New study suggests that lab-grown meat produces up to 25 times more CO2
interestingengineering.com
New study suggests that lab-grown meat produces up to 25 times more CO2
1–10 of 253 posts
Re: New study suggests that lab-grown meat produces up to 25 times more CO2
#2Scaling up the a new product to suddenly feed everyone on Earth based on its current low-volume tech seems like a pointless analysis.
The only interesting thing about the article is going to be how the headline will probably compel HNers to go into the same old hobby horse rant against lab-grown meat.
Re: New study suggests that lab-grown meat produces up to 25 times more CO2
#3Wow, a brand new technology is less efficient than a process that has been refined for thousands of years?! Unbelievable!
Re: New study suggests that lab-grown meat produces up to 25 times more CO2
#4Scaling up the a new product to suddenly feed everyone on Earth based on its current low-volume tech seems like a pointless analysis. The only interesting thing about the article is going to be how the headline will probably compel HNers to go into the same old hobby horse rant against lab-grown meat.
Why pointless? The authors ran a detailed analysis, identified a bottleneck (the endotoxin purification) and made a recommendation that effort be made to tackle that bottleneck by engineering cell lines that can withstand higher amounts of endotoxins. To me this sounds as useful as science can be.
Re: New study suggests that lab-grown meat produces up to 25 times more CO2
#5Wow, a brand new technology is less efficient than a process that has been refined for thousands of years?! Unbelievable!
> for thousands of years
rather thousands of thousands of thousands of years ...
Re: New study suggests that lab-grown meat produces up to 25 times more CO2
#6Scaling up the a new product to suddenly feed everyone on Earth based on its current low-volume tech seems like a pointless analysis. The only interesting thing about the article is going to be how the headline will probably compel HNers to go into the same old hobby horse rant against lab-grown meat.
Why pointless? The authors ran a detailed analysis, identified a bottleneck (the endotoxin purification) and made a recommendation that effort be made to tackle that bottleneck by engineering cell lines that can withstand higher amounts of endotoxins. To me this sounds as useful as science can be.
emphasis on "the headline" as they will literally only "read the headline"
Re: New study suggests that lab-grown meat produces up to 25 times more CO2
#7Scaling up the a new product to suddenly feed everyone on Earth based on its current low-volume tech seems like a pointless analysis. The only interesting thing about the article is going to be how the headline will probably compel HNers to go into the same old hobby horse rant against lab-grown meat.
It is very fair to point out that synthetic processes often have significant side effects. Biodiesel made from corn is a great example of "right intent, wrong overall effect" (though arguably the goal of biodiesel from corn was always more focused on energy independence than on any environment benefits).
Back to the topic at hand, though. Purely from a climate perspective, does it actually make sense to target lab grown chicken? Chickens are something that can be raised with a much lower carbon footprint than beef.
Are things like an impossible burger simply a better substitute right now? Should we be focused on culturing cells or on "faking" it with plant proteins?
I'm not saying I have answers, and I'm not opposed to lab-grown meat in principle (I think it's damned cool), but it's fair to ask whether or not it makes sense to try to scale up a process that may be worse than "business as usual".
The article also gives very useful feedback on scaling things up, as well. It's pretty damned interesting.
Re: New study suggests that lab-grown meat produces up to 25 times more CO2
#8Scaling up the a new product to suddenly feed everyone on Earth based on its current low-volume tech seems like a pointless analysis. The only interesting thing about the article is going to be how the headline will probably compel HNers to go into the same old hobby horse rant against lab-grown meat.
Why pointless? The authors ran a detailed analysis, identified a bottleneck (the endotoxin purification) and made a recommendation that effort be made to tackle that bottleneck by engineering cell lines that can withstand higher amounts of endotoxins. To me this sounds as useful as science can be.
The study may be good, but the headline and the obvious slant of the article are as unscientific as you can get. Pop science journalism is abysmal, and this is a good example of it.
Re: New study suggests that lab-grown meat produces up to 25 times more CO2
#9Livestock is grown in parts of the world on stuff which cannot be sold or which grows on its own - example: grass etc. How in the world is lab grown meat going to compete with that in terms of efficiency, CO2 emissions etc?
Re: New study suggests that lab-grown meat produces up to 25 times more CO2
#10[deleted]