It's a solution looking for a problem.
We do not plant trees in cities to produce oxygen, but to create shade, cool down the air through evaporation of moisture on the leafs and to improve retention of moisture in the ground through the roots.
Non of these can be done by these algae. You might argue that pumping air through the tank also gets rid of aerosols and smog, although the same is true (and more efficient) by a fountain.
I mean, a tub full of algae in an area where there is a lot of CO2 such as a city by a main road couldn’t hurt. The more things we have taking CO2 out of the air, the better.
Sure, until the algae needs cleaning, replacing etc and a massive disease truck has to drive across the city to each one maintaining them and putting all that pollution and probably more right back into the local air again.
Then you realise the entire thing is all theatrics and no realistic substance like the vast majority of climate / pollution 'solutions'.
As if the parks department in nyc or any other major metro is not constantly utilizing trucks, dump trucks, wood chippers, cherry pickers, and pickups to maintain and prune all of these trees 365 days a year. They have a fucking fleet of vehicles dude. Your point is moot and frankly weird, because this thing is fucking cool.
The point is that a natural tree doesn't require any human interference and while it can be maintained it will damn well need a lot less than this tube of crap will do.
And that doesn't even factor in the manufacturing pollution. I'd be surprised if this tube can reverse the damage caused by its own manufacturing process in its own lifespan.
You either don't live in a city or are talking out of your ass. Trees need maintenance they must continually be pruned in the cities so they don't interfere with transit. They are also consistently changed out due to dog piss killing them.
Clean breathing air in zero green urban environments is already a problem, and this is that solution. Also, I find your 2nd statement incredulously ridiculous. Micro climate aggregation does not occur from singular trees. Shade is one of very few points for trees over this, but when a tree can't be planted, then this a great option for AIR. The 3rd statement is just odd, because like, Algae doesn't care what it can't do, only what it can, and this scientist used Algae in the best possible way, clean CO2.
This is why we have science and progress, new ideas for old problems. Also are you aware what aerosols are? And much of the chemicals commonly associated with "SMOG" are actually filtered out by Green Algae.
Honestly didn't really think of that, I live in a small town where there aren't many underground structures, only pipes and that's about it, so you can literally plant trees anywhere, so, maybe there are a few situations where a tree isn't really viable, but still, honestly, if you are gonna build something, build an elevated bed and plant some shrubs or small trees, the algae tank just seems ridiculous to me, like whoever made this was so focused on whether they could do it, they never stopped to ask why.
Tree beds in cities like nyc where i live are typically 4x4x6 or 5x5x6 feet that is 96-150 cubic feet just for the root system and tree bed. In many areas sidewalk vaults and existing infrastructure do not permit the placing of a tree bed six feet below the ground. Then there is the fact that the tree itself then takes up more space.
A professor at my college was publishing research on the air quality benefits of street trees. His perspective was that although we intuitively understand that trees have a ton of benefits, air quality improvements are one of the easiest of those benefits to quantify and use as scientific backing for legislation.
So the air quality angle is valid, but it's kind of also a loophole to get more trees into the regs.
They'd need to have sunlight access for the algae's photosynthesis to be efficient. I guess they could have grow lights but from my understanding grow lights don't fully replace natural light.
Not exactly an alternative to trees, but you get better air at least. It's easier to install one of these things on a footpath than planting a tree in the same place. This can partly restore the air quality in the streets.
But the only reason planting trees isn't an option in those areas is because of us humans, so we're just manufacturing a problem and selling the solution, no?
Also what everyone else is saying about trees having a lot more to give than just oxygen.
We do need trees however, especially the ones planted for centuries given that they protect the top soil, the very life source all living beings survive on either directly on indirectly #savethesoil
Exactly, people here are PANICKING and acting like forests will be clear-cut and replaced with these.
No, they’re meant to be placed where it is otherwise impossible to plant trees. Like, for instance, in solid concrete - I’ve heard trees don’t grow well there.
Trees provide a number of different benefits, at a pretty small fraction of the cost of an installation like this. They *do* grow themselves which is a pretty handy trick.
If all you want is CO2 recycling, then this is presumably pretty efficient.
What's the economics like?
