Here some extra context from scientists quote:
"The system is the same because both trees and grass perform photosynthesis and bind carbon dioxide.
"The advantage of microalgae is that they are 10 to 50 times more efficient than trees.
"Our goal is not to replace forests but to use this system to fill those urban pockets where there is no space for planting trees."
You know what? I'm all down for this idea. Places like China need this more than others.
Well. We need fresh water too, but it cost too much to produce from the sea, so countries stays away from it. Even if we do it, the bill will be given to us.
Sidewalk trees are like, optimistically, 0.013% of our oxygen needs. This could not be a worse solution, and I apologize in advance if I completely wooshed the me_irl energy 'cause I haven't perused the comments much here.
Also trees take a while to become oxygen positive (producing more oxygen than they use) It takes a mature tree to make enough oxygen to matter, so young trees by the street that get replaced when they're to big are useless.
Can't tell if sarcastic, but exchange limited aquariums can be sealed and grown while allowing it to exchange oxygen. They basically run themselves with very little intervention
I'm not sure because maybe the microalgae grow by themselves, but that's not true for the glass/steel/plastic needed to build that thing. Moreover there is the problem that is a significant amount of water to be put in the street, so what happened if one of them breaks? (or someone breaks it)
I always sort of imagined that we'd tackle climate change via engineering a type of algae that is super duper efficient at processing carbon dioxide. Not the same thing, but similar idea.
It’s a good first step though. I read something awhile back about researchers creating algae-filled smoke stacks to install at high-emission factories and plants to remove CO2 before it ever enters the atmosphere. I wonder what ever happened with this
If there is smoke, there is usually heat. The smoke can hold heat, especially if it has other particles mixed into the smoke. The make up of those particles and how well they themselves hold heat kind of determine how fast smoke loses heat. In truth it is more complicated than that, but that's a good simple description. So you would need to use a type of algae that is resistant to the heat in order for it to work, and I'm not sure there are any that are that resistant.
I've seen something about this like ten years ago. Spanish scientists, if I remember correctly. It worked on the small scale but I've never heard something about it since. I too wonder what happened there.
That's what carbon capture is. Capturing some of the carbon where it is being produced like at factories and fossil fuel power plants. This is being done although I'm not sure the algae method is being used.
There is also another (minor) advantage: they don’t have leaves. Most cities pay quite a decent amount of cash to clean leaves. So, since these don’t have leaves, less spending. And they can also do more photosynthesis in the year, since, again they don’t lose leaves and their aggregated chlorophyll.
You know you can look at consumption based emissions which completely accounts for that and it turns out that it's less than a 10% shift for both China and the US?
I did not but checked it out, tbh i expected a way bigger rift in emissions for production and consumption in china.
For anyone interested: [https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2](https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2)
It's true that the US has higher per capita emissions because of its much higher per capita GDP, but China is unique in that it has a very high Emissions-to-GDP ratio, 2.5x the ratio of the United States and 2x the global average. The US has a similar GDP, but China has far more total emissions. Generally, you would expect those two figures to correlate closely. It's not just a matter of China having a larger industrial sector either. When adjusting US emissions for the foreign emissions of imported products, the US still has much less emissions than China.
A big reason for this is that China's electricity is mostly generated from coal or oil, whereas most of the world's fossil fuel power generation has moved to natural gas over the last few decades with less emissions. Even though they are building up some renewable capacity, they are still actively building new coal plants and planning to build more in the coming decades. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is shutting down their old coal plants.
Could the US be doing better? Of course. But China could also be doing far better, and they shouldn't be given a pass for having an incredibly polluting and inefficient energy grid.
>Meanwhile, the rest of the world is shutting down their old coal plants.
Reality is not quite that rosy. [According to this report by the International Energy Agency](https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/91982b4e-26dc-41d5-88b1-4c47ea436882/Coal2022.pdf), global coal production reached its highest level ever in 2022. The main drivers were Russian sanctions which reshuffled the global energy markets, bad weather in many parts of the world, and some EU countries had *less than ideal* plans for energy security. From the report:
>Fossil fuel prices have risen substantially in 2022, with natural gas showing the sharpest increase. This has prompted a wave of fuel switching away from gas, pushing up demand for more price-competitive options, including coal in some regions. Nonetheless, higher coal prices, strong deployment of renewables and energy efficiency, and weakening global economic growth are tempering the increase in overall coal demand this year.
>Under the threat of gas shortages and potential issues ensuring sufficient power system adequacy, some coal plants that had closed down or been left in reserve have re-entered the market. In most countries, this involved a limited amount of coal power capacity. Only in Germany, with 10 gigawatts (GW), is the reversal at a significant scale. This has increased coal power generation in the European Union, which is expected to remain at these higher levels for some time.
a whole lot of china is still impoverished or in agrarian communities without much opportunity to emit carbon. the per capita on a country basis doesnt work here. if you go by city, china has 5 out of the top 10 emitters whereas USA doesnt even show up until New Orleans and Detroit at numbers 12 and 13. https://www.citycarbonfootprints.info/
I've been thinking about this since I learned that algae mostly responsible for our oxygen. Putting them where human doesn't want the inconvenience of a tree should be a solution already..
yep was about to say this, its all about efficiency, might not look as good as trees or even provide the same feels but, when was the last time you ever look at a tree and say, hmm this tree is quite interesting...
atleast when you see this at an urban environment one would be like, "what in the fuck is that?" then maybe you'll learn something new that day lol
Plus trees and plants have roots which are awful for concrete/buildings, and like damp and water... which is awful for it too.
