So I think the general idea is that you can convert more CO² to carbon in the form of sugars and O² molecules per square foot with algae than with trees. Trees would totally do the same thing if we ripped up all the concrete and buildings to replant a forest, but that process would take decades.

This can be added into existing infrastructure and helps I guess. Kinda a neat concept.

While it's good to be skeptical, algae tanks like this are actually a good idea for the use-cases for which they are designed. Places where trees would be difficult and expensive to grow. The tanks more efficiently capture carbon, require less maintenance, produce fertilizer as a byproduct and the solar panels on the tank produce enough extra power for there to be a USB charger on the bench. The goal isn't to replace trees with tanks but to use them where it makes sense to do so.

To echo what some other people have said, these algae tanks absolutely should not be used instead of trees. If I see a tree get chopped down and replaced with one of these, I’ll be sad and angry. However, these can go in places where trees can’t go, like rooftops. And you don’t have to either wait for a tree to grow for a decade or take a tree from somewhere else to install one. It also serves as both a seating area and can mount a solar panel on top. These and trees both have their place and should both continue to be used.

Well Trees don't make as much money for rich people who own everything and Trees make hot days more comfortable for homeless people

Street trees aren't car-supremacist enough.

Let me explain what I mean by that: when a driver fucks up and his car careens off the street and hits a tree, the tree stops the car very abruptly. That's great for, say, an innocent pedestrian who was saved by hiding behind the tree, but can apply rather serious consequences to the negligent driver. Car-brained traffic engineers see it as their mission to protect drivers from any and all consequences, so they insist on ripping out all the trees to create a gigantic "clear zone" so that the car is free to careen wherever it wants without hitting anything solid. Squishy things within the clear zone, such as pedestrians, don't enter into consideration.

In other words, one important "advantage" of these "liquid trees" over real trees is that they can be mounted on breakaway stands, so that they yield (and therefore provide no protection to any hapless bastard who might've been sitting on the bench at the time) when a car hits them.

Source: I'm a former traffic engineer. But don't take it from me; watch this confession from a much more experienced and credible engineer explaining it in even more stark terms.

It's sad that the effort to do something innovative to solve a problem can easily get dismissed via a zero effort critique by someone who never took the time to learn why it was created.

Trees are great on sidewalks, but it is much easier to control the weight of an algae tank if you want to make a green roof for a building.

I think a lot of these are just cool experiments and projects grad students do for the sake of doing them. Then some hack writes an op ed about how we don't need to worry about deforestation because we can plop algae tanks down instead.

Trees are too useful so we keep cutting them down

Trees offer real world benefits of carbon reduction, temperature reduction, shade for people, the psychological benefits that trees offer, some limited wildlife habitat, and they do it without much outside help. They grow themselves with decent maintenance.

But you have to build and maintain this tank. What carbon was used to do so, and what maintenance will it need. Can it offset its own cost? It offers no benefits to wildlife, no shade, no temperature reduction.

Yeah, trees leave leaf litter and can heave sidewalks with roots, but given that neither system is perfect, there’s no reason to argue that boxes of algae are better.

Can't wait to see hulk semen cartridges everywhere when I go out for a walk.

It's expensive and has only the advantage of catching CO2, while trees have more than just that. Produces O2, Cooling the near surroundings, are a save heaven for many species and therefore increases biodiversity, filters the air and soil, also makes the soil more healthy and probably many other reasons.

Humans really are weird. Trying to replace a perfectly fine bio-machinery that developed over Thousands of years with their own steel junk. I dont see why anybody would prefer that gadget over a tree.

I'd have to see how it is better than, worse than trees on a case-by-case basis. But generally speaking, I can think of a few reasons this is better:

Trees are messy. They take a long time to grow, they take constant maintenance while growing, then they eventually die. Tree roots fuck up pipes & concrete. If this installation is equivalent to 1 or more trees, it is doing the work in a fraction of the space.

Guys, it's not one or the other. We can have trees and algae tanks. Trees can still offer all of the benefits they do like shade and beauty while algae tanks can be used to increase fresh oxygen. Algae is much better at absorbing CO2 than trees and providing clean air which is a big problem in a busy city.

SciShow made a video about these: https://youtu.be/QUGJPZ1a308

We are in a parasitic relationship with capitalism. Capitalism constantly extracts from life and the environment. When life begin to limit captialism, capitalism will go to great ends to remove life. Capitalism is not sustainable, nor is it naturally occurring. Abolish this evil system.

This whole thread is a great example of why I'm continually disappointed with Lemmy. Half the comments are just some variation of "capitalism bad". I hate capitalism as much as the next guy, but it sure would be nice if people would stop grinding their axes for a few minutes to talk about the actual subject of the post. Or just not comment at all if they don't have anything relevant to say.

Algae should be more effective and pollution kills trees

People tend to forget that trees have roots.
Roots cause problems with infrastructure.
Hence why when a problem arises you try to "get to the root of it".

Here's an example of what I mean:
https://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/woody/images/urbanrootsninelg.jpg

I saw something like this, which piped exhaust from a generator thru a container of water and algae, with the idea to capture the co2, etc produced. Sure why not. I'll still prefer trees.

Young drunk me would love to throw a brick at one of these..I don't know why but it looks very tempting

Trees are too cheap

The answer is trees take years to grow and aren't suitable in places like rooftops

Trees can't survive if they can only get water from a 6''x6'' cookie cutter hole in concrete.

What about a nice shrubbery?

Cyberpunk city with no plantlife other than these algae vats all over the place. Big towers of murky green liquid.

All these people being like “why don’t we just use trees” as if the capitalists could profit from them like this. And not to say this is cost efficient, of course planting a tree would be better for everyone, but whoever installs these things will have a contract guaranteeing them money that taxpayers will be told is being put toward green initiatives and so will be eager to part with it I guess

Trees don't generate large profits this quarter, obviously.

I’ve been curious and hopeful about algae, both for carbon capture and bio fuel.

But using it in cloudy green aquariums to decorate a city? I don’t know about that, lol.