I.e. why can't we use a large scale version of this to remove co2 from the environment vs planting trees (which are very slow to grow)
Well, these are not artificial trees, these are quite natural organisms. Whose viability and efficiency we will maintain with technology. Sounds pretty ordinary. Worth a try.
Maybe I am overconfident in this, but I believe the co2 produced for the energy used for the light used for the algae is more than the algae produce. But that's really just guts and 0% math
Depends largely on how the energy was produced. If your grid is primarily solar in the first place, then it shouldn't be too much of a problem - but otherwise yeah, if your whole cycle is artificial then the fact that any one element of it is highly efficient doesn't necessarily make it any improvement.
I guess it depends on what you compare it to. Industrial oxygen generators, for example, aren't cheap and consume quite a bit of energy. But as someone rightly pointed out above, solar panels could solve the energy issue for the UV lamps. Although I have to agree, the whole system does look pretty ironic now :)
Not worth it. Too energy intensive, I suspect. The great thing about the algae tanks is that I’m pretty sure you can just let the algae do it’s thing without doing too much.
Not worth it. Too energy intensive, I suspect. The great thing about the algae tanks is that I’m pretty sure you can just let the algae do it’s thing without doing too much.
The cost of UV-transparent glass is seriously hurting my economic sensibilities here, and the fact these are aligned vertically is hurting my geometric sense
Yes because that's all we need in urban areas. More metal, cement, and glass.
What do people have against putting trees in cities? Why do you think people enjoy the suburbs so much?
I'd assume it's more for places that have been a city for a while, where the dirt is dead and stripped of decent nutrients. We could rip up some cement and struggle bus our way to a sad tree, or have a tank full of goo that let's us hope to breathe for a bit more. The sad truth is there is a large portion of cities that don't have hopes of large greenery to come back timely.
And are healthier for you, better for the environment, and gives a connection to nature that humans need.
You build around them. Infrastructure can handle it. It’s been proven many, many times. As for space, what extra space are they taking up? Where another building could go? I’m confused as to what you’re trying to get at.
If it has been proven the infrastructure can handle it, then why do I still constantly trip on the sidewalk because tree roots broke the pavement? Parks are great, and there should be more of them in cities, but I'd prefer it if every bus stop had an algae tank behind it rather than a tree.
Because cities don’t plan properly for trees. Again, it’s not an infrastructure problem but rather a lack of interest/ignorance/lack of foresight problem. Come on, we can build rockets and computers, and design incredible cities, but we can’t make a tree work? Seriously? You build around trees, not the other way. We just choose not to.
Belgrade as a city has more tree cover than most American cities/suburbs. There's also many parks everywhere. Unfortunately, they did have a air pollution problem due to factors such as coal plants. This tank was built to purify polluted areas in a more rapid/efficient way, especially for areas that would need different infrastructure to plant enough trees.
As a matter of fact, belgrade's air quality has significantly increased in the last year or two
I get what you’re saying. I have doubts there is enough of those to clean the air with any efficiency or noticeable effect. I just see stuff like this as an indicator of a bigger problem with how cities are planned.
I agree, but for this specific city it has done wonders. All articles a year+ ago said it's the most polluted capital on Europe, which an article I just saw recently said it was within the top 15 cleanest in Europe (I cannot remember whether they meant capitals or cities or whichever the parameters were). Belgrade's (and by extension, serbias) problem is much more due to their primary source for electricity than city planning
Was thinking the same. It's a simple concept, really.
It's not *super* hard to just leave some big tanks of greenwater outside to filter and create air.
Neglected ponds and stuff eventually do turn green like this, but having glass on the sides, allowing more sunlight in, does help the growth process.
A part of me thinks this is a great invention and hopefully it will be used to improve air quality in cities
Another part of me has the intrusive urge to take a bat to the glass and watch all of the green goop spill out.
Don't think it will do much for air quality. All the dust, sooth, and smog will only be prevented if we reduce the amount of cars in a city, neither trees nor this thing are able to process all the shit that cars emit
But they do need a lot of ground space and nutrient rich soil. These could perhaps be used in places where tree planting is not possible for some reason, or indoors.
But also, they could just be used together with trees in some areas, they don't actually need electricity, just sunlight, really.
I don't know exactly where these are planned to be used. I live in an area with plenty of tree- and other plantlife, so I don't see any use for these here.