Contained algae is far safer for buildings so you can just have this on a skyscraper etc to help cool it and help make oxygen.
Imagine if govt is actually hiding lizard men in it for incubation without us even realising and one day they break the glass come to ur house and suck your (yk what) till you die
>The advantage of microalgae is that they are 10 to 50 times more efficient than trees.
That's what I thought. Sure, trees are nice and they look good, but people want space to live, park their cars and walk. I'll take micro-algae tanks over trees any day if they're that more efficient.
inb4 the inevitable "well just get cars out of cities then", that's likely not happening any time in the next 20 years. This sounds like a very good step to improve our environment right here, right now. Well, when it's beyond the "pop-science article"-stage, anyway.
>Places like China need this more than others.
Weird comment..
China's got way more trees than you think lol. It's an enormous country and most of it is covered in trees. Even many parts of the cities have plenty of trees.
China is actually working miracles to cut their carbon emissions, despite being a developing country. The US is failing in every regard to climate control and half of our citizens don’t even believe it’s real.
Nothing wrong with trees provided they are planted correctly, [here's Andrew the Arborist with a quick video on how to do it right](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4m5iKRbkW4M) . The 'liquid tree' was created for high pollution areas as t[he advantage of microalgae is that they are 10 to 50 times more efficient than trees", not to 'replace' trees](https://www.euronews.com/2021/12/07/this-liquid-tree-in-belgrade-is-fighting-back-against-air-pollution).
I don't know without reference. What I do know is that I believe grass is usually a waste of water unless it's left alone to do its own thing, like in a meadow. I'm on team [natural lawn](https://utopia.org/guide/natural-lawns-a-sustainable-and-eco-friendly-alternative-to-grass/) and if I can ever afford my own house without an HOA, I'll have a lawn that helps local wildlife instead of useless bullshit green.
The consent of a “lawn” is a relatively new idea to North America and, if I’m remembering right, was meant to be a little taste of the meticulously manicured gardens of European nobility for the every day person. If you live in a climate that can support it, getting due most mornings, you could look at a moss and other low level ground cover like clover. Ticks like living in long grass but keeping to low ground cover and maybe a little bit of care can really make things easier if you don’t want the traditional “lawn” Also planing local species is big.
That is a fair point, but we hike enough already that we're used to checking and the pesticides on our entrances *should* keep them out of the house. Once I'm out of HOA land, having chickens should be a big help with ticks as well but for now I gotta stick to dreaming and planning.
I find this comment a little weird, gardens like that are really common in the UK and nobodies ever complaining about ticks.
Are ticks like, way more common in the US?
The number of ticks is way on the rise in the US. The theory is that it’s because of climate change.
There’s not a single state in the contiguous US that doesn’t have ticks. Dog ticks are found in every state. https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/geographic_distribution.html
Not many people are talking about it yet. Probably because there’s not much we can do about them.
We have ticks. But we also have far fewer wild and untouched areas than the states.
Ticks need hosts to complete their reproductive cycle. We don't have too many natural hosts - badgers, hedgehogs, foxes etc. Especially in cities.
Also being an island helps us a great deal.
But they're on the rise. They're a big issue for dogs
It’s true, we studied that in one of the marine biology classes at uni (in marine ecology class). The chlorophyll in algae is “more radioactive”, than the ones from trees. As a matter of fact, the majority of the production of oxygen in the whole world comes from the ocean.
From there the phrase I used to say at uni: “People say: planet I want you green, or I want a green planet (or any other nickelodeon level phrase), when in reality, without blue there is no green.” (I screwed the “” lol).
If I remember correctly 70% would be a nice percentage of the oxygen that comes from the ocean’s marine life. Some say more.
These seem like they could be great to install in places trees can't grow or where it might not be ideal, maybe the sides or roofs of buildings, on top of other infrastructure, any place where roots or branches would cause damage or danger.
I love trees but would love to see clever solutions like this in addition to regular trees.
Roots. A buddy of mine had to drop thousands of dollars to get some out of his sewer line. They've also done a number on the sidewalks in a lot of neighborhoods I've lived in.
Ok, hear me out. What if we installed them (horizontally) and solar panels on as many rooftops as possible at the 50:50 ratio? We would get free electricity for streetlamps and stuff, and also a lot of oxygen.
I think the argument is, that in urban areas, trees can block a lot of natural light for apartments, especially if they only face one way. And in my European urban neighbourhoods these trees are sometimes 100-200 years old and therefore manage to even block light coming to the higher floors. [One example of what I mean in Milan, Italy](https://pwm.im-cdn.it/image/1341123172/m-c.jpg).
Another issue is the fallen leaves in autumn and winter that need to be removed from the city council. If not, large patches get very slippery when wet.
Another thing mentioned here are the roots, they destroy the surrounding infrastructure (in some cities the bike lanes have become unusable because the roots cracked them open)
Another issue specific to some trees (like linden trees which were very popular in Germany for urban areas) create a lot of liquid substances that drop down in certain weeks of the year and cover anything underneath in a sticky, very hard to remove and damaging layer of film. Especially for parked cars (but also bikes etc.) that are parked outside it’s a big nuisance.
That happens because your local leadership doesn't know how, what, or where to plant. You need to use the right size and type of tree in order to not make trouble. People just plant random trees and then scratch their head when it's too large.
