Why are you talking about GM foods? You don't need to use GM algae to make biocrude. It increases your yields, but it's not necessary.
That's a pretty huge strawman. Also, this is to Exxon's benefit, as scarcity will ruin their business in the next few decades. Renewable oil is like holy grail for oil companies.
Humanity has been doing genetic modification since pretty much the first time we domesticated any other life form. It's called "selective breeding." Modern GM techniques are just far more precise about it as well as allowing us to "breed" in traits from other species that old-fashioned selective breeding couldn't do. The only problem with GM foods isn't the GM itself, but with the business tactics and practices of the leading companies who are commercializing it.
Why are you talking about GM foods? You don't need to use GM algae to make biocrude. It increases your yields, but it's not necessary.
That's a pretty huge strawman. Also, this is to Exxon's benefit, as scarcity will ruin their business in the next few decades. Renewable oil is like holy grail for oil companies.
Humanity has been doing genetic modification since pretty much the first time we domesticated any other life form. It's called "selective breeding." Modern GM techniques are just far more precise about it as well as allowing us to "breed" in traits from other species that old-fashioned selective breeding couldn't do. The only problem with GM foods isn't the GM itself, but with the business tactics and practices of the leading companies who are commercializing it.
Cutting out and pasting together genes is a little more risky than just having a couple animals with desirable traits fuck. We believed in "junk" DNA until what, this year?
That's the point I was working towards for Muppet. With opportunity cost so low why drill?
What about square footage to make the oil? Is that side of the equation feasible ?
Yes. Since everything is in closed reactors, non-arable land (deserts, tundra, taiga) is suitable for algae growth. Present estimates from the inefficient dry algae synthesis put us at requiring square footage equal to half the size of Maine in order to be oil-independent. With this new process, that area will shrink and more oil will be produced, which can lead to net carbon loss for the atmosphere, provided we don't burn it.
Note that biofuels from corn would require half of the arable land in the country to successfully offset our oil requirements.
Because you bought up Monsanto, who are most famous for A)Their GM crops, and B)Their utter amorality, clearly intending that for your example. I'm just covering my bases. I've got a bit of a read on you, but I've not quite got the way you think down like I do for some other people around these parts.
Cutting out and pasting together genes is a little more risky than just having a couple animals with desirable traits fuck. We believed in "junk" DNA until what, this year?
And your evidence for this increased risk comes from where?
Yes. Since everything is in closed reactors, non-arable land (deserts, tundra, taiga) is suitable for algae growth. Present estimates from the inefficient dry algae synthesis put us at requiring square footage equal to half the size of Maine in order to be oil-independent.
Humanity has been doing genetic modification since pretty much the first time we domesticated any other life form. It's called "selective breeding." Modern GM techniques are just far more precise about it as well as allowing us to "breed" in traits from other species that old-fashioned selective breeding couldn't do. The only problem with GM foods isn't the GM itself, but with the business tactics and practices of the leading companies who are commercializing it.
Cutting out and pasting together genes is a little more risky than just having a couple animals with desirable traits fuck. We believed in "junk" DNA until what, this year?
Um, we still believe in "junk" DNA. The proper term is "non-coding." Yes, it was recently discovered that the large majority of human DNA can actually produce functional proteins when artificially induced, but they don't actually produce those proteins in humans. So we've refined our understanding of "junk" DNA.
It's possible that they used to do something and now don't, or that they're segments of foreign DNA that have been introduced to the human genome through external vectors.
Humanity has been doing genetic modification since pretty much the first time we domesticated any other life form. It's called "selective breeding." Modern GM techniques are just far more precise about it as well as allowing us to "breed" in traits from other species that old-fashioned selective breeding couldn't do. The only problem with GM foods isn't the GM itself, but with the business tactics and practices of the leading companies who are commercializing it.
Cutting out and pasting together genes is a little more risky than just having a couple animals with desirable traits fuck. We believed in "junk" DNA until what, this year?
Um, we still believe in "junk" DNA. The proper term is "non-coding." Yes, it was recently discovered that the large majority of human DNA can actually produce functional proteins when artificially induced, but they don't actually produce those proteins in humans. So we've refined our understanding of "junk" DNA.
It's possible that they used to do something and now don't, or that they're segments of foreign DNA that have been introduced to the human genome through external vectors.
But it's still largely inactive in humans.
FYI.
You win. I've got absolutely no gas for an argument today and I know pretty much nothing about GM food except that the industry is terrified that I might see it on a label while I'm shopping.
There are really no risks inherent to GMO foods from the process of genetic modification. Selective breeding == manual manipulation of genes. One uses breeding, the other uses a lab. All we're doing is moving around gene regions. In fact, manual manipulation is better because we can manipulate just the regions of interest.