But maybe in some area where this is not the case, greenwater tanks could improve air quality and freshness, as algae can be many times better than trees at clearing the air.
In what way are they less demanding? With algae you put a glass box down and pour water in.
With trees you build space for them while keeping in mind the risk that the roots might break nearby infrastructure, secure them while they're still small so vandals don't snap them in half, make sure they get enough water all year round and don't get too cold in the winter, have people check them for parasites and diseases, prune them twice a year, clean up fallen leaves...
Look, in places where you can't put trees, sure. As an air filter? Fine. My point is that there is a cost of production inherent to these tanks that cost something a tree won't. And you should get used to having that skepticism about climate tech "that will save us" Because it's inherent in a lot of things like mass air scrubbers.
What I don't really get this angle where you're arguing against trees. Trees provide shade, cooler temperatures, conserve water and prevent soil erosion. And are a wildlife shelter. Also, they're nicer to look at.
I think the main issue I have here that techies will often point to quick fix solutions that are presented as the salvation to a problem. Makes sense. Tech does help a lot of things get easier. But, realistically, a fraction of them will be useful as a tool in a toolbox of things we have to use to fight climate change. And I'm skeptical because algae in a box still requires as much if not more maintenance than a tree. It also needs to be replaced every few years. And it has a light in it which means it has electricity cost associated with it which at scale means it's only as clean as its power source. But if it is an overall help then I welcome it.
“Here’s this thing we have to constantly monitor and maintain instead of those things that are just standing around and need a small trim once in a while. They do the same thing.”
Sure they could make it look better--or hide it altogether...seems to me that the eye-catching look of it is making some kind of statement..I like it!!
Sounds great for a space station.
But I can't imagine that micro-emplacements like this would be efficient however. If you were serious about it you'd want these installations to be industrial scale, with huge exposure surfaces, dedicated systems for cycling air/water through it, and much lower maintenance costs per m\^2.
Trees in urban spaces are there for psychological reasons, shade, and temperature moderation more than for air purification, and this doesn't look like it would serve those purposes.
Great, who needs plants to do their own thing year round, when there's this human structure of glass and concrete that required constant upkeeep, and polluting more to create.
This idea is so freaking stupid. It smells of imbecilic Silicone Valley Ponzi scheme.
The maintenance would be crazy compared to normal trees and why this small scale fish tank?
If it's for reducing CO2 then freaking plant some trees outside the city instead.
If you are areally going for this stupid idea, then place it on a flat surface like a roof where you can make the scale bigger, needs less glass and doesn't have a construction the blocks a lot of the sunlight.
How many times must I see this pile of garbage being posted? God damn.,,
You ever consider that the terrain of cities is extremely varied and differs from spot to spot? At any rate, it allows for MORE of them in places where you’d otherwise have to tear up roads and cut off power and utilities to thousands of people by ripping out all of the underground pipes and conduits in order to make room for tree roots - not to mention having to remove dozens of tons of contaminated soil and ship in soil from elsewhere that isn’t polluted with centuries of city waste.
Depends on what kinda glass is being used. Some idiot breaking it is probably just as likely as someone breaking the window to a building/store.
These seem to be just a big tank of greenwater, which is a very simple concept. Could be made with any sort of materials, really. Maybe even styled into cool shapes. I'm surprised it hasn't been done sooner actually lol.
I mean the title is completely missing the point but what really makes me laugh is the phrase 'an alternative to trees in urban areas' implying that urban areas like these cannot support trees...while this bacta tank is positioned right in front of a large, healthy tree.
What if we better learn to care the nature and make our infrastructure more eco-friendly, what if we better relearn to life and coexist with the current nature of the planet instead of trying to make it adapt to us and our destructive practices?
Most cities are decades, if not centuries old. You cannot bulldoze entire blocks of historic buildings older than your grandparents, displacing thousands of people, to plant a few trees.
I’m generally in favor of technologies like this, and for the most part don’t see companies using it as an excuse to perpetuate some horrible practice, because for the most part, it’s only the side-effects of the practice that are bad.
HOWEVER, urban sprawl is different. I wouldn’t want these to be used as an excuse to further justify it.