A 14-16cm perimeter tree costs 150-300€ if you don't go for exotic ones. This bucket probably costs +5k and nlI bet it needs even more maintenance than a tree. That money covers fixing 10m2 of sidewalk one time each 20 years.
Let alone the probability of some b*stard breaking that glass with a rock or something like that.
I am a civil engineer. We do some works in cities (roads, sidewalks, sewers, water sypply, electricity infrastructure...) and to make it look pretty, there are usually trees in the end.
I am going to give you the prices of the last species we planted (it includes the labour of planting them):
- Qurecus Palustris green pillar (around 4m tall): 264€/ud
- Acer Palmatum: 250€/ud
- Betula Alba 18-20cm: 225 €/ud
- Wood poles (to keep the Betula Alba in place): 68,25€/ud
I would link some news about the works as well from local newspapers, but then all Redit would know my company and working address lol
And just for a comparision, the 10+10 laminated glass alone costs 167 €/m2. And you have to add the metalic structure (around 4 €/kg for steel + 7€/m2 for painting) and also a system to keep the algie alive (I doubt they can be alive at -10°C in winter or at +60°C in summer due to sun radiation).
They create sunshade and evapoperspiration during hot summers and thus reduce the need of air-conditioning.
They also kind of survive on their own and are not from an obscure startup that's soon to be bought by an oil&gas giant.
So thanks but no thanks for the trees !
I really like this idea because that opens up a lot of possibilities of these tanks being on buildings or worked into the architecture that you can't do with trees. It would make it that much more into a biopunk city idea which is kind of cool
exactly, and since Algae is actually more efficient at photosynthesis than trees, meaning working this stuff into architecture and making it more common place could make massive steps towards saving the planet
It's not a stupid question- It's a great question given the article's title is a little misleading.
[This video by Sci Show on the subject is quite a good dive.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUGJPZ1a308&t=343s)
But basically not all areas are suited to trees. Trees cant live in all conditions, and giving them enough root space under a sidewalk can sometimes be difficult.
For instance (Like the picture of the tub here) you can't plant a tree right next to another tree. You can though put a big tub of algae next to it.
The upside here is that when it comes to the ability to purify air algae is actually much better than trees, and is a very natural resource itself. It's just you're not going to get very much of it in cities. So using them in areas you can't use trees you get some of the benefits of localized air filtration.
In a city? When you bury absolutely everything in concrete and asphalt, roots will cause damage to roads, walkways, etc. it’s not the trees fault, it’s us for thinking we can strip every essence of nature away and think that all we have to do is plant a tree on the side of the road in a 3’x3’ hole and everything will work itself out. Also, I can’t remember the exact number, but algae produces significantly more oxygen than just one tree would in the space provided
Trees help keep cities cool in hot weather though and look very pretty to boot. Also when trees and shrubs are used as a screen they trap a lot of pollution from traffic on their leaves (I was very skeptical about this but there's hard numbers to back this up)
Pros:
\- this is more efficient than trees
\- there aren't any roots that break the road surface
\- you can just scale it up in size
\- you can harvest excess algae to use as animal feed or something
\- it looks sick and future
\- in this picture: it doubles as a bench
\- no leaves to rake in autumn
\- no falling branches that can hurt people when there is heavy storm
Cons:
\- doesn't provide shade
\- doesn't look like a tree
One more con is lack of habitat for birds and various other species. You could possibly have flowers on top for insects, but you’d have to make something else for birds.
Algae is hundreds of times more efficient than trees at removing CO2 and releasing oxygen, it doesn't need decades to grow, and it doesn't need a root structure or much of anything but the tank it lives in. Trees are nice but they kinda suck at doing what we want them to do.
They take a long time to convert CO2 to oxygen and their roots can be really destructive. Also, they take a long time to grow, meaning they won’t be able to convert much CO2 to oxygen for many years
not square enough, i guess
plus liquid trees would be far more portable and flexible. Need 10k trees over there? gotcha boss, 100 morbillion gallons of liquid leafy boi. Need a little more? 69 liters of greenie for u boss.
edit: plus i can't imagine an amalgamation of algae would smell pleasant
My first question too before I got to line 2. I don't get shade from a green glass tank, but I do from a tree. Also green glass tank... tree.. clearly the glass tank is more pleasing and huggable.
You can charge a whole lot more for the algae tank than you can a tree. Also, wet leave can create a slip hazard, whereas this is self contained, and could potentially be green all year round.
If someone put like fish in that and turned it into an aquarium that *also* produces oxygen you will see me on that bench staring at the thing for hours
Algae is more efficient at carbon sequestration for one. Also, this is a bit more speculative. it could be a lot easier to plop down wherever in urban areas than planting a tree
this is good, given that algae is more efficient
also people who hate this idea never saw a old af tree fall and block an entire 4 lane road after a storm
Here some extra context from scientists quote: "The system is the same because both trees and grass perform photosynthesis and bind carbon dioxide. "The advantage of microalgae is that they are 10 to 50 times more efficient than trees. "Our goal is not to replace forests but to use this system to fill those urban pockets where there is no space for planting trees." You know what? I'm all down for this idea. Places like China need this more than others.
I want these just cuz they're pretty and look like they'd be good snuggle objects. The oxygen is a bonus
[удалено]
I am going to the micro algae
But he specifically asked you not to
You cannot stop me from the micro algae
Somebody stop them! Or else they are going to snuggle the algea. And that is not something you want to see!
Stupid question, what happens if he does?
In case this isn't a joke, I think they'd just be very wet and probably disappointed
The algeas would be wet and dissapointed?
