbial-biomass-
based-food-feed-and-slow-release-fertilizer-Potentials-and-limitations.pdf)

"Microbial protein: future sustainable food supply route with low
environmental footprint"

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1751-7915.12...](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1751-7915.12369)

"Autotrophic nitrogen assimilation and carbon capture for microbial protein
production by a novel enrichment of hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria"

[https://www.powertoprotein.eu/wp-
content/uploads/pagination_...](https://www.powertoprotein.eu/wp-
content/uploads/pagination_wr_12112.pdf)

------
nmridul
Maybe this can be developed on a massive scale for CO2 capture. If people are
hesistant to consume this protein, it could even be used to feed fish /
animals.

Edit - could be a possible candidate for ycombinator nature fund.

~~~
jakewins
Since this process is optimized for food production, I'd expect processes
optimized for carbon capture to be more efficient at that.

I suspect the main environmental gains from this would be to offset beef
production. Outside of reducing the ongoing emissions there, it opens the door
to return pasture land to forest, tying up large amounts of carbon in trees.

Userful sidenote: The most efficient poultry producers today have about the
same environmental footprint as tofu producers. If you don't feel called to
eat vegetarian, simply switching beef for chicken can be almost as impactful.
Just stay away from organic food, or all those gains are offset by the
inefficiency of unscientific agriculture.

See the second chart here for the chicken/tofu showdown:
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-
meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-
earth?fbclid=IwAR2DZtoowOByeqz78ioNCXqsK773MT6zsMQ5mw1z4c8rM-27knaf4dxx3qQ)

~~~
Symmetry
Unfortunately, if you care about animal suffering then Beef starts looking
much better than Chicken does and the farms that tend to treat their chickens
well also tend to be "organic". So there's certainly a place for this.

And in general most land used for cattle grazing doesn't receive enough
rainfall to support forests; or farming without outside water inputs. If we
were to eat cattle that were exclusively fed by grazing on semi-arid land then
Beef would be pretty environmentally friendly apart from the methane
emissions. The problem is that we don't have enough grazing land to do that so
most beef if fed with farm-produced plant matter leading to huge
inefficiencies.

------
pjc50
Interesting idea - biogeneration of "food" for space travel first, expanding
to terrestrial once the price is down. But desperately short on detail.

------
qwerty456127
What protein do they produce? Not all proteins are equally healthy as far as I
know.

~~~
daxorid
Proteins are broken down into constituent amino acids during digestion anyway,
so as long as it has a similar (complete) amino profile as, say, albumin or
chicken, it should in theory be fine.

~~~
qwerty456127
That's the question - whether or not it has a good amino profile (and
reasonable low insulinemic index).

Also gluten is a composite of proteins too but it's actually harmful not only
to people with celiac disease as it triggers production of zonulin.

------
magic_beans
Can vegetarians on Earth benefit from this sustainable protein as well?

It would be great to have options beyond soy, vital wheat gluten, and the
usual bean/grain/yeast medleys!

~~~
Reason077
The single-cell protein sounds a lot like Mycoprotein (brand name: Quorn)
which is normally grown/fed with glucose syrup as well as CO2. Sounds like
they've come up with a novel variation or process that doesn't need the
glucose?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoprotein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoprotein)

~~~
ElBarto
I believe that fungi are considered closer to animals than to plants.

I'll let vegans ponder that one...

~~~
Symmetry
Regardless of their evolutionary lineage, the important ethical consideration
is whether one's food has a central nervous system. Most animals have those
whereas fungi and plants do not.

~~~
ElBarto
It seems to me that the "ethical considerations" are highly personal and vary
from people to people.

In any case, I note that tongue-in-cheek comments are not appreciated. Sad.

~~~
Symmetry
You can't just retreat to ethics are personal when you just implied that a
group of people were irrational for being willing to eat fungus. If you didn't
intend to imply that then then downvotes show you should work on your
communication skills.

~~~
ElBarto
Or perhaps you should work on your interpersonal and maturity skills... I
didn't imply anything, you lost it over nothing trying to see things where
there was obviously none. I was just tongue-in-cheek by putting some
scientific facts out there, which may in fact trigger a real reflection of
what not eating any animal product might mean to someone (and your point was
just a generalisation that does not represent all views).

