The Deputy has raised a theme which we could spend the rest of the afternoon discussing. Stanford University is one of the top three or four universities in the United States. There is no doubt the United State is the country from where most of the new technology comes these days. In fact, Mr. Cahill and I are travelling to Barcelona later this afternoon to take part in the annual Olympics of science event. One of the sessions, which I am chairing, is entitled "Mars and Venus", during which the question of whether the United States and Europe treat and manage science differently will be addressed. It is a central point. In the last few decades the United States has managed to focus energy and money in a way we have not managed to do in Europe. There are 27 countries in the European Union. Some 95% of all the money spent on science is spent by the various countries, with only 5% being spent by the European Union centrally. This means we do not have any great central focal points in Europe. That is the big difference between the two regions. In the United States a higher proportion of the funding comes from the federal government, much of it related to defence spending. It has had the benefit for an entire generation of great concentrations of funding and expertise. These concentrations are not just to be found at Stanford, Harvard, Yale and Columbia universities, but also in the top state research institutions.
We are fortunate in this country because we are halfway between Berlin and Boston. We have better links with the United States than many of our European neighbours, through a series of very good political judgments made in previous decades, dating back 30 years. We have courted American capital and the world has come right for us in the sense that the common currency area in the European Union has meant that this is a favoured location for American companies. We have figures which show that the flow of technology backed by American capital here exploiting the European market has probably been the biggest single driver of the economy. This would not have happened had we not done other things but it reinforces the point with which Deputy O' Keeffe began, namely, that we must use our strength in the United States to best advantage.
In February I was in MIT, another engine in the United States, where I met the Irish graduate students studying there, of whom there are approximately 20. They are an extraordinary bunch. The dean of graduate studies joined us and sang the praises of the young Irish scientists working there on various projects in biology, energy, engineering and so forth. We have seed corn in the form of brilliant young people, whom we must try to harvest and bring back to this country. One could say a great deal more about this matter, but suffice to say the links with the United States are very important.
On the energy front, there is great deal one could say but I will try to give a brief response. Energy does not stand alone. It is now part of the climate story. Therefore, we must shift the energy balance to ensure we do not simply pump more CO2 into the atmosphere. Energy and climate are very closely related. This is pushing us away from burning fuel, whether it be our own turf or somebody else's oil, gas or coal. The latter provides one quarter of our electricity supply at Moneypoint but this will have to change within a generation. It is not just a question of the cost of gas, oil and so forth. We are being pushed towards renewable energy sources. Wind power is one such source that is serving us well. It is a mature technology which has been available for more than 20 years. It is a question of deploying the investment.
The sea has hardly been touched because many of the large countries such Germany have no coastline worth speaking about and America has relatively more solar and wind power resources available to it. Investment in harvesting the power of the sea has been limited, although members will be aware that an energy research council has been established to invest in this area. Energy can be harvested from the sea in two ways, on the first of which a research laboratory in Cork has been working - wave bob - for the past 20 years. It is at the forefront in the development of of this technology. It is currently testing devices in Galway Bay. However, this is a challenging area because in the interface between the atmosphere and the oceans there is enormous concentrated and destructive energy. Building devices to withstand these forces is an enormously challenging task.
The second way of harvesting energy, tidal current, appears to have better potential in the longer term. In going deeper into the ocean the destructive force is avoided but it is still possible to harness the energy of tidal currents driven twice each day by the great piston in the sky, the moon. The rise and fall of the tides can be seen along the coast but the effects are also felt offshore. This technology is in its infancy but Ireland is well placed to rise with the tide, so to speak. I do not know enough to be definitive on the matter but believe we should focus on this area as the technology develops.
Bio-fuels receive considerable attention and, given my background in agriculture, I have taken a particular interest in the area. I visited Iowa in the frost and snow of February to observe the transformation which had taken place in that state's economy. Farmers used to sell corn at $2.50 per bushel but the price for this autumn's crop stands at $7.50, although the cost of production has not changed dramatically. They are in Heaven. The waiting list for John Deere harvesters is currently two years because everybody is changing machinery. They are even buying houses in Florida. However, it is a false economy. When I visited a bio-ethanol plant, I was struck by the trainloads of coal brought in every second day. On the best calculation, the energy produced at the plant is only 1.4 times the amount consumed; some would even claim the ratio is negative over the plant's full life cycle. This is an internal American system which is being challenged.
The same calculations apply to Ireland. We grow wheat more efficiently than almost anywhere else in the world. I do not know if members are aware that we produce the highest yields in the world. The average global wheat yield is three tonnes per hectare, whereas in Ireland it is almost ten tonnes. This year the yield will probably be as good as it ever was. No other country in the world produces an average yield of ten tonnes; therefore, we are at the top of the tree. However, if we were to begin to produce energy from wheat, we would face the same arguments about energy efficiency as in the United States. It would mean we could use domestically produced bio-fuel in our tanks instead of imports from Saudi Arabia but that is a marginal calculation in the context of our circumstances.
