- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
let me introduce you to this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/robo-bees-could-aid-insects-with-pollination-duties/
humans are crazy. You want to know whats wrong with trees and bees? It’s pretty hard to make a profit of them
Wake me up as soon as some goofy ass startup found out how to arrange the algae to display ads.
Add a blockchain and you could get libertarians tripping over to invest
If it’s actually more efficient then trees, could be a good idea. Saw a 51/49 video where he explained the urban development in the US requiring only male trees be planted leads to increased pollen levels and has made the “allergy season” 30+ days longer over the past 50 years or so.
I still want the trees outdoors, but this would be cool for indoor spaces. Each mall or parking lot could have a solar panel overhead and slime-tanks to produce useful byproducts.
Maybe it could be mixed with and aquaculture like fish and sea plants to create cool scenery
While I would hate to lose actual trees, I’m medium on the idea of this on it’s own. People need lots of things and space, which causes the removal of trees. If we can replicate some of their functions, such as CO2 absorption with this tech, then that seems good. If upkeep is the same as a tree, I don’t see a downside to the overall concept.
My thought would be that this shows up on top of the buildings instead of at ground level, though… Plant real trees and put these on the roof. The real loss would be if we stop making green spaces because these things meet the need for O2. Green spaces in cities do way more than just clean the air, though, so I’m not sure we’re that dystopian yet.
The photo looks like it doubles as a bench too, so maybe that helps justify its footprint. Make them a mini-light show with varied colors and it can become a functional art installation. How long until it has spikes to prevent someone from taking a nap on it, though?
Yeah completely agree, I like trees and don’t want them completely gone or anything.
When I was visiting Europe, seeing all the trees so well integrated into urban areas was so nice.
Then we git our flight back to Toronto. Concrete jungle.
Welp, all the trees are gone but at least there are these cloudy stinking tanks of goo everywhere. Does anything not dystopian happen anymore? Like these things are a set piece from Blade Runner FFS.
It’s a pretty bad example in this case because the picture is literally on a street with trees. What these are probably for is putting in places where no one’s going to look at them but places where you can’t put trees, like industrial estates and the rooftops of buildings. Aesthetics aren’t important if no one is ever going to look at them aesthetically, and anyway they kind of look cool.
I’m sure they’re probably a good idea, I’m just crabby.
The issue is that the roof is smaller than the bench, so it doesn’t even provide shade.
Like I said though that isn’t what they’re for. They’re not going to replace trees they’re just going to augment their CO2 absorption.
Back when I was a kid, trees still lived under water.
The issue with trees is you need to adapt the city to them, you can’t adapt them to the city. And people have proven once and again that they would invent anything to not move by an inch when our way of life is put in question.
So we push forward with absurd solutions one after the other: carbon capture, atmospheric geo-engineering, a damned nuke in antarctica, and now “liquid trees”.
Because the alternative is to change our ways, and we can’t face that.
I would be fine with changing my ways if changing my anything didn’t require endless paperwork. How is it fair that some guy invents agriculture and now I have to have a credit score
That’s an incredibly negative spin.
All these technologies are improvements on the natural version, not a replacement for the natural version, but an upgrade. If you want nice trees go take a walk in a city park, these aren’t for looking at they have a different objective. We can have both things, one isn’t trying to replace the other.
Yeah, can plant a tree? Plant a tree. If you can’t, the alternative right now is nothing. This introduces another option.
Trees provide shades that cool down the cities. These algae don’t. The main benefit of these “liquid trees” is to reduce pollution. You know what reduces even more pollution? Electrification and public transportation. Combine both. You’ll need much less space for motor vehicles lane inside the city and no need for “depolluting” inventions. Add some bike lanes and you’ll still have plenty of space for trees. They’re better looking and will do the cooling job.
So, as I was saying: praising a less efficient solution that may bring new unexpected issues down the road because the efficient solution requires people to change.
trees take don’t come with actual requirement lists. An algae pool can and will come with explicit instructions that are able to be met and won’t destroy the sidewalk for no reason.
ITT: People who looked at some random headline, didn’t bother looking further and assumed they knew everything.
It’s a stupid headline. These tanks, are to directly affect air polution/quality in urban areas. Trees are terrible at that. The microalgae is 10-50x more effective in cleaning the air.