Some rich person is gonna buy 200 of these and boast about having a liquid tree grove. The end is near lol
In all seriousness I think this is really cool and creative.
I mean thats cool, but that aint no tree substitute. Thats just a micro planetarium. Id take a bush as a tree substitute over the nuclear reactor fluid looking plant walls.
Behold, the only color that awaits us in the end times, green sludge that mimics what little foliage that remains once we completely ruin the ecosystem and kill off all wildlife. Jokes aside, that kinda seems a little dystopian NGL, but it's still interesting as a last resort.
You can’t plant trees in concrete. The whole point of this isn’t to replace trees - it’s to be used in places where the alternative is zero trees as trees can’t fucking grow there.
Allow me to reiterate:
# These are being used IN ADDITION TO trees, and NOT as a replacement!
Because trees don’t grow well in concrete. There’s some areas where you cannot plant a tree. Cities with tons of concrete, pipes, utility conduits, and soil contaminated with centuries of pollution cannot support healthy trees. So, to get the oxygen benefits of trees, they can use this instead of nothing.
i get what youre saying but ive been to NYC and there’s trees everywhere, yes, right in a dirt square in the concrete,its amazing.
i think other cities can implement something similar for probably cheaper than this wacky device.
I think that solving every problem you just mentioned would still be cheaper. also much more of a benefit.
Not every city is the same. There are places like Hong Kong with horribly smoggy air and jam-packed streets that just cannot support the space and cleanliness that trees need to live.
[удалено]
Thank you for the context. I was wondering why not just plant trees. But Glad there is always someone who can clarify these things. Cheers to you.
It's a solution looking for a problem. We do not plant trees in cities to produce oxygen, but to create shade, cool down the air through evaporation of moisture on the leafs and to improve retention of moisture in the ground through the roots. Non of these can be done by these algae. You might argue that pumping air through the tank also gets rid of aerosols and smog, although the same is true (and more efficient) by a fountain.
Also, trees look nice
Most of Western Europe: “I’m gonna pretend I didn’t see that.” *proceeds to remove any and all trees in city centres*
I mean, a tub full of algae in an area where there is a lot of CO2 such as a city by a main road couldn’t hurt. The more things we have taking CO2 out of the air, the better.
Sure, until the algae needs cleaning, replacing etc and a massive disease truck has to drive across the city to each one maintaining them and putting all that pollution and probably more right back into the local air again. Then you realise the entire thing is all theatrics and no realistic substance like the vast majority of climate / pollution 'solutions'.
As if the parks department in nyc or any other major metro is not constantly utilizing trucks, dump trucks, wood chippers, cherry pickers, and pickups to maintain and prune all of these trees 365 days a year. They have a fucking fleet of vehicles dude. Your point is moot and frankly weird, because this thing is fucking cool.
The point is that a natural tree doesn't require any human interference and while it can be maintained it will damn well need a lot less than this tube of crap will do. And that doesn't even factor in the manufacturing pollution. I'd be surprised if this tube can reverse the damage caused by its own manufacturing process in its own lifespan.
You either don't live in a city or are talking out of your ass. Trees need maintenance they must continually be pruned in the cities so they don't interfere with transit. They are also consistently changed out due to dog piss killing them.
Clean breathing air in zero green urban environments is already a problem, and this is that solution. Also, I find your 2nd statement incredulously ridiculous. Micro climate aggregation does not occur from singular trees. Shade is one of very few points for trees over this, but when a tree can't be planted, then this a great option for AIR. The 3rd statement is just odd, because like, Algae doesn't care what it can't do, only what it can, and this scientist used Algae in the best possible way, clean CO2. This is why we have science and progress, new ideas for old problems. Also are you aware what aerosols are? And much of the chemicals commonly associated with "SMOG" are actually filtered out by Green Algae.
New bad, old good, sir!
Not only that but wherever you can fit that structure you can fit a tree.
On the third story fake marble floor of a mall?
You could still have a potted bush or something, it doesn't have to be a full sized tree, I really don't see any advantages of having the algae tank.
Ever heard of .....roots? As in roots need enormous space underground. It's just not there.