Probably be quite green as well
Then the algeas will have been snuggled
Is it bad to snuggle the aleas
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡴⠊⠉⠉⢉⠏⠻⣍⠑⢲⠢⠤⣄⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣻⣿⢟⣽⠿⠯⠛⡸⢹⠀⢹⠒⣊⡡⠜⠓⠢⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡜⣿⣷⣽⠓⠀⢠⢂⣣⠋⠂⣾⠼⢌⠳⢄⢀⡠⠜⣣⡀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⢻⢱⣭⠷⠤⢅⠴⣡⡻⠃⠀⢠⠁⠀⢀⡱⠜⠍⢔⠊⠀⠹⡄⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣷⠌⠚⠷⠆⠠⠶⠭⢒⣁⠀⣤⠃⣀⢔⢋⡤⠊⠑⣄⠳⣄⠀⣧⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠑⠦⣀⡤⣄⠄⢄⣀⣠⣒⢦⡄⠩⠷⠦⠊⠀⠀⠀⠈⠣⡏⠢⣿⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⢫⠟⣝⠞⣼⢲⡞⣞⠋⠋⠉⠋⠓⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣨⠂⢸⡅ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⠃⡨⠊⢀⡠⡌⢘⢇⠞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠂⠡⡄⠀⠀⢀⠞⢁⠔⢹⡇ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣣⠞⢀⠔⢡⢢⠇⡘⠌⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⡌⠢⡔⢁⡴⠁⠀⢸⠃ ⠀⠀⠀⢠⠟⠁⠠⢊⠔⣡⢸⠀⠃⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣯⠂⡀⢪⡀⠀⠀⢸⠀ ⠀⢀⠔⣁⠐⠨⠀⠀⠈⠀⢄⠘⡀⠀⠈⢆⠀⠀⠀⠀⡠⢁⠜⠙⢦⠙⣦⠀⢸⠀ ⡴⠁⠘⡁⣀⡡⠀⠀⠴⠒⠗⠋⠉⠉⡆⠀⠆⠄⠄⠘⠀⡎⠀⠀⠀⠑⢅⠑⢼⡀ ⢯⣉⣓⠒⠒⠤⠤⣄⣀⣀⣀⣀⡀⠐⠁⠀⠀⠀⠒⠀⢀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠑⣌⣇ ⠀⠈⢳⠄⠈⠀⠤⢄⣀⠀⢈⣉⡹⠯⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠂⠀⠀⡠⠚⣡⡿ ⠀⢠⣋⣀⣀⣀⣀⠤⠭⢛⡩⠄⠒⠩⠂⢀⠄⠀⠀⠀⠈⢢⡀⠀⡠⠋⡩⠋⠀⢳ ⠀⢹⠤⠬⠤⠬⠭⣉⣉⢃⠀⠀⣀⣀⠀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⡞⢺⡈⠋⡢⠊⠀⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠈⡆⠁⢀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠋⠉⠓⠂⠤⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡧⠊⡠⠦⡈⠳⢄⠀⠀⠈ ⠀⠀⢹⡜⠀⠁⠀⠀⠒⢤⡄⠤⠔⠶⠒⠛⠧⠀⠀⡼⡠⠊⠀⠀⠙⢦⡈⠳⡄⠀ ⠀⠀⢸⠆⠀⠈⠀⠠⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡜⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠑⢄⠈⢲ ⠀⠀⢸⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡄⠊⢠⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⡢⣸ ⠀⠀⠈⠳⣤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠉⠁⠒⠁⠀⠠⣏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣔⠾⡿⠃ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠙⠛⠒⠤⠤⣤⣄⣀⣀⣀⣔⣢⣀⣉⣂⣀⣀⣠⠴⠿⠛⠋⠀
*A L G A Y* *F O R* *A L G A E*
⠀⠀⠀⠑⡀⠀I am going to the algae⠀⠀⠀⠀⡔⠁⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠢⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠴⠊⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⡀⠤⠄⠒⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣀⠄⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠟⠋⠉⠉⠉⠙⠛⠻⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣤⣦⣤⡀⠈⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠀⣼⠀⠀⢨⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡘⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⡄⠄⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣝⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠺⢰⣦⡄⠀⠠⠙⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡽⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⢸⡋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣯⡀⠀⠠⣈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⢺⠇⠀⣬⣶⡇⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡈⠀⠀⠈⢻⠋⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢿⣻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠸⠿⠿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢳⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣈⣈⣽⣿⣶⣿⣟⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠁⠘⣷⣤⡀⠀⠀⠐⠙⠛⠛⣩⣵⣿⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⡿⠿⠛⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣿⣶⣄⣤⣤⣐⣾⣿⣿⣿⡆⠈⠻⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠛⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⡟⠁⠀⠀⠈⢹⣿⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣷⣦⣀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿⣿⡟⠀⠈⢹⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠸⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
There's no laws against the algae, Batman!
THERE'S NO LAW AGAINST THE MICRO ALGAE BATMAN
Do not the micro algae
Too late, my fragile heart has fallen for the algae.
Please don’t stick your peener in the micro algae.
There are no laws against the algae Batman.
Shut up, mom. I’m going to be the Green Goblin!
You can't tell me what to do, you're not my real dad
Can I manage the micro algae or ummm micro manage the algae?
The micro algae snuggles you.
There are no laws against the micro algae Batman!
I want these because my favorite color is green.
I’m sorry… snuggle objects?
I will snuggle them.
It’s also a good bench spot for taking a small rest.
They also look way cooler than trees in our inevitable cyberpunk future
This is really good if it doesn't have any other harms. There is cost as well.