So the actual problems become the modifications themselves. Case in point, Monsanto. Roundup-ready soybeans don't have a terminator gene, so they are capable of breeding in the wild. This creates the problem of a potential monoculture, and the possibility of contaminating non-Monsanto fields. These things are actually happening, and its due to the specific manipulations in those particular soybeans.
Sometimes, GMO crops are processed differently. I mean, different crop with different growth characteristics, so it has to be handled differently, right? And very often, the company won't disclose the handling steps or other treatments.
The industry opposes GMO labeling for a few reasons:
1. The industry generally opposes all regulations. A-duh.
2. The definition of "GMO" is currently too loose to really be useful.
3. Labels that are too "busy" actually have a negative correlation to sales. If you have to read too much text on a label, you are less inclined to buy the product. This has been substantiated by studies.
None of those are what I consider "good" reasons to oppose more extensive labeling.
However,
4. Consumers are categorically opposed to the use of GMO's for no good reason.
This is a problem. Consumers don't know enough about GMO's to actually make an informed decision, so they are broadly opposed to their use. It's the irradiation problem; most consumers don't know enough about it, so they don't want it.
But we also find that consumers don't want to read more extensive labels - so the industry opposes increased disclosure because educating the public is vastly more expensive than not.
Now, I think infosheets and such would be a good route for a company to pursue when educating consumers. Government could help, but people trust government less than industry (which is silly, but whatever), so that's hardly helpful.
We in the food safety sector are literally at a loss as to how to fix this problem. And yes, industry and regulatory both recognize the problem and want to fix it.
Studies have shown that in-store educational sessions seem to work well, but they're expensive and time-consuming.
The issue of labeling is really really tough. I think industry could be more forthcoming, but I also understand why they aren't.
I agree with everything you said, with some caveats, but frankly, whether consumers have a good reason to distrust GMO or not, it's still ultimately up to consumers what they want to put in their bodies and they should be equipped with the relevant information (that THEY, not the industry, deem relevant) at the point of sale.
(By the way, as it turns out, Nutrasweet really DOES cause cancer. :-P )
Oh, Monsanto. You're so cray cray. There is a proposition on the ballot in California that they are all up in and around and I'm still not sure how I'm going to vote on that one...
I thought it was half the size of New Mexico
Even so, this is far better than half of all arable land in the country. I don't know the figure off the top of my head, but I'm fairly sure half of New Mexico isn't arable in any event. WUB makes an excellent point that this can be done pretty much anywhere. Hell, lets build a giant off shore rig for this purpose. Or convert Hawa'ii. Whateves.
How long from seed to oil? How does the energy potential compare to drilled oil?
There's no seed, because they're microbes. About a week or two for 50 gallons of algal sludge, maybe. Same energy potential, but you actually save energy because you don't have to explore and drill.
@Lou: I hear different things. There's an association of algal oil producers that say half of Maine, but both of those figures are still small relative to the entire US. Floating bioreactors are a definite possibility, but you'd need an aircraft carrier to support them.
Even so, this is far better than half of all arable land in the country. I don't know the figure off the top of my head, but I'm fairly sure half of New Mexico isn't arable in any event. WUB makes an excellent point that this can be done pretty much anywhere. Hell, lets build a giant off shore rig for this purpose. Or convert Hawa'ii. Whateves.
@Lou: I hear different things. There's an association of algal oil producers that say half of Maine, but both of those figures are still small relative to the entire US. Floating bioreactors are a definite possibility, but you'd need an aircraft carrier to support them.
Oh, I agree completely. I just wanted to state what I heard to see if WUB maybe had a brain fart or something. Half of New Mexico (as quoted in the UMichigan press release that started this thread) still is quite reasonable given how much land overall in this country can't be used for much else. It's just that it's a whole heck of a lot bigger than half of Maine.
Of course there are lots of other parts of the world who can do this too. Wherever you can shift the infrastructure, after all, meaning that no nation will be nessesarily dependent on imports. Lack of transportation will drive costs way down, allowing for easier mechanization of agriculture in areas still dependent on subsistence farming.
Oh, I agree completely. I just wanted to state what I heard to see if WUB maybe had a brain fart or something. Half of New Mexico (as quoted in the UMichigan press release that started this thread) still is quite reasonable given how much land overall in this country can't be used for much else. It's just that it's a whole heck of a lot bigger than half of Maine.
And I used to believe in conspiracy theories about corporate power and tech suppression, but I grew out of it.
If we assume this is a legit discovery - While it's likely, we don't know absolutely for sure yet, so hedging my bets - Allow me to propose a counter scenario. First company to perfect this tech, or even get it workable, rakes in billions, maybe trillions of dollars by increasing their oil and oil byproduct output tremendously, curries an incalculable amount of public favor(which, funnily enough, will also increase their profits) by making huge steps towards green tech and ceasing environmentally harmful (and financially draining) drilling operations while bringing the rest of their transport process closer to being carbon neutral. Finally - They're not stupid, they do not and cannot ignore the science. By taking this measure, they ensure not only what is essentially a compete coup for the company profit, market, and PR wise, but also essentially ensure themselves a permanent place as one of the world's largest and most powerful corporations into the foreseeable future, which may be the most desirable part of it.
