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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
SciShow made a video about these: https://youtu.be/QUGJPZ1a308
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
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.
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.jpgTrees are too cheap
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 aren’t liquid enough.
From the pictures, the tank's only a couple meters from a tree itself. "supplement" would be a better word than "alternative" in the headline
This doesn't have a root system to worry about so it needs less underground space. Don't get me wrong I love me a good tree, but in places where there isn't enough land for roots to spread this could be useful. Lots of side walk trees die due to not enough space for the roots
Roots fuck things up.
Local ordinances specify minimum space requirements for trees, which may mean that they're not allowed to be put in certain places. Also, they can cause pedestrian safety issues, as well as Ada compliance problems in confined spaces. This is an easy way to get something green in a place where you would otherwise not see a tree because of a lot of beaurocratic bullshit.
Obviously, you can argue that all that needs to be changed. And you'd be right. And in many places it's moving that way. But then you also wouldn't get anything done for quite some time. This is an option where there might be no other viable options at the moment.
Can't wait for some teenager to smash it as a dare.
I am under the impression that trees don't actually produce that much oxygen. That they're more like carbon banks, storing it as they grow and then releasing it again when they die, rot or burn down. Meanwhile most of the oxygen produced actually comes from algae and other sources.
Source: some old memory of something I heard, so take it with a grain of salt. It would explain these things tho, beyond the cases where growing a tree would be impractical.
Tbf, it was an art installation and the overreactions it generated are hilarious.
People can grow trees. You need a lot more to make one of those contraptions. Hard to control people when they can just grow a plant to do what they need.
Because they pick trees that have gender. They plant male trees, see dogwoods, the flower but not bare fruit. So you get allergies because of tree cum. And as far as I know plankton cum doesn't come with side effects.
Because Trees are for rich people only.
Poor people don't get natural shade. They just get to see "luxury" apartment towers with tenant only "public parks from a distance.
/sTrees and algae have different utilities. Trees are beautiful, reduce temperature, offer shade, and produce a modest amount of oxygen. Algae tanks produce vastly more oxygen by volume and cause you to question whether it’s really enough to continue meandering through life in this stone and metal postmodern hellscape and maybe it’s okay to finally indulge in a vacation near open fields and untamed wilderness. The local camping spots might be available in a few weeks if my sanity can hold out. One doesn’t completely substitute the other.
They are too good
All safely contained in an airtight tank so that pesky O2 doesn't escape back into the atmosphere
the shade is also important
Vtnc
I don't even understand which part of the tree experience these tanks are supposed to replace. Are they really just there to pick up CO2? Because you can also plant a forest outside the city for that.
You'll miss out on all the other tree benefits, but so you also will with these glass tanks.