The great promise is that the next generation of bio-ethanols will be based on converted woody tissues such as switch grass in America or willow plantations in Ireland. It can be done in theory. I visited a factory in Canada owned by Iogen which was started by a Belfast family. A tonne of wheat straw is put in at one end of this complex factory and 250 litres of ethanol is produced at the other. Technically, therefore, it can be shown to work but it is enormously costly and I do not know if it will survive, even if the cost of oil reaches $150 per barrel. It is uncertain whether the next generation involving cellulose to ethanol conversion makes sense. We should begin trials to keep on top of the best technology but it is not economically and technically secure enough for us to put all our eggs in one basket.
Nuclear power is off the political agenda. Approximately 500 nuclear plants are in operation throughout the world. After a 30 year moratorium, the United States plans to commission 18 new nuclear plants. I would not like to pronounce on this issue but the next generation, if not this one, will be giving it serious consideration.
Deputy O'Keeffe asked about the micro-electronics initiative in Cork which has matured into the Tyndall National Institute. I have spent time at the institute and Mr. Cahill has visited it separately; therefore, we are familiar with its activities. It has been a remarkable success, as was the micro-electronics laboratory. Much of the electronics industry in this country owes its existence to an internationally competitive base of people and the purpose of the current investment strategy is to expand it progressively to a level commensurate with the size of the country. I was encouraged that the institute was not only conducting traditional research that would have resulted in doctorates ten years ago but was also in the lead in respect of micro-electronic materials.
In regard to GMOs, I am expected to provide independent and grounded advice for the Government on a range of issues. The only issue on which I have formally done so is GMOs. I provided the advice on my own initiative last summer because I could see that, in the light of the change in Government and the incorporation of Green Party policies, the facts needed to be made available. I put together a paper and carefully studied the literature available on the subject. From a technical perspective, it must be asked whether GM technology is worthwhile, if it contributes to reducing costs in grain production and if it will produce benefits for the consumer. The answer to these questions has to be yes because GMOs would not otherwise be grown on 100 million hectares of land worldwide.
Two crops, in particular, corn and soya bean, have given a tremendous competitive advantage to their users, as can be seen in Latin America, the USA, the Far East and Australia. The technology is also being used in rice production and it is well established in the production of cotton as a way of stitching resistance to insect damage into the crop. Until recently, GM corn crops were protected against insects or resistant to herbicides such that cheaper biodegradable herbicides could be used. By 2010, it is possible that eight separate genetic events may be stitched into corn in order to protect crops from particular insects such as root and stem borers and to confer the ability to withstand particular herbicides, thereby reducing weed control costs. That front is advancing at quite a rate. This is inevitable in Europe, despite the fact that people are generally against GM foods. There is evidence of this in Spain where there are about 100,000 hectares of corn and a particular challenge is posed by the European stem borer, an insect that bores into the stem and reduces the value of the crop. Despite the fact that they are not welcome in Europe, in places where there are challenges presented by insects such as the stem borer these varieties are expanding.
As to whether it is safe, we have looked carefully at the relevant literature which consists of over 30,000 scientific papers. I will say nothing of what is written in blogs, newspapers, Time magazine and so on, as we should forget such stuff. We referred only to scientific papers submitted to scientific journals, sent to independent referees, challenged and editorially judged. They will only be published if they are thought to be authentic and independent work. There are over 30,000 such papers in the relevant literature. When we looked through them, we found that a relatively small amount, around 100 papers, could be said to directly examine the question of whether genetically modified corn, for example, was safe. Experiments have been done on rats and mice but not on humans because such experiments on humans are not allowed. The experiments on rats, mice and pigs have, almost without exception, been totally reassuring. The other reassurance on the safety issue is that in certain countries, particularly the United States and throughout the Americas, these products have been on the market for around 15 years. About 60% of products in our own supermarkets have either corn or soya bean. As they are manufactured internationally, GM products are, in fact, on our supermarket shelves.
This is a technology that will come but it has not been of great importance in Ireland. Of the crops in which it has been developed to date, corn was first; soya, second, and then cotton and rice. It can now be found in bananas, papaya and tomatoes. In the next couple of years genetically modified varieties of these crops will become available and they will be adopted by persons who grow such crops due to cost savings in production. Genetic modification has not been of importance in Ireland because the crops in which it has been used to date are not grown here. It will not be a huge issue in agriculture because when such crops are grown in this country, they tend to be minor crops. The first popular crop to experience this here will probably be potatoes, as there are now varieties that are blight resistant which would be a tremendous advantage; instead of spraying a toxic chemical, copper, five or six times during a season one could grow a resistant variety. We can be reassured on the issue of safety.
The other issues mostly come down to a fear of the unknown. One must recognise the reality that 70% of people in Europe are against this. That is the dilemma facing politicians. This is generally translated into the precautionary principle, which means we are slower to authorise such products in Europe, although we do authorise them. About one year to 18 months after America, the Commission tends to grant authorisation for them to be used; for example, we use approved GM corn in pig feed in this country. The problems arise because the delay means ships on the high seas must be approved in Ireland before departure, arrival and release. Sometimes there can be confusion as to whether a shipment contains levels of unapproved varieties. I could go on about the GM story but that is enough for now.