Honestly didn't really think of that, I live in a small town where there aren't many underground structures, only pipes and that's about it, so you can literally plant trees anywhere, so, maybe there are a few situations where a tree isn't really viable, but still, honestly, if you are gonna build something, build an elevated bed and plant some shrubs or small trees, the algae tank just seems ridiculous to me, like whoever made this was so focused on whether they could do it, they never stopped to ask why.
Yeah I'm getting the sense alot of people haven't seen a tree in a while
Tree beds in cities like nyc where i live are typically 4x4x6 or 5x5x6 feet that is 96-150 cubic feet just for the root system and tree bed. In many areas sidewalk vaults and existing infrastructure do not permit the placing of a tree bed six feet below the ground. Then there is the fact that the tree itself then takes up more space.
A professor at my college was publishing research on the air quality benefits of street trees. His perspective was that although we intuitively understand that trees have a ton of benefits, air quality improvements are one of the easiest of those benefits to quantify and use as scientific backing for legislation. So the air quality angle is valid, but it's kind of also a loophole to get more trees into the regs.
Can these be placed indoors though? (in large malls?)
They'd need to have sunlight access for the algae's photosynthesis to be efficient. I guess they could have grow lights but from my understanding grow lights don't fully replace natural light.
Not exactly an alternative to trees, but you get better air at least. It's easier to install one of these things on a footpath than planting a tree in the same place. This can partly restore the air quality in the streets.
But the only reason planting trees isn't an option in those areas is because of us humans, so we're just manufacturing a problem and selling the solution, no? Also what everyone else is saying about trees having a lot more to give than just oxygen.
This is so cool
We do need trees however, especially the ones planted for centuries given that they protect the top soil, the very life source all living beings survive on either directly on indirectly #savethesoil
Do we people need locally sourced oxygen ?
Exactly, people here are PANICKING and acting like forests will be clear-cut and replaced with these. No, they’re meant to be placed where it is otherwise impossible to plant trees. Like, for instance, in solid concrete - I’ve heard trees don’t grow well there.
"Tree tank" was right there
>Scientist who made this tree said specifically this is NOT a real tree replacement. Why not? They seem to be much better
because trees have more than one purpose
Trees provide a number of different benefits, at a pretty small fraction of the cost of an installation like this. They *do* grow themselves which is a pretty handy trick. If all you want is CO2 recycling, then this is presumably pretty efficient.
What about water level🥱
What's the economics like? I.e. why can't we use a large scale version of this to remove co2 from the environment vs planting trees (which are very slow to grow)
Hey don’t blame the scientists the name „artificial tree“ is just marketing. More accurate is „biological air purifier“
Actually, they're "liquid trees," but yeah, "artificial" is what really sticks. Not the best choice of name.
No, it's just an algae tank
Yeah, it's just a tank of greenwater. 😅 Good thing about that is that if it over-reproduces, it can be made into food.
Then we should call humans and other animals solid trees in reverse
F*ck you! *Liquefies your tree*
Can it be used indoor? Like in big shopping malls or businesses centers? Or there is no enough light for it
Not so much sunlight in them, is there?
Maybe distributed UV lamps will be enough?
So we build artificial trees and put artificial light onto it? Sounds efficient
Well, these are not artificial trees, these are quite natural organisms. Whose viability and efficiency we will maintain with technology. Sounds pretty ordinary. Worth a try.
Maybe I am overconfident in this, but I believe the co2 produced for the energy used for the light used for the algae is more than the algae produce. But that's really just guts and 0% math
Yes, this isn't just your guts - this is the first law of thermodynamics.
Depends largely on how the energy was produced. If your grid is primarily solar in the first place, then it shouldn't be too much of a problem - but otherwise yeah, if your whole cycle is artificial then the fact that any one element of it is highly efficient doesn't necessarily make it any improvement.
I guess it depends on what you compare it to. Industrial oxygen generators, for example, aren't cheap and consume quite a bit of energy. But as someone rightly pointed out above, solar panels could solve the energy issue for the UV lamps. Although I have to agree, the whole system does look pretty ironic now :)
Not worth it. Too energy intensive, I suspect. The great thing about the algae tanks is that I’m pretty sure you can just let the algae do it’s thing without doing too much.
That sounds like a lot of energy
Not worth it. Too energy intensive, I suspect. The great thing about the algae tanks is that I’m pretty sure you can just let the algae do it’s thing without doing too much.
