You must log in or # to comment.
deleted by creator
I think it has more to do with the fact trees require more maintenance, like raking up leaves and fruit, and having to saw off branches.
Also those roots can break pavement and pipes.
deleted by creator
We just have to remove the roof from that thing so it won’t be shadowy, and make a wall in the bottom so it can’t be used to lay down.
To echo what some other people have said, these algae tanks absolutely should not be used instead of trees. If I see a tree get chopped down and replaced with one of these, I’ll be sad and angry. However, these can go in places where trees can’t go, like rooftops. And you don’t have to either wait for a tree to grow for a decade or take a tree from somewhere else to install one. It also serves as both a seating area and can mount a solar panel on top. These and trees both have their place and should both continue to be used.
Putting a ton of water on the roof isn’t a good idea, unless it was already rated for a swimming pool.
They don’t need to be inside cities at all.
Used for what exactly? To have a dirty fish tank?
For the conversion of Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen? That was the main point of these, the algae does that and is actually even more efficient at it than a tree. Trees do have other benefits hence why they shouldn’t be replaced, but these should go in places where trees can’t.
That is adorable.
please god tell me you’re trolling
Nah, I just think it’s really silly.
If growing algae is effective at anything, why do it in a small sealed tank in the middle of a street? Most of the oxygen we breathe is produced in the ocean, regardless of where we personally are. Why would we need to stand vaguely near a rather sealed looking algae tank? If simply growing algae is effective for oxygen replenishment and carbon capture, surely we’d be better off simply growing massive ponds of it away from city centers? Like, out in the open?
It seems like green-washing bullshit to me.
Trees provide a lot more than oxygen. They provide shade, habitation for animals, and psychological well-being for humans. Dirty fish tanks don’t provide any of those things.
People are seriously in this thread complaining about roots like they’re a reason to replace trees with algae boxes. Getting some big plant-based NFT cryptobro carbon-credit nonsense vibes.
It’s actually hilariously ignorant that you people are pretending this is a cost effective idea for carbon capture. It will, in fact, just make a bunch of dirty fishtanks that are abandoned or thrown away almost immediately.
thanks for calling me you people dude!
who said it was cost effective? I only said I cant believe this person didnt get the idea.
its not “in fact” its “you believe” . youre probably right, just saying
Trees are too useful so we keep cutting them down
It’s expensive and has only the advantage of catching CO2, while trees have more than just that. Produces O2, Cooling the near surroundings, are a save heaven for many species and therefore increases biodiversity, filters the air and soil, also makes the soil more healthy and probably many other reasons.
Humans really are weird. Trying to replace a perfectly fine bio-machinery that developed over Thousands of years with their own steel junk. I dont see why anybody would prefer that gadget over a tree.
deleted by creator
I was always under the impression that plants chemically convert CO2 and some other stuff to glucose (C6-H12-O6), right? In that case, the algae would still help, wouldnt they?
deleted by creator
Humans really are weird. Trying to replace a perfectly fine bio-machinery that developed over Thousands of years with their own steel junk. I dont see why anybody would prefer that gadget over a tree.
Can you plant a tree capable of capturing the same amount of CO2 as those algae in that small a space? How about “refilling” the tree if it happens to die?
Society doesn’t have to lock itself to a single solution for countless varied problems. If we’re talking about a long, empty walkway, or a park, then trees are a great solution. If we’re talking about a small space that must be kept free of obstructions, such as a bus stop, then a sack or box of phytoplankton is much better suited.
What happens when we go too far and remove all CO2 from the atmosphere?
Your question isn’t entirely a hypothetical - this happened at the dawn of time, when photosynthetic life forms first evolved. First, it won’t ever happen again, no matter how good we get at scooping CO2 from the atmosphere. Second, the result is theoretically catastrophic for aerobic life forms, but it’s also a negative feedback loop, meaning it self corrects.
Most plants would die because they rely on CO2 for photosynthesis.