It's like Reddit here. Too bad. It was a good resource.

~~~
fiter
The poster that you'r replying to didn't "[lose] it". They replied to the
contents of your comments and addressed your points.

"Tongue-in-cheek" comments are more popular on reddit.

------
spqr0a1
Speculating that they plan to use hydrogen-reducing bacteria: This will
require substantial post-processing since bacteria have too much RNA and DNA
to safely be a major dietary component for humans.

Since the website mentions a Mars play, it's relevant that this drawback has
been known in the space habitation literature since at least the 1970s.

~~~
jandrese
What is the dietary danger of excessive nucleic acids? What happens if you eat
too much of them? Could it be alleviated by cooking the food before eating it?

~~~
spqr0a1
The purine bases are metabolized to uric acid which, in excess, can cause gout
and kidney stones. Cooking does not modify them in a relevant way.

------
jaggs
I think this is kind of similar to what some friends have done with
Ecoduna.com. The challenge with Solar Foods must be to produce enough food
from a spaceship sized unit.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Not having a nearby sun wild be a challenge too, friending on the mission.
Presumably they're looking to Mars first though.

------
exabrial
"It's a single-celled protein combined with synthetic aminos, vitamins, and
minerals. Everything the body needs."

Finally, something we can eat when the robots take over

------
philipkglass
What's the areal efficiency of this process? The primary input to the growth
reactor is hydrogen gas. The primary input to producing renewable hydrogen is
electricity. A solar farm in a good location, like Desert Sunlight, achieves
an annualized power density of about 10 megawatts per km^2 (0.1 megawatts (100
kW) per hectare).

It takes about 50 kWh of electricity to produce a kilogram of hydrogen via
electrolysis:

[https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/doe-technical-
targets-...](https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/doe-technical-targets-
hydrogen-production-electrolysis)

According to this paper by some of the people behind Solar Foods, "Carbon
emission avoidance and capture by producing in-reactor microbial biomass based
food, feed and slow release fertilizer: Potentials and limitations" (
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326571432_Carbon_em...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326571432_Carbon_emission_avoidance_and_capture_by_producing_in-
reactor_microbial_biomass_based_food_feed_and_slow_release_fertilizer_Potentials_and_limitations)
), it takes about 560 kg of hydrogen to produce 1000 kg of dry microbial based
biomass with a protein content of 70% [1].

At 100 kW/ha, a solar farm in a good location can produce

(100 / 50) * 24 * 365 = 17,520 kg of H2 per hectare, per year.

That in turn can produce

17520 / 0.56 = 31,286 kg of dry microbial biomass per year, containing

31286 * 0.7 = 21,900 kg of protein per hectare per year.

According to some (admittedly quite dated, circa-1972) data collected on this
page, the crop with the best areal productivity of edible protein is soybeans
at 400 kg/hectare/year.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_protein_per_unit_area_o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_protein_per_unit_area_of_land)

According to table 2 in the article, the essential amino acid profile of this
bacterial protein is equal or superior to soy in all respects. The areal
protein productivity of a solar farm coupled to microbial reactors may be more
than 50 times that of growing conventional crops. If the bacterial protein is
used as animal feed for animals with a good feed conversion ratio (e.g. farmed
salmon), it even looks like you could get more _animal protein_ per hectare
this way than a vegetarian diet can achieve with conventional farming. _And_
the water requirements are reduced even more drastically than the area
requirements. _And_ the electricity production can take place on non-arable
land. I would be interested to see more modern areal productivity figures for
soy; presumably there has been some additional intensification since the early
1970s, though not 50x improvement.

[1] Hydrogen consumption is not stated _directly_ , but they say that hydrogen
at $3/kg makes up 60% of the $2800 cost to produce a dry tonne of bacterial
biomass. (0.6 * 2800) / 3 = 560 kg of hydrogen.

~~~
DoctorOetker
and hydrogen feed rate and hence production can be temporarily throttled on
the time scales of the microbe feeding patterns so that it can absorb
fluctuations in grid energy consumption!

------
throwawaynpc123
i'm pretty sure solar protein is called plants.