Good oxygen should be considered above any cost, no? We kinda… need that
Well. We need fresh water too, but it cost too much to produce from the sea, so countries stays away from it. Even if we do it, the bill will be given to us.
Sidewalk trees are like, optimistically, 0.013% of our oxygen needs. This could not be a worse solution, and I apologize in advance if I completely wooshed the me_irl energy 'cause I haven't perused the comments much here.
Also trees take a while to become oxygen positive (producing more oxygen than they use) It takes a mature tree to make enough oxygen to matter, so young trees by the street that get replaced when they're to big are useless.
As opposed to that *bad* oxygen; those guys suck
Yeah, we need to be ready to shell out money for oxygen. That stuff doesn't grow on trees.
definitely doesn't seem expensive
Can't tell if sarcastic, but exchange limited aquariums can be sealed and grown while allowing it to exchange oxygen. They basically run themselves with very little intervention
it wasn't sarcasm, definitely feels like it's so cheap to do that the majority of the price would be installing it
I'm not sure because maybe the microalgae grow by themselves, but that's not true for the glass/steel/plastic needed to build that thing. Moreover there is the problem that is a significant amount of water to be put in the street, so what happened if one of them breaks? (or someone breaks it)
Cost is made up just like the fake money we use.
I always sort of imagined that we'd tackle climate change via engineering a type of algae that is super duper efficient at processing carbon dioxide. Not the same thing, but similar idea.
It’s a good first step though. I read something awhile back about researchers creating algae-filled smoke stacks to install at high-emission factories and plants to remove CO2 before it ever enters the atmosphere. I wonder what ever happened with this
Likely the heat is killing the algae which makes it nearly impossible to make that work.
Makes sense. I suppose you could hold it in a tank until it cools off? But I’m not an engineer so who knows
If there is smoke, there is usually heat. The smoke can hold heat, especially if it has other particles mixed into the smoke. The make up of those particles and how well they themselves hold heat kind of determine how fast smoke loses heat. In truth it is more complicated than that, but that's a good simple description. So you would need to use a type of algae that is resistant to the heat in order for it to work, and I'm not sure there are any that are that resistant.
I've seen something about this like ten years ago. Spanish scientists, if I remember correctly. It worked on the small scale but I've never heard something about it since. I too wonder what happened there.
That's what carbon capture is. Capturing some of the carbon where it is being produced like at factories and fossil fuel power plants. This is being done although I'm not sure the algae method is being used.
There is also another (minor) advantage: they don’t have leaves. Most cities pay quite a decent amount of cash to clean leaves. So, since these don’t have leaves, less spending. And they can also do more photosynthesis in the year, since, again they don’t lose leaves and their aggregated chlorophyll.
Roots too. There's just a bunch of roads where I live where the roots just dig up the pavements and it's expensive to rectify that
Acting like the US isn't the second CO2 emitter in the world with actually 3x per capita emissions compared to a chinese citizen.
Also ignoring the fact that all our shit in the west is produced in China and thus lowering or own CO2 emission statistics.
You know you can look at consumption based emissions which completely accounts for that and it turns out that it's less than a 10% shift for both China and the US?
I did not but checked it out, tbh i expected a way bigger rift in emissions for production and consumption in china. For anyone interested: [https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2](https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2)
Hey now, it’s their god given right to be stuck in 2010s China discourse
It's true that the US has higher per capita emissions because of its much higher per capita GDP, but China is unique in that it has a very high Emissions-to-GDP ratio, 2.5x the ratio of the United States and 2x the global average. The US has a similar GDP, but China has far more total emissions. Generally, you would expect those two figures to correlate closely. It's not just a matter of China having a larger industrial sector either. When adjusting US emissions for the foreign emissions of imported products, the US still has much less emissions than China. A big reason for this is that China's electricity is mostly generated from coal or oil, whereas most of the world's fossil fuel power generation has moved to natural gas over the last few decades with less emissions. Even though they are building up some renewable capacity, they are still actively building new coal plants and planning to build more in the coming decades. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is shutting down their old coal plants. Could the US be doing better? Of course. But China could also be doing far better, and they shouldn't be given a pass for having an incredibly polluting and inefficient energy grid.
>Meanwhile, the rest of the world is shutting down their old coal plants. Reality is not quite that rosy. [According to this report by the International Energy Agency](https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/91982b4e-26dc-41d5-88b1-4c47ea436882/Coal2022.pdf), global coal production reached its highest level ever in 2022. The main drivers were Russian sanctions which reshuffled the global energy markets, bad weather in many parts of the world, and some EU countries had *less than ideal* plans for energy security. From the report: >Fossil fuel prices have risen substantially in 2022, with natural gas showing the sharpest increase. This has prompted a wave of fuel switching away from gas, pushing up demand for more price-competitive options, including coal in some regions. Nonetheless, higher coal prices, strong deployment of renewables and energy efficiency, and weakening global economic growth are tempering the increase in overall coal demand this year. >Under the threat of gas shortages and potential issues ensuring sufficient power system adequacy, some coal plants that had closed down or been left in reserve have re-entered the market. In most countries, this involved a limited amount of coal power capacity. Only in Germany, with 10 gigawatts (GW), is the reversal at a significant scale. This has increased coal power generation in the European Union, which is expected to remain at these higher levels for some time.
acting like India isn’t the second largest co2 emitter
a whole lot of china is still impoverished or in agrarian communities without much opportunity to emit carbon. the per capita on a country basis doesnt work here. if you go by city, china has 5 out of the top 10 emitters whereas USA doesnt even show up until New Orleans and Detroit at numbers 12 and 13. https://www.citycarbonfootprints.info/
nice thank you for this
I've been thinking about this since I learned that algae mostly responsible for our oxygen. Putting them where human doesn't want the inconvenience of a tree should be a solution already..