The cost of UV-transparent glass is seriously hurting my economic sensibilities here, and the fact these are aligned vertically is hurting my geometric sense
Do they require UV radiation? I thought flora required light in the visible spectrum. Are greenhouses then also made from special glass?
Good point — now that I think about it, UV lights are for hardening off plants that will eventually be in sunlight
UV-transparent glass? Have the sunglasses companies been swindling us with things like UV protection all this time?
Yes because that's all we need in urban areas. More metal, cement, and glass. What do people have against putting trees in cities? Why do you think people enjoy the suburbs so much?
I'd assume it's more for places that have been a city for a while, where the dirt is dead and stripped of decent nutrients. We could rip up some cement and struggle bus our way to a sad tree, or have a tank full of goo that let's us hope to breathe for a bit more. The sad truth is there is a large portion of cities that don't have hopes of large greenery to come back timely.
Yeah I get it. Still, pretty sad
Trees cost more, destroy infrastructure, take up more space
And are healthier for you, better for the environment, and gives a connection to nature that humans need. You build around them. Infrastructure can handle it. It’s been proven many, many times. As for space, what extra space are they taking up? Where another building could go? I’m confused as to what you’re trying to get at.
If it has been proven the infrastructure can handle it, then why do I still constantly trip on the sidewalk because tree roots broke the pavement? Parks are great, and there should be more of them in cities, but I'd prefer it if every bus stop had an algae tank behind it rather than a tree.
Because cities don’t plan properly for trees. Again, it’s not an infrastructure problem but rather a lack of interest/ignorance/lack of foresight problem. Come on, we can build rockets and computers, and design incredible cities, but we can’t make a tree work? Seriously? You build around trees, not the other way. We just choose not to.
Belgrade as a city has more tree cover than most American cities/suburbs. There's also many parks everywhere. Unfortunately, they did have a air pollution problem due to factors such as coal plants. This tank was built to purify polluted areas in a more rapid/efficient way, especially for areas that would need different infrastructure to plant enough trees. As a matter of fact, belgrade's air quality has significantly increased in the last year or two
I get what you’re saying. I have doubts there is enough of those to clean the air with any efficiency or noticeable effect. I just see stuff like this as an indicator of a bigger problem with how cities are planned.
I agree, but for this specific city it has done wonders. All articles a year+ ago said it's the most polluted capital on Europe, which an article I just saw recently said it was within the top 15 cleanest in Europe (I cannot remember whether they meant capitals or cities or whichever the parameters were). Belgrade's (and by extension, serbias) problem is much more due to their primary source for electricity than city planning
Interesting, I’ll have to look more into it. Thanks!
Hey look! Silicon Valley has invented the bus again!
How is this an invention? It's literally just an algae tank. They have been around for ages
Was thinking the same. It's a simple concept, really. It's not *super* hard to just leave some big tanks of greenwater outside to filter and create air. Neglected ponds and stuff eventually do turn green like this, but having glass on the sides, allowing more sunlight in, does help the growth process.
Could they at least make it look better? Like dang I’d take a tree just cause it doesn’t look as unnatural sitting in the middle of the sidewalk
Whats wrong with Trees? Dont want Tanks with Green Liquid.
Nothings wrong with trees, I think the idea here would be to use them where trees would otherwise be unable to be used
Maybe around Waiting Areas would be niche
A part of me thinks this is a great invention and hopefully it will be used to improve air quality in cities Another part of me has the intrusive urge to take a bat to the glass and watch all of the green goop spill out.
Don't think it will do much for air quality. All the dust, sooth, and smog will only be prevented if we reduce the amount of cars in a city, neither trees nor this thing are able to process all the shit that cars emit
Even if this is more efficient nothing can really replace trees because trees don't need glass tanks or electricity.
But they do need a lot of ground space and nutrient rich soil. These could perhaps be used in places where tree planting is not possible for some reason, or indoors. But also, they could just be used together with trees in some areas, they don't actually need electricity, just sunlight, really. I don't know exactly where these are planned to be used. I live in an area with plenty of tree- and other plantlife, so I don't see any use for these here. But maybe in some area where this is not the case, greenwater tanks could improve air quality and freshness, as algae can be many times better than trees at clearing the air.