Or, y'know, they could suppress the tech, struggle it out against all the other companies in the same business instead of taking an enormous leap ahead of everyone else in the business, and then inevitably fail as oil becomes rarer, obtaining it becomes more and more costly, and their already low public support slowly dwindles to zero as someone else smaller and not controlled by them perfects the tech(or releases it to the world for free) all of which practically ensures their place as a nasty note in a history book.
You don't get to be a multi-billion dollar multinational corporation by acting in an obviously stupid fashion, with no regard for the future. Which option do you think they're going to back?
Theres no conspiracy theory needed. Oil companies would lose profit on their existing supplies, as well as all the money they've spent on tooling up for hydro-fracking. It makes a ton more sense to drain your existing sources, massively profit off of perceived scarcity, and THEN invest in the infrastructure for this stuff.
There's a newer one that links it to leukemia and lymphoma.
Citations please?
All Nutrasweet is is a composition of two amino acids of the same sort that you find in proteins anyway.
One of them, aspartic acid, is naturally found in lunch meat, sausage, and wild game. It's also found in vegetables such as avacados ans asparagas.
Phenalanine is the other amino acid found in it. It's naturally found in mammalian breast milk. It's also a component of various brain chemicals such as dopamine. Granted, there are some people with a genetic disorder that cannot digest it, but they are in the minority.
Comments
What about square footage to make the oil? Is that side of the equation feasible ?
That's a pretty huge strawman. Also, this is to Exxon's benefit, as scarcity will ruin their business in the next few decades. Renewable oil is like holy grail for oil companies.
Note that biofuels from corn would require half of the arable land in the country to successfully offset our oil requirements.
It's possible that they used to do something and now don't, or that they're segments of foreign DNA that have been introduced to the human genome through external vectors.
But it's still largely inactive in humans.
FYI.
There are really no risks inherent to GMO foods from the process of genetic modification. Selective breeding == manual manipulation of genes. One uses breeding, the other uses a lab. All we're doing is moving around gene regions. In fact, manual manipulation is better because we can manipulate just the regions of interest.
So the actual problems become the modifications themselves. Case in point, Monsanto. Roundup-ready soybeans don't have a terminator gene, so they are capable of breeding in the wild. This creates the problem of a potential monoculture, and the possibility of contaminating non-Monsanto fields. These things are actually happening, and its due to the specific manipulations in those particular soybeans.
Sometimes, GMO crops are processed differently. I mean, different crop with different growth characteristics, so it has to be handled differently, right? And very often, the company won't disclose the handling steps or other treatments.
The industry opposes GMO labeling for a few reasons:
1. The industry generally opposes all regulations. A-duh.
2. The definition of "GMO" is currently too loose to really be useful.
3. Labels that are too "busy" actually have a negative correlation to sales. If you have to read too much text on a label, you are less inclined to buy the product. This has been substantiated by studies.
None of those are what I consider "good" reasons to oppose more extensive labeling.
However,
4. Consumers are categorically opposed to the use of GMO's for no good reason.
This is a problem. Consumers don't know enough about GMO's to actually make an informed decision, so they are broadly opposed to their use. It's the irradiation problem; most consumers don't know enough about it, so they don't want it.
But we also find that consumers don't want to read more extensive labels - so the industry opposes increased disclosure because educating the public is vastly more expensive than not.
Now, I think infosheets and such would be a good route for a company to pursue when educating consumers. Government could help, but people trust government less than industry (which is silly, but whatever), so that's hardly helpful.
We in the food safety sector are literally at a loss as to how to fix this problem. And yes, industry and regulatory both recognize the problem and want to fix it.
Studies have shown that in-store educational sessions seem to work well, but they're expensive and time-consuming.
The issue of labeling is really really tough. I think industry could be more forthcoming, but I also understand why they aren't.
(By the way, as it turns out, Nutrasweet really DOES cause cancer. :-P )
@Lou: I hear different things. There's an association of algal oil producers that say half of Maine, but both of those figures are still small relative to the entire US. Floating bioreactors are a definite possibility, but you'd need an aircraft carrier to support them.
Sorry, I get a little too excited about Star Control 2 references. The Suppox are pretty cool dudes though.
All Nutrasweet is is a composition of two amino acids of the same sort that you find in proteins anyway.
One of them, aspartic acid, is naturally found in lunch meat, sausage, and wild game. It's also found in vegetables such as avacados ans asparagas.
Phenalanine is the other amino acid found in it. It's naturally found in mammalian breast milk. It's also a component of various brain chemicals such as dopamine. Granted, there are some people with a genetic disorder that cannot digest it, but they are in the minority.
Oh, and according to the National Cancer Institute and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietics, you're wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16507461
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805418