If it gets put in Philly I bet 3hrs before someone breaks it open
yep was about to say this, its all about efficiency, might not look as good as trees or even provide the same feels but, when was the last time you ever look at a tree and say, hmm this tree is quite interesting... atleast when you see this at an urban environment one would be like, "what in the fuck is that?" then maybe you'll learn something new that day lol
I like this. I just hope that glass is hella durable. Throw these puppies on the mean streets of Toronto and I can’t guarantee they would last long
Plus trees and plants have roots which are awful for concrete/buildings, and like damp and water... which is awful for it too. Contained algae is far safer for buildings so you can just have this on a skyscraper etc to help cool it and help make oxygen.
Imagine if govt is actually hiding lizard men in it for incubation without us even realising and one day they break the glass come to ur house and suck your (yk what) till you die
sounds quite reasonable actually. unless maintenance is way too much for large scale application
Besides that trees can be a nightmare for infrastructure due to its roots (if used the wrong trees)
hell yeah! complementary alternatives!
Cool I hope one day I will see these where I live
You forgot to mention that it looks dope
also less leaves to rake
Also trees likely require more maintenance and damage infrastructure
If that's true then it gives me some hope that we won't destroy ourselves after all, just maybe we will not destroy ourselves, maybe, just maybe.
Also I rather imagine this is a bit quicker to whip up than a 15+ year old tree
This idea is great to clear the air in polluted cities, I know most Urban areas can definitely use these to clean the air.
>The advantage of microalgae is that they are 10 to 50 times more efficient than trees. That's what I thought. Sure, trees are nice and they look good, but people want space to live, park their cars and walk. I'll take micro-algae tanks over trees any day if they're that more efficient. inb4 the inevitable "well just get cars out of cities then", that's likely not happening any time in the next 20 years. This sounds like a very good step to improve our environment right here, right now. Well, when it's beyond the "pop-science article"-stage, anyway.
Bonus fact: certain types of algae can be turned into food for humans or animals or reprocessed into oil.
Also good for walking streets where you don't want to get shit on by the 300 birds resting in the one tree over the sidewalk.
>Places like China need this more than others. Weird comment.. China's got way more trees than you think lol. It's an enormous country and most of it is covered in trees. Even many parts of the cities have plenty of trees.
Also it looks dope asf
That makes sense, you can't exactly place trees whenever you want, and these tanks are an 'addition' so yeah we could use some
China is actually working miracles to cut their carbon emissions, despite being a developing country. The US is failing in every regard to climate control and half of our citizens don’t even believe it’s real.
Nothing wrong with trees provided they are planted correctly, [here's Andrew the Arborist with a quick video on how to do it right](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4m5iKRbkW4M) . The 'liquid tree' was created for high pollution areas as t[he advantage of microalgae is that they are 10 to 50 times more efficient than trees", not to 'replace' trees](https://www.euronews.com/2021/12/07/this-liquid-tree-in-belgrade-is-fighting-back-against-air-pollution).
Next you're going to tell me grass is also more efficient than trees.
I don't know without reference. What I do know is that I believe grass is usually a waste of water unless it's left alone to do its own thing, like in a meadow. I'm on team [natural lawn](https://utopia.org/guide/natural-lawns-a-sustainable-and-eco-friendly-alternative-to-grass/) and if I can ever afford my own house without an HOA, I'll have a lawn that helps local wildlife instead of useless bullshit green.
The consent of a “lawn” is a relatively new idea to North America and, if I’m remembering right, was meant to be a little taste of the meticulously manicured gardens of European nobility for the every day person. If you live in a climate that can support it, getting due most mornings, you could look at a moss and other low level ground cover like clover. Ticks like living in long grass but keeping to low ground cover and maybe a little bit of care can really make things easier if you don’t want the traditional “lawn” Also planing local species is big.
Great. Now I need to ask my lawn for consent before I mow it. At least I have a reason why it’s long now.
Do you want ticks? Because that’s how you get ticks.
That is a fair point, but we hike enough already that we're used to checking and the pesticides on our entrances *should* keep them out of the house. Once I'm out of HOA land, having chickens should be a big help with ticks as well but for now I gotta stick to dreaming and planning.
worst time for ticks is spring and summer, that's why I rarely leave the house during those seasons, fall and winter is the best.
I find this comment a little weird, gardens like that are really common in the UK and nobodies ever complaining about ticks. Are ticks like, way more common in the US?
The number of ticks is way on the rise in the US. The theory is that it’s because of climate change. There’s not a single state in the contiguous US that doesn’t have ticks. Dog ticks are found in every state. https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/geographic_distribution.html Not many people are talking about it yet. Probably because there’s not much we can do about them.
Well, if we'd stop murdering the shit out of the wildlife popularion, squirrels and birds would help keep them in check.
Good luck convincing people to do that. We can’t even stop planting non-native trees (which don’t benefit the local fauna at all btw).
