this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
991 points (96.5% liked)

Memes

45902 readers
1692 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 208 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (31 children)

So I think the general idea is that you can convert more CO² to carbon in the form of sugars and O² molecules per square foot with algae than with trees. Trees would totally do the same thing if we ripped up all the concrete and buildings to replant a forest, but that process would take decades.

This can be added into existing infrastructure and helps I guess. Kinda a neat concept.

[–] [email protected] 100 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Also tree roots will tear stuff up

[–] can 65 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And lawsuits when people trip over uneven concrete caused by roots.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can’t wait to sue the trees

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Sometimes wheelchair user here. Character can kiss my ass <3

(I'm not expressing anger at you, just at my city's mangled sidewalks)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Shade, cooler Air in summer, better protection against rain… 🤷‍♂️ Trees are 😎

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

...if we ripped up all the concrete and buildings to replant a forest...

You say this like it's a downside, we'd better get started!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Hey, I'd be the first wanker with a sledge out breaking it up if we all went in on it together. Something tells me I wouldn't get very far tho

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

I have this fantasy where we humanity has a whole biotechnology skill tree that we never unlocked but there's like a Renaissance waiting to happen that will one day uncover all these cool new branch's

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

also algae farms can be arbitrarily vertical and can be built underground if you supply them with CO2 - trees are mostly limited to the surface.

load more comments (26 replies)
[–] [email protected] 89 points 1 year ago (2 children)

While it's good to be skeptical, algae tanks like this are actually a good idea for the use-cases for which they are designed. Places where trees would be difficult and expensive to grow. The tanks more efficiently capture carbon, require less maintenance, produce fertilizer as a byproduct and the solar panels on the tank produce enough extra power for there to be a USB charger on the bench. The goal isn't to replace trees with tanks but to use them where it makes sense to do so.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This was my thought as well. They should be used in addition to, not as a replacement for, trees, bushes, and grass.

It does make me wonder, though, whether or not we could use these to help capture more carbon than we're creating.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 76 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Street trees aren't car-supremacist enough.

Let me explain what I mean by that: when a driver fucks up and his car careens off the street and hits a tree, the tree stops the car very abruptly. That's great for, say, an innocent pedestrian who was saved by hiding behind the tree, but can apply rather serious consequences to the negligent driver. Car-brained traffic engineers see it as their mission to protect drivers from any and all consequences, so they insist on ripping out all the trees to create a gigantic "clear zone" so that the car is free to careen wherever it wants without hitting anything solid. Squishy things within the clear zone, such as pedestrians, don't enter into consideration.

In other words, one important "advantage" of these "liquid trees" over real trees is that they can be mounted on breakaway stands, so that they yield (and therefore provide no protection to any hapless bastard who might've been sitting on the bench at the time) when a car hits them.

Source: I'm a former traffic engineer. But don't take it from me; watch this confession from a much more experienced and credible engineer explaining it in even more stark terms.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I think a lot of these are just cool experiments and projects grad students do for the sake of doing them. Then some hack writes an op ed about how we don't need to worry about deforestation because we can plop algae tanks down instead.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

I thought it was more of an experiment that, if proven successful, could eventually aid in the exploration of space since we would need to engineer ways of creating oxygen for prolonged travel.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (9 children)

It's sad that the effort to do something innovative to solve a problem can easily get dismissed via a zero effort critique by someone who never took the time to learn why it was created.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago

Trees are great on sidewalks, but it is much easier to control the weight of an algae tank if you want to make a green roof for a building.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Trees offer real world benefits of carbon reduction, temperature reduction, shade for people, the psychological benefits that trees offer, some limited wildlife habitat, and they do it without much outside help. They grow themselves with decent maintenance.

But you have to build and maintain this tank. What carbon was used to do so, and what maintenance will it need. Can it offset its own cost? It offers no benefits to wildlife, no shade, no temperature reduction.

Yeah, trees leave leaf litter and can heave sidewalks with roots, but given that neither system is perfect, there’s no reason to argue that boxes of algae are better.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Can't wait to see hulk semen cartridges everywhere when I go out for a walk.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'd have to see how it is better than, worse than trees on a case-by-case basis. But generally speaking, I can think of a few reasons this is better:

Trees are messy. They take a long time to grow, they take constant maintenance while growing, then they eventually die. Tree roots fuck up pipes & concrete. If this installation is equivalent to 1 or more trees, it is doing the work in a fraction of the space.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Trees are too useful so we keep cutting them down

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nobody uses an urban tree that gets cut down. It just gets hauled off to the landfill.

It's absolutely ludicrous that when the gigantic oak in my yard fell the arborist didn't know of anybody who could cut it up into lumber for me -- even in a city with so many urban trees that it's called the "city in a forest" -- but allegedly the economics of it don't work out, or something. I dunno if that's true, but it pisses me off enough that I'm half-tempted to go buy a damn portable sawmill and start a business doing it myself.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CCF_100 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

We are in a parasitic relationship with capitalism. Capitalism constantly extracts from life and the environment. When life begin to limit captialism, capitalism will go to great ends to remove life. Capitalism is not sustainable, nor is it naturally occurring. Abolish this evil system.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (8 children)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Algae should be more effective and pollution kills trees

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

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.jpg

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

Young drunk me would love to throw a brick at one of these..I don't know why but it looks very tempting

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

Trees are too cheap

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The answer is trees take years to grow and aren't suitable in places like rooftops

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Trees can't survive if they can only get water from a 6''x6'' cookie cutter hole in concrete.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What about a nice shrubbery?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

And then another shrubbery, only slightly higher so you get a two layer effect with a little path running down the middle.

[–] Bluescluestoothpaste 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Trees don't generate large profits this quarter, obviously.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’ve been curious and hopeful about algae, both for carbon capture and bio fuel.

But using it in cloudy green aquariums to decorate a city? I don’t know about that, lol.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›