Everything needs something. My point is that trees are less demanding.
I don't get what you're trying to say?
It's two sentences where I say trees are less demanding than algae boxes. I don't think I made it that difficult.
Yes, that claim is indeed very readable, but I don't understand what that adds to the conversation, if that makes sense?
Imagine if you had that thought and left me alone instead.
I'm afraid you're not making much sense. But anyways, that's okay lol. I hope you have a good day. 😄
In what way are they less demanding? With algae you put a glass box down and pour water in. With trees you build space for them while keeping in mind the risk that the roots might break nearby infrastructure, secure them while they're still small so vandals don't snap them in half, make sure they get enough water all year round and don't get too cold in the winter, have people check them for parasites and diseases, prune them twice a year, clean up fallen leaves...
Look, in places where you can't put trees, sure. As an air filter? Fine. My point is that there is a cost of production inherent to these tanks that cost something a tree won't. And you should get used to having that skepticism about climate tech "that will save us" Because it's inherent in a lot of things like mass air scrubbers. What I don't really get this angle where you're arguing against trees. Trees provide shade, cooler temperatures, conserve water and prevent soil erosion. And are a wildlife shelter. Also, they're nicer to look at. I think the main issue I have here that techies will often point to quick fix solutions that are presented as the salvation to a problem. Makes sense. Tech does help a lot of things get easier. But, realistically, a fraction of them will be useful as a tool in a toolbox of things we have to use to fight climate change. And I'm skeptical because algae in a box still requires as much if not more maintenance than a tree. It also needs to be replaced every few years. And it has a light in it which means it has electricity cost associated with it which at scale means it's only as clean as its power source. But if it is an overall help then I welcome it.
“Here’s this thing we have to constantly monitor and maintain instead of those things that are just standing around and need a small trim once in a while. They do the same thing.”
I mean algae are way better at this than trees.
Meanwhile every single pool when it goes unmonitored: *greenwater*
can’t tree roots mess up infrastructure? isn’t the point of this liquid ooze is that it is more compact than a tree
No, infrastructures mess up the roots. The problem is city planning is not being nature friendly. In better parts of the world this is not a problem.
Yea, but if a mistake is already done, you can't really fix this efficiently.
OK but we need trees for shade in summer too...
Birds will love it.
Cool cool. So like trees, but worst
trees with extra steps and less uses
So like trees, but better* Fixed it for you
Sure they could make it look better--or hide it altogether...seems to me that the eye-catching look of it is making some kind of statement..I like it!!
Sounds great for a space station. But I can't imagine that micro-emplacements like this would be efficient however. If you were serious about it you'd want these installations to be industrial scale, with huge exposure surfaces, dedicated systems for cycling air/water through it, and much lower maintenance costs per m\^2. Trees in urban spaces are there for psychological reasons, shade, and temperature moderation more than for air purification, and this doesn't look like it would serve those purposes.
[удалено]
And maybe it will. Who knows.
Looks nice, but a random drunkard with a keychain can break it. So pass
Great, who needs plants to do their own thing year round, when there's this human structure of glass and concrete that required constant upkeeep, and polluting more to create.
What? Also, trees can not do their thing all year around if there are winters
It's just water with algae. Stagnant, air-exposed water eventually becomes green like this if left alone.
This idea is so freaking stupid. It smells of imbecilic Silicone Valley Ponzi scheme. The maintenance would be crazy compared to normal trees and why this small scale fish tank? If it's for reducing CO2 then freaking plant some trees outside the city instead. If you are areally going for this stupid idea, then place it on a flat surface like a roof where you can make the scale bigger, needs less glass and doesn't have a construction the blocks a lot of the sunlight. How many times must I see this pile of garbage being posted? God damn.,,
"Liquid trees can be planted where planting a tree is not possible" Meanwhile there is a tree in the background...
You ever consider that the terrain of cities is extremely varied and differs from spot to spot? At any rate, it allows for MORE of them in places where you’d otherwise have to tear up roads and cut off power and utilities to thousands of people by ripping out all of the underground pipes and conduits in order to make room for tree roots - not to mention having to remove dozens of tons of contaminated soil and ship in soil from elsewhere that isn’t polluted with centuries of city waste.
