Isn’t spirulina more effective for capturing carbon than trees? And also you can eat it in the way you don’t normally eat trees? Trees are great and all but why do you want me to be angry about algae?
Gooooood Morning Night City!
I think it’s probably cheaper in the long run to self host a tree instead, unless you live in an apartment with absolutely no green space. But I’d rather get a VPF and host a tree there if I had too
Does this count too?
I already posted this on !balconygardening@slrpnk.net. .
I'm purposefully growing duckweed on my balcony.
I'm doing !hydroponics@slrpnk.net, and by doing that, I have lots of waste water with still good fertilizer in it.Duckweed is one of the fastest growing, nutrient densest and least demanding plant out there, and you can just scoop it out with a strainer.
It's exponentially growing and if you don't wanna eat it, it makes great organic fertiliser or animal feed with lots of protein and micronutients!
I had the same reaction until I read this.
TL;DR: it's 10-50x more efficient at cleaning the air and actually generates both electricity and fertiliser.
Yes, it would be better to just get rid of all the cars generating the pollution in the first place and putting in some more trees, but there are clear advantages to this.
Short answer: the bank won't give your shiny new tree-planting business a loan as easily as it will to a "liquid tank tree replacement" one.
Long answer:
- Trees take time to grow
- Trees need to be planted
- Trees make shade
- Animals like birds and insects like bees and mosquitos like to live next to them
- Trees don't need electricity
- Trees take in heat radiated from the pavement
- Trees don't look cool
While algae are more efficient at turning CO2 into oxygen in theory, in practice algae don't have a good climate in such a tank (no oxygen without ventilation, i.e. constant electricity and they get cooked through the glass).
All in all, more of a gimmick than anything.
-
Wrong community, maybe? Lol
-
iirc, algae are better oxygen producers per units of mass and volume, so a tank full of algae might actually be better than a tree. One issue though is that trees can grow on open ground, while algae require a tank to be built, most likely negating the economic benefits. Also, trees are more aesthetically pleasing.
-
It's not an either/or thing, the tank in the picture is literally sitting under a tree
Nothing is wrong with trees, but the microalgae CO2 capture rate is 50x higher````` .
Not liquid enough.
@ECEC Good lord the number of replies here from people whose brains have been destroyed by "planners"...
- Trees lower the urban heat island effect.
- There's plenty of room for trees in dense places, so long as "density" means efficient housing and efficient transportation rather than parking lots and stroads and single-family homes.
- Someone said "trees require maintenance", as if asphalt & pretty much everything doesn't require maintenance?
- Trees harm cars. But cars harm cars too!
Good post.
Wrong community.
A big problem with trees is roots, especially in cities with dense underground infrastructure. If there’s an actual way to produce the same amount of oxygen as a tree in a smaller space, I’m all for it. I’m honestly okay with how these look, assuming low maintenance.
Yeah, those are going to last at -40F/-40C nights we often experience where I live. Nor do I see them being able to add any cool relief from their shade on a hot day.
That said, it is hard to grow healthy trees in the poisoned soils of a big city. They tend to struggle and be sickly when choked by concrete and asphalt.
Have you ever seen how long it takes for a tree to grow?
Devil's advocate:
These cost far less to maintain than having a team or two dedicated to upkeep for the trees.
That said, these things are a terrible idea, clearly the brainchild of clueless techbros, and overall a massive eyesore. Trees are objectively the better option. Just not Bradford Pear trees... Anything but the cum tree.
The most dystopian thing I've seen... Fuck, idk, it's all pretty dystopian these days, I've lost count
Very cyberpunk
at least give it some shape that is not an eye sore to start with
So I appreciate some outside the box thinking. But this just reeks of techbros invent trees but worse. Most of the considerations below seem to think trees and cars are natural enemies, I would argue we reduce cars instead.
pm2 restart liquidtrees@ECEC
Any city manager could tell you everything wrong with having trees downtown.
* Birds get into them and when they're nesting, they attack anybody walking by
*Birds also shit on the cars parked under them, and most drivers look for shade to park under
*Bugs get into them and attract birds when birds aren't nesting
*Trees drop sap, which also ruins a car's finish
*city workers have to spend time on the clock keeping the leaves picked up off the groundYeah, the drawback is that the algae don't provide shade.
Liquid Trees! Slam it down fast!
'What's wrong with trees? They're taking up space for real estate development, stupid peasant."
Enjoy the mosquitos
I’m only conjecturing, but there may be cities where planting trees isn’t feasible due to density of the city and the surrounding infrastructure. It may be cheaper to use these in place of trees, though I admit I know nothing about what’s pictured.
I like the innovation this, it could lead to another and better idea.
Also what are the chance that once they're deployed, somebody run into one on the first day? Pretty good I bet.
pro que no los dos?
