Back when I was a kid, trees still lived under water.
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.
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.
Trees won’t get some tech bros bought out by Google.
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
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.
The issue is that the roof is smaller than the bench, so it doesn’t even provide shade.
I’m sure they’re probably a good idea, I’m just crabby.
Keep in mind that tree roots can brake through anything
Not all do. That’s an oak thing really. Pines, most stone fruits, etc, take a path of least resistance, unlike oaks which are more “I am going that way, and NOTHING will stop me!”
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…
Alternative in what sense?
Pretty sure some cities have about zero areas for a tree to grow. Algae produces a much larger percentage of oxygen compared to any tree.
Pretty sure trees in cities aren’t there to produce oxygen or capture carbon.
Trees do actually improve air quality, by absorbing harmful gases like sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide through their leaves. Additionally they can reduce particulate pollution by up to 70% - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200504-which-trees-reduce-air-pollution-best
Mostly they’re there either for decoration or to lower street temperature. Depending on how long ago they were planted.
Exactly
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, can plant a tree? Plant a tree. If you can’t, the alternative right now is nothing. This introduces another option.
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
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.
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?
You see, trees get in the way when we want to put down more asphalt to make more room for cars. We need more lanes for cars to park in and more parking lots for cars to park in. The goal is to turn the city into a place devoid of anything but asphalt. Then with no access to dirt to grow food or water to keep them alive, the people will be 100% dependent on their capitalist overlords. Everyone wins.
Dumb take. If someone crashes their car into one of these, it can be replaced in a few days. Trees take decades to grow in ideal conditions. Between tall buildings in a city is far from ideal conditions.
Also algae is way more efficient at converting CO2 into O2; I think it’s maybe multiple times more efficient using the same amount of light.
As an emergency responder, I can say with confidence that when a car hits a tree, it’s rare that the car wins. The tree usually just shrugs it off.
Emergency responder in a big city? Trees will fuck up a car no doubt but not usually the tiny ones lining the streets of major urban centers, most I see get to be maybe 5 in across. But it may all be location dependant.
Yes. Even a 50mm (2 inches) tree trunk will usually win against a car on urban roads.
Dumb take, by the guy who has no idea how much it costs to maintain these tanks or any understanding of the scales involved, all while wanting to live in a world of green goo in tanks instead of one with trees in their cities.
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.
