832 karma · joined July 17, 2013
Short-lived bulbs were good for the customers. In a market with perfect information people would have chosen them on their own. Unfortunately of 3 categories of information needed for an informed decision (lifetime, power usage, and light output) purchasers only had a good measure of how often they replaced bulbs. Usage patterns are too complex for improvements in a single bulb to be obvious on a power bill, and human brightness perception is roughly logarithmic so it’s not visually obvious how much brighter different bulbs are.
Whether it was motivated by greed or not, the Phoebus cartel is an example of big business successfully advocating for the interests of the general public in the presence of information asymmetry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb#Light_...
Dairy jerseys and laying hens are both ~12%, with meat chickens ~15%. The best replicating eukaryotic cell culture I know are certain yeast at 50%. So a best case scenario is factor of 3 improvement, I'd welcome results from multicellular organisms that got anywhere close to that but I haven't seen it.
Supposing there are no improvements to be had on the cell metabolism side; dressing percentage for broiler chickens is 70% so getting rid of brain, digestive tract, immune system, etc. doesn’t improve things that much. Keep in mind that tissue cultures are a lot more picky about feedstock than whole animals. Good luck shovelling hay into that bioreactor. All of the processing that the feedstock takes will claw back your productivity gains and then some.
Margins are slim at the bottom. As capital intensive as modern farming is, biotech puts it to shame. Once you factor in amortizing all that equipment this is a non-starter.
The only appeal is from an animal welfare angle. Even there an argument could be made that humane husbandry is positive-utility rather than the neutral of lab-grown, while also coming out ahead environmentally.
http://gothamist.com/2012/10/22/anti-mask_law_from_1845_used... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Rent_War
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.
While good and interesting work, there's a lot left to do. They're using cysteine as a reductant, so not all of the energy is coming from light. Furthermore while the system uses 90% of the cysteine and 80% of blue light, it is only 2% efficient with broad spectrum (sun-like) lighting. Even that well only under dim lighting.
Edit: Here's a group that's developed a system that's 5 times as efficient and only uses CO2 and water as feedstock rather than cysteine and cadmium. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6290/1210
It's a matter of defense-in-depth. When the traffic is heavy enough to have less than 5 minutes between contacts, how many more people would be infected after a week?
As for cost, it would be more expensive but less so than you might think. With how thin the plating layer is, even for heavy wear, the material cost is under $500 per square meter. For small objects like buttons, door knobs, and hand rails it's negligible compared to installation and other costs. By switching to a cheaper base material it could even be cheaper over all.
Much of lipid and protein catabolism also does not rely on glucose as an intermediate. Everything that doesn't get converted to glucose first will get converted to acetyl-CoA (glucose catabolites turn into this too) for use in the Krebs cycle.
This technique is routinely used to generate concentrated supplies of oxygen or nitrogen, but is wildly expensive compared to ventilation.
And an honorable mention to black cherry, a tree of the region with edible fruit.