They aren’t going to rip out trees for these. It would have taken you 10 seconds to find the source of the image and the article from 3 years ago to find out, the social media post was misleading. You spent more time making incorrect and wild accusations.
Even with the misleading headline, has nobody commenting about how bad it is ever seen how many trees die when set up in low light conditions? These can be used in places trees wouldn’t be effective, and that’s before the whole “they’re better at cleaning the air” bit.
Even with ideal light conditions, there’s still more to consider.
I lived in Louisville for many years. It’s fairly green as cities go. In older parts of the city, trees had been planted between the streets and sidewalks … definitely a long time ago, maybe 30 to 50 years? Maybe longer?
Every spring, we lost a number of those trees to thunderstorms. Enough rain, followed by strong winds, would topple multiple trees. Every single one that I saw had a root ball that was exactly the size of the opening where it had been planted, so maybe two square meters and maybe a meter or two deep. (For those keeping score at home, that’s not enough root volume to support a full-sized tree.)
So we’d lose those lovely trees and on a good day, we’d lose the use of the street for a while. On a bad day, someone would lose a car or a chunk of their house.
“Just plant more trees in the middle of the city” is not the brilliant fix that many people seem to think it is.
Can we please, stop reposting this same shit pic for the last, I dunno, year?
This is the gazillionth time. I get it. Is a stupid algea tank. where a simple tree does the same for a fraction of the cost. It’s of no use in the public space except as a tech demo or art object.
So. Yeah… Next?
This is only the second time I’ve seen it, but please… there was a time when complaining about reposts was the most often repeated thing I saw on reddit. Can we not have that bit of irony become a thing here?
These algae also produce biogas that can be used for heating or producing electricity.
Damn if only trees created something gaseous that was useful
They emit carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and oxygen, which causes rust in metals and aging in humans. So it’s a negative really…
I discovered when I joined a volunteer litter-picking group in my town that some people really hate trees. And I must emphasise HATE. They hate the shade they cast in summer, the way the leaves block the all-important View. They hate the fallen leaves in autumn. They hate the bare branches in winter. They hate the risk of branches falling in storms. They hate the racket the birds make. I was astonished - it never occurred to me that people would feel so strongly.
Turns out I’m a bloody tree-hugging extremist.
That’s just unhinged. The trees are the view.
Those “people” would better serve as fertilizer (specifically for trees)
Yeah trees are assholes. They always ring my doorbell trying to sell me the book of Gaia. Constantly telling me “you can’t smoke here, sir”. There’s a tree behind my house who constantly wears the same glasses as me. Whenever I buy new ones, a day later this tree has the same. He’s constantly mocking me for no reason.
I think all trees should be cut down and burned. Algae never complain, are always kind and always say “good day sir” when you walk by.
A tree stole my wallet and had sex with my wife!
So many trees have destroyed people their houses with stupid forest fires. Have you ever heard of algae fires? No! Because algae aren’t assholes!
I guess I’m too…born and raised in a forest?..to be the same species as those people.
Leaves are annoying in urban areas with full concrete/asphalt/metal/glass environments. Different people like different things and some aesthetics are incompatible.
annoying how?
Few things about trees in cities: (1) tree roots ruin sidewalks because they upend that stuff; (2) tree roots get into and ruin infrastructure, (3) not every curb can sustain a tree, so these could fit where a tree could not; and (4) they damage stuff when they fall over in storms.
Crazy thought - instead of just putting trees near curbs, have dedicated green spaces in cities where there aren’t sidewalks or other important infrastructure near the trees.
I think the current plan is to simply depopulate the United States through fiscal policies and have everyone move back to Europe.
Why not both green spaces (central park anyone?) and these alge pods everywhere else?
Where did you get these ideas you freak
Parks? Gross. I like parking lots.
How about multi level parking garages teeming with algae?
While I don’t want to spoil the joke (but I will) and I hate techno-optimist solutions that displace actual solutions for our biosphere as much as the next person: supposedly, Belgrade is such a dense concrete hell that trees aren’t viable solution (at least in the short term).
There is some rumbling that liquid trees are not the solution to the real problems caused by large-scale deforestation, nor does it reduce erosion or enrich the soil. However, much of this wrath is misplaced as Liquid tree designers say that it was not made as a replacement for trees but was designed to work in areas where growing trees would be non-viable. Initiatives like Trillion Trees are laudable, but there is something to be said for the true utility of this tiny bioreactor. The fact that they can capture useful amounts of carbon dioxide from day one is another benefit for them. Such bioreactors are expected to become widespread in urban areas around the world as the planet battles rising carbon levels in the atmosphere.