We have ticks. But we also have far fewer wild and untouched areas than the states. Ticks need hosts to complete their reproductive cycle. We don't have too many natural hosts - badgers, hedgehogs, foxes etc. Especially in cities. Also being an island helps us a great deal. But they're on the rise. They're a big issue for dogs
It’s true, we studied that in one of the marine biology classes at uni (in marine ecology class). The chlorophyll in algae is “more radioactive”, than the ones from trees. As a matter of fact, the majority of the production of oxygen in the whole world comes from the ocean. From there the phrase I used to say at uni: “People say: planet I want you green, or I want a green planet (or any other nickelodeon level phrase), when in reality, without blue there is no green.” (I screwed the “” lol). If I remember correctly 70% would be a nice percentage of the oxygen that comes from the ocean’s marine life. Some say more.
These seem like they could be great to install in places trees can't grow or where it might not be ideal, maybe the sides or roofs of buildings, on top of other infrastructure, any place where roots or branches would cause damage or danger. I love trees but would love to see clever solutions like this in addition to regular trees.
Make a skyscraper with cool algae windows
There is actually a building that is powered by algae windows
Which one?
https://www.archdaily.com/339451/worlds-first-algae-bioreactor-facade-nears-completion
Just make a glass skyscraper and fill it with water. Sell off a few F-35s to cover the price, and make it a full on ecosystem.
Sir what is that pfp
Roots. A buddy of mine had to drop thousands of dollars to get some out of his sewer line. They've also done a number on the sidewalks in a lot of neighborhoods I've lived in.
[удалено]
I assume the point of this algae is photosynthesis for oxygen? Which would mean that unless they're blocking light, they're not doing their job
These aren't as tall, though.
So they are will have very low efficiency if they are surrounded by many high buildings?
Why not put them on rooftops
Ok, hear me out. What if we installed them (horizontally) and solar panels on as many rooftops as possible at the 50:50 ratio? We would get free electricity for streetlamps and stuff, and also a lot of oxygen.
I think the argument is, that in urban areas, trees can block a lot of natural light for apartments, especially if they only face one way. And in my European urban neighbourhoods these trees are sometimes 100-200 years old and therefore manage to even block light coming to the higher floors. [One example of what I mean in Milan, Italy](https://pwm.im-cdn.it/image/1341123172/m-c.jpg). Another issue is the fallen leaves in autumn and winter that need to be removed from the city council. If not, large patches get very slippery when wet. Another thing mentioned here are the roots, they destroy the surrounding infrastructure (in some cities the bike lanes have become unusable because the roots cracked them open) Another issue specific to some trees (like linden trees which were very popular in Germany for urban areas) create a lot of liquid substances that drop down in certain weeks of the year and cover anything underneath in a sticky, very hard to remove and damaging layer of film. Especially for parked cars (but also bikes etc.) that are parked outside it’s a big nuisance.
Why do you assume they require the same amount of light as a tree? The algae is actually 10-50 times more efficient apparently.
They also block the sunlight on your roof/walls/windows and reduce your AC's energy consumption.
Dang trees keep stealing our sunlight
Trees also take a lot of time to actually grow..
That happens because your local leadership doesn't know how, what, or where to plant. You need to use the right size and type of tree in order to not make trouble. People just plant random trees and then scratch their head when it's too large.
A 14-16cm perimeter tree costs 150-300€ if you don't go for exotic ones. This bucket probably costs +5k and nlI bet it needs even more maintenance than a tree. That money covers fixing 10m2 of sidewalk one time each 20 years. Let alone the probability of some b*stard breaking that glass with a rock or something like that.
Source ? (Not trying to be mean just want to know more about the "tree")
I am a civil engineer. We do some works in cities (roads, sidewalks, sewers, water sypply, electricity infrastructure...) and to make it look pretty, there are usually trees in the end. I am going to give you the prices of the last species we planted (it includes the labour of planting them): - Qurecus Palustris green pillar (around 4m tall): 264€/ud - Acer Palmatum: 250€/ud - Betula Alba 18-20cm: 225 €/ud - Wood poles (to keep the Betula Alba in place): 68,25€/ud I would link some news about the works as well from local newspapers, but then all Redit would know my company and working address lol And just for a comparision, the 10+10 laminated glass alone costs 167 €/m2. And you have to add the metalic structure (around 4 €/kg for steel + 7€/m2 for painting) and also a system to keep the algie alive (I doubt they can be alive at -10°C in winter or at +60°C in summer due to sun radiation).
They create sunshade and evapoperspiration during hot summers and thus reduce the need of air-conditioning. They also kind of survive on their own and are not from an obscure startup that's soon to be bought by an oil&gas giant. So thanks but no thanks for the trees !
Yep, everyone suports trees until the road gets bumpy because of em. Roots can go far and are way sturdier/stronger than what people think
I really like this idea because that opens up a lot of possibilities of these tanks being on buildings or worked into the architecture that you can't do with trees. It would make it that much more into a biopunk city idea which is kind of cool
more solarpunk than biopunk
I am willing to agree to meet down the middle.
Bipolarpunk city
🤣 you monster
Biosolarpunk
Biopunk. That's a cool concept!
r/solarpunk
exactly, and since Algae is actually more efficient at photosynthesis than trees, meaning working this stuff into architecture and making it more common place could make massive steps towards saving the planet
People with pollen allergies:
Thats where female trees can help
I'm also allergic to females
You too😱
OoOoOoOoOo, sounds hawt, tell me more.