Many sea animals would die. Oceans absorb CO2 which forms carbonic acid (H2CO3) in water. Oceans are slightly alkaline due to dissolved salts (bicarbonate and carbonate) and the carbonic acid from the absorption helps to create a stable pH. Many sea animals are highly adapted to a specific pH and would die if the ocean got either too acidic or too alkaline, so they are pretty doomed in either case.
Many humans would die because agriculture would collapse. Also breathing pure oxygen over a long period of time would be very bad because of oxygen toxicity. Yeah, pure oxygen is toxic for humans lol
Land animals, I’m not so sure, but I assume most of them would die too.
Can’t wait to see hulk semen cartridges everywhere when I go out for a walk.
People tend to forget that trees have roots.
Roots cause problems with infrastructure.
Hence why when a problem arises you try to “get to the root of it”.Here’s an example of what I mean:
https://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/woody/images/urbanrootsninelg.jpgdeleted by creator
How about we only have some capitalism. Let’s only allow less slavery and habitat destruction in exchange for us all to be subservient to billionaires.
Cyberpunk city with no plantlife other than these algae vats all over the place. Big towers of murky green liquid.
and they are fed by nutrients extracted from dead humans, because there’s no room to bury anymore and the air is too polluted for cremations
All these people being like “why don’t we just use trees” as if the capitalists could profit from them like this. And not to say this is cost efficient, of course planting a tree would be better for everyone, but whoever installs these things will have a contract guaranteeing them money that taxpayers will be told is being put toward green initiatives and so will be eager to part with it I guess
Guys, it’s not one or the other. We can have trees and algae tanks. Trees can still offer all of the benefits they do like shade and beauty while algae tanks can be used to increase fresh oxygen. Algae is much better at absorbing CO2 than trees and providing clean air which is a big problem in a busy city.
It is one or the other because they’ll come out of the same budget - it’s an “opportunity cost”. So if the city has $1000 to spend on either a tree or a tank, then they can’t spend the same $1000 on both items. We’d need some balance between the two.
I saw something like this, which piped exhaust from a generator thru a container of water and algae, with the idea to capture the co2, etc produced. Sure why not. I’ll still prefer trees.
I’ll still prefer trees
God, yes. Trees provide shade, transpirative cooling, homes for animals (birds, mammals, insects), and a particular natural beauty that tanks of algae do not.
It’s been proven that humans didn’t actually get most of their fresh air from the rainforest, but actually from millions of these algea in the sea… Which is actually more logical, since trees do the opposite at night, kinda undoing any advantage they made during the day… Hence why it’s said you should never put a decorative small tree or even plants in the bedroom as they can take away oxygen levels in closed rooms at night. It’s even said not to sleep under trees outside at night cause it can cause respiratory problems.
They don’t use enough oxygen over night to negate the effect as they use the carbon to grow. It’s still bad to have a lot of plants in your bedroom, but it doesn’t really matter as long as they are relatively small.
That had me go and look it up and apparently you’re right that they use part of the carbon dioxide as energy storage, but as I understand this storage eventually gets released in full when the tree dies too…
Not sure if that would be so much to balance it out again, but it does still diminish their overall effect even more…
It is just how a tree works, it gets the matter to grow from the carbon dioxide. If they are burned or they die this carbon is slowly released again, same way as coal has carbon that is stored until burning
Hence why we’re probably breathing more algea-breath while not so terribly much from trees (unless you’re standing next to one during daytime). 😅
Why shouldn’t you have plants in your bathroom?
They consume oxygen during the night so when you have a lot of them it can cause respiratory problems, that is for the bedroom
An effective HVAC system makes this a non-issue. It isn’t like the air is stagnant, the air handler keeps air moving.
From my experience, european homes don’t have a lot ov ac or ventilation
What about a nice shrubbery?
This whole thread is a great example of why I’m continually disappointed with Lemmy. Half the comments are just some variation of “capitalism bad”. I hate capitalism as much as the next guy, but it sure would be nice if people would stop grinding their axes for a few minutes to talk about the actual subject of the post. Or just not comment at all if they don’t have anything relevant to say.
Algae should be more effective and pollution kills trees