They can thrive in tap water and can withstand temperature extremes.
So maybe they can be used in regions that are too hot for trees, like desert cities
They seem to be focusing on CO2. Trees in cities are going to capture a negligible amount of CO2 and for relatively high cost versus doing things outside a city. The point of trees in cities is shade and looking nice (good for mental health). Liquid trees solve neither of those.
And ameliorating the heat island effect.
But mainly quality of life.
And for people who think that the trillion tree idea is anything else than just the oil lobby running with a feel good solution, I have a great podcast episode for you
Spotify doesn’t work on my phone. Care to link the podcast page on a platform not trying to corner the market, please?
Much obliged.
I listen to it on apple podcasts if that helps
How, if I can’t find out which podcast it is?
You can click the spotify link and it literally tells you what it is
I already said thatspotify doesn’t work on my phone (the homepage crashes)
It’s an episode of “The Climate Denier’s Playbook” entitled “Let’s Just Plant a Trillion Trees.”
Also, trees are surprisingly difficult to keep alive if they were artificially introduced to a location. Turns out they don’t thrive in a concrete hellscape super well.
Which is why native species are always recommended
There are places with no native trees. A majority of the earth’s land area is naturally treeless.
This is missing out on likely the most important part of trees in urban areas. Shade. They give you a cooler place to stand or walk through.
No standing or sitting allowed. Resume consumerism!
My condo complex is easily 5 degrees cooler than the rest of my city cause we’re covered in trees. It’s always noticeable when you leave the complex and go across the road
taller buildings and smog do a more consistent job of providing shade than a new tree will in a decade.
Like I always think that people don’t get one thing about trees in a city. There purpose is is not about co2. The co2 reduction of city trees is neglectable. The reason you need them in a city is temperature regulation, shade, air quality, mood, the local eco system and maybe solidifying unsealed ground. Putting these tanks in a city is laughably inefficient w.r.t. co2 conversion if you compare this to any effort to do this in instustrial capacity ( which is is also still laughably inefficient)
From the top of my head, they also help manage storm water by filtering rainwater into the aquifer, while also lowering flood risks, provides habitats for plants, insects, birds, and small animals while also being a natural sound barriers, which reduces noise pollution. All of these together greatly increase mental health for everyone too
So… are you saying the air inside a city park isn’t better at all?
They were talking about CO2 which is what the algae tank is about.
Trees have other benefits around filtering pollutants that affect air quality such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. Also the shading effect reduces ozone accumulation as well as generally helping reduce the urban heat island effect (which in turn reduces the amount of air conditioning needed, even a small amount saves energy and reduces pollution from power stations).
City parks have clean air partly because of tree but also because youre away from roads and buildings so further from car exhausts and chimney stacks. The concentration of pollutants in wide open spaces is lower because the wind can move it around more easily, and there isn’t a pollution source directly near by. Tree and grass do help too.
By far the most effective way of reducing pollution is reducing the sources. Trees are CO2 sinks and would reduce some CO2 if there was massive reforestation globally but that is outweighed by the ongoing CO2 production. The best solution is clean energy sources and getting rid of combustion engines.
I wish my garden was big enough for trees. There are quite a few trees in a park behind our house though, my wifi might just about reach the park too. A better access point would reach it easily.
Have wondered if there might be other options for shade. Perhaps some kind of vines on a trellis. But then sometimes you don’t want the shade.
Amazing answer, thanks a lot!
Dunno what i’m getting downvotes for
I think it’s because they mentioned trees improve air quality right there in their comment, and then you responded like you didn’t read it
I think there is a difference between air quality (pollution) and co2 levels.
Cool they you think they but there are not walls that prevent air from mixing.
I mean conceptually, not physically like between a park area and a road.
To be fair, I think it’s important to make a distinction between a city park, and a handful of trees lining a busy street.
CO² isn’t want you should be concerned about with air in a city anyway, its the other emissions like particulates. Just being further away from busy roads reduces that significantly so the park air would be better.
It is, because of the humidity, temperature and also they remove air pollution. Just not CO2
Probably not a statistically significant difference since wind is a thing.