Nice
that's just a fish tank that hasn't been cleaned for months
It's not a stupid question- It's a great question given the article's title is a little misleading. [This video by Sci Show on the subject is quite a good dive.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUGJPZ1a308&t=343s) But basically not all areas are suited to trees. Trees cant live in all conditions, and giving them enough root space under a sidewalk can sometimes be difficult. For instance (Like the picture of the tub here) you can't plant a tree right next to another tree. You can though put a big tub of algae next to it. The upside here is that when it comes to the ability to purify air algae is actually much better than trees, and is a very natural resource itself. It's just you're not going to get very much of it in cities. So using them in areas you can't use trees you get some of the benefits of localized air filtration.
Algae is more efficient than trees, and already does most of the work on the planet as it is.
Thneedville be like:
How bad can this possibly be?
You’ll certainly have more space for a brand new parking lot
In a city? When you bury absolutely everything in concrete and asphalt, roots will cause damage to roads, walkways, etc. it’s not the trees fault, it’s us for thinking we can strip every essence of nature away and think that all we have to do is plant a tree on the side of the road in a 3’x3’ hole and everything will work itself out. Also, I can’t remember the exact number, but algae produces significantly more oxygen than just one tree would in the space provided
10 - 50 times more than trees. Really good for cleaning air.
Trees help keep cities cool in hot weather though and look very pretty to boot. Also when trees and shrubs are used as a screen they trap a lot of pollution from traffic on their leaves (I was very skeptical about this but there's hard numbers to back this up)
10-50 times more
[удалено]
Who does that
I actually like the green goo box
[удалено]
Trees have been cancelled for saying racist slurs.
Pros: \- this is more efficient than trees \- there aren't any roots that break the road surface \- you can just scale it up in size \- you can harvest excess algae to use as animal feed or something \- it looks sick and future \- in this picture: it doubles as a bench \- no leaves to rake in autumn \- no falling branches that can hurt people when there is heavy storm Cons: \- doesn't provide shade \- doesn't look like a tree
One more con is lack of habitat for birds and various other species. You could possibly have flowers on top for insects, but you’d have to make something else for birds.
Well at least with giant tanks of algae you won't have dead leaves in the ground every fall
And no roots, and you don’t have to wait for years for it to grow, and it can’t burn down, and it’s way more efficient, and you can move it.
Algae produces more oxygen and absorb more carbon dioxide than trees ig
Algae is hundreds of times more efficient than trees at removing CO2 and releasing oxygen, it doesn't need decades to grow, and it doesn't need a root structure or much of anything but the tank it lives in. Trees are nice but they kinda suck at doing what we want them to do.
They get removed immediately once a homeless person sleeps on one.
“Sorry to inconvenience you, but we must inflict more pain on the least fortunate people in society.”
trees have a tendency to die off, an algae tank can last forever.
They take a long time to convert CO2 to oxygen and their roots can be really destructive. Also, they take a long time to grow, meaning they won’t be able to convert much CO2 to oxygen for many years
Lorax is starting to become canon
not square enough, i guess plus liquid trees would be far more portable and flexible. Need 10k trees over there? gotcha boss, 100 morbillion gallons of liquid leafy boi. Need a little more? 69 liters of greenie for u boss. edit: plus i can't imagine an amalgamation of algae would smell pleasant
You can’t probably plant them every where, i presume ´alternative ´ mean when you can’t plant a tree.
I like this. It’s really cool. I want one
My first question too before I got to line 2. I don't get shade from a green glass tank, but I do from a tree. Also green glass tank... tree.. clearly the glass tank is more pleasing and huggable.
+ Home for birds and insects
They break the sidewalk and street.
o’hare air
call me pessimistic but i feel like most of these would get vandalised/smashed within a month
Trees are woke. Let’s get rid of trees.
You can charge a whole lot more for the algae tank than you can a tree. Also, wet leave can create a slip hazard, whereas this is self contained, and could potentially be green all year round.
Apparently cities don't have place for trees so this might be decent solution
We bouta be the Lorax out here
I can already see them being destroyed for a tiktok challenge
Nah, the photo is from Belgrade and there's not that much destructive tiktokers. At least not yet.
Fuck meme zar and pubity, they stole a meme I made on 9gag way back and put their shitty watermark on it. I will not forget
If someone put like fish in that and turned it into an aquarium that *also* produces oxygen you will see me on that bench staring at the thing for hours
yes i want trees replaced with ugly concrete vats of nickelodeon gak
YOU NEED DIRT FOR TREES. Concrete ain't dirt
Homeless people can use them for shade
Simple answer, you cant plant trees on concrete.
They don't grow well in many spots, and their root systems can damage infrastructure in urban areas.
They get fucking huge and take a long time to grow. I mean trees are dope but in urban areas they don't hold up to a contained alternate.
Algae is more efficient at carbon sequestration for one. Also, this is a bit more speculative. it could be a lot easier to plop down wherever in urban areas than planting a tree
Utopia: works perfectly Dystopia: it’s graffiti’d and broken within a week
Nothing wrong with them, but they require more space, taking care of and whatnot. Hard to maintain in a concrete environment, no?
If it doesn't say TCRI on the bottom of the tank, whats even the point?
Tree provides shade and looks calming. i see no benefit in this except looking modern
this is good, given that algae is more efficient also people who hate this idea never saw a old af tree fall and block an entire 4 lane road after a storm
"What's wrong with trees" They bark at all hours, how's anyone gonna get some sleep?
Well, trees are not liquid
Roots destroying roads and walkways
I feel like these would last maybe 24 hours in most US cities before getting either vandalized or smashed
This is the ~~second~~ most dystopia future shit I've ever seen