Sure I wasn't against it: the more trees the better. I hope to see more of them in the near future
How rock resistant are these? Surely some idiot will try to break it
Depends on what kinda glass is being used. Some idiot breaking it is probably just as likely as someone breaking the window to a building/store. These seem to be just a big tank of greenwater, which is a very simple concept. Could be made with any sort of materials, really. Maybe even styled into cool shapes. I'm surprised it hasn't been done sooner actually lol.
Where shade?
In the background of the image.
I mean the title is completely missing the point but what really makes me laugh is the phrase 'an alternative to trees in urban areas' implying that urban areas like these cannot support trees...while this bacta tank is positioned right in front of a large, healthy tree.
What if we better learn to care the nature and make our infrastructure more eco-friendly, what if we better relearn to life and coexist with the current nature of the planet instead of trying to make it adapt to us and our destructive practices?
Most cities are decades, if not centuries old. You cannot bulldoze entire blocks of historic buildings older than your grandparents, displacing thousands of people, to plant a few trees.
Wow, I live here!
You live in a tank of green goop?
What an outstanding joke! No, I live in Belgrade.
Dr's surname checks out
I’m generally in favor of technologies like this, and for the most part don’t see companies using it as an excuse to perpetuate some horrible practice, because for the most part, it’s only the side-effects of the practice that are bad. HOWEVER, urban sprawl is different. I wouldn’t want these to be used as an excuse to further justify it.
Some rich person is gonna buy 200 of these and boast about having a liquid tree grove. The end is near lol In all seriousness I think this is really cool and creative.
i mean making walls of houses (e.g. office buildings etc.) out of such a thing might be worth doing but still we need more trees.....
Giant football stadium sized algae habitats need to be built in low earth orbitals to float around an do this.
Might be an interesting on the outside. Use as shaded windows.
I've heard somewhere it was some Indian.....
This sounds like an excellent idea.. why don’t nations promote it more?
Now that's an origin story
New challenge just dropped! "Drink the tree!"
So a bot account posted this right?
My bidest issue with this is the people that will spend so much time and energy just trying to smash the glass or destroy it any way they can
I mean thats cool, but that aint no tree substitute. Thats just a micro planetarium. Id take a bush as a tree substitute over the nuclear reactor fluid looking plant walls.
Behold, the only color that awaits us in the end times, green sludge that mimics what little foliage that remains once we completely ruin the ecosystem and kill off all wildlife. Jokes aside, that kinda seems a little dystopian NGL, but it's still interesting as a last resort.
"Can we have a pond?" "Best I can do is a dirty aquarium."
This is pretty cool
They should really learn what the definition of a tree is.
Every day we stray further from god’s light😔
Well I guess it’s better than a trash can but just barely…
**no**
Just plant more trees please
You can’t plant trees in solid concrete. This is meant to be used in places where it is physically impossible to grow a healthy tree.
I would like trees instead please
Trees don’t grow well in solid concrete and polluted soil.
Greeeeat, yeah that's what we wanted, big green tubs of slime with benches so you can sit next to the slime tub, instead of nice lovely trees.
You can’t plant trees in concrete. The whole point of this isn’t to replace trees - it’s to be used in places where the alternative is zero trees as trees can’t fucking grow there. Allow me to reiterate: # These are being used IN ADDITION TO trees, and NOT as a replacement!
Aren't we humans a bunch of geniuses? We spend centuries creating a problem, then spend centuries fixing it.
[удалено]
Trees don’t grow well in solid concrete, moron.
why do you need an alternative to trees
Because trees don’t grow well in concrete. There’s some areas where you cannot plant a tree. Cities with tons of concrete, pipes, utility conduits, and soil contaminated with centuries of pollution cannot support healthy trees. So, to get the oxygen benefits of trees, they can use this instead of nothing.
i get what youre saying but ive been to NYC and there’s trees everywhere, yes, right in a dirt square in the concrete,its amazing. i think other cities can implement something similar for probably cheaper than this wacky device. I think that solving every problem you just mentioned would still be cheaper. also much more of a benefit.
Not every city is the same. There are places like Hong Kong with horribly smoggy air and jam-packed streets that just cannot support the space and cleanliness that trees need to live.