You're viewing a single thread.
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.
Also tree roots will tear stuff up
That adds character.
And lawsuits when people trip over uneven concrete caused by roots.
Can’t wait to sue the trees
Sometimes wheelchair user here. Character can kiss my ass <3
(I'm not expressing anger at you, just at my city's mangled sidewalks)
Shade, cooler Air in summer, better protection against rain… 🤷♂️ Trees are 😎
Exactly man... fewer floods, more biodiversity, they look nice which is better for mental health and reducing hypertension (the number one risk factor correlated with deaths), some of them give you fruits or nuts to eat... Trees are awesome.
I think any city should strive to have at least as many trees as the number of people living in it.
That just means you can catch some sick air
Ain't nobody got time for that.
If they have surface roots, plant tap root trees instead
...if we ripped up all the concrete and buildings to replant a forest...
You say this like it's a downside, we'd better get started!
Hey, I'd be the first wanker with a sledge out breaking it up if we all went in on it together. Something tells me I wouldn't get very far tho
It would be. Cities and urban areas aren't the problem. Suburbs, with 20+ Minute commutes, on hot swollen rivers of concrete and asphalt flowing from them, with every individual in their own metal/polymer box burning hydrocarbons is the bigger problem. Cities might be a solution.
Conversely these algae tanks can go lots of places a tree wouldn't be practical. They'll never need to be trimmed out of power lines etc. Or tear up sidewalks, streets or foundations. That's not to say we shouldn't have trees. Just more green overall.
Exactly. Algae are just plainly superior to trees
Except that trees look good and give shade.
a translucent roof filled with algae would be pretty cool
Trees 2.0 huh? I'm going to go post about this in r/trees
I give it a day before someone tries to smoke dried out algae.
Sushi chefs be rolling some mean shit
I have this fantasy where we humanity has a whole biotechnology skill tree that we never unlocked but there's like a Renaissance waiting to happen that will one day uncover all these cool new branch's
also algae farms can be arbitrarily vertical and can be built underground if you supply them with CO2 - trees are mostly limited to the surface.
But they provide little shade 😒
Jump in and you won't need shade to cool down.
Like being slimed on Nickolodeon
On this note, think of all the benefits if we filled all our public swimming pools with algae!! I'm sure nobody would notice the difference
Honestly unless it was a red cyanobacteria bloom I doubt anyone would notice. I for one don't drink pool water so I wouldn't be very affected 🤷
But why not just like... Do that somewhere where the mass actually makes a difference? You'd be better off dumping acres full of this shit instead of regrowing a forest. Doing it in individual tanks, sparsely within a city, is both an inefficient use of resources and fucking ugly.
Trees only purpose in a city is not to clean out CO2. It's not even their primary purpose in a city. If it was, they'd be selecting specific species etc.
Alright I'm just going off of what I learned in environmental science class this summer, not an expert here. There was something about algae blooms (usually caused by fertilizer runoff) being a really bad thing for local ecosystems. I'm not sure if this is relevant to what you're saying, just throwing it out there lol
I mean ideally we would flood the ocean with Fe³ and spark a mass breed of this shit where it belongs. The biomass could work it's way up the food chain as an added benefit too.
But we won't 🙃
If history taught us anything it is that purposely messing with an ecosystem seldom has the effect we want to achieve.
Better to leave it with just the environmental changes we made without intent right?
I mean, sort of?
We created a big problem by injecting a lot of shit where it shouldn't be. If we stop that, some pieces will bounce back.
Injecting more shit in another place means we have one big problem, that we haven't stopped, and now a new problem that we don't know the repurcussions of or how to reverse.
So uh, yeah, I'll stick with the one beast we know over one we know and also another we don't.
It's okay to say you don't understand marine chemistry, there is no shame in it.
The whole "seed the oceans with ferrous oxide" idea isn't mine. In fact many better minds came up with it. You can check it out if you want, no pressure.
You are being very pretentious.
Yup.
It's funny, because your own ignorance is showing. There's plenty of research to suggest that iron fertilization is controversial, which directly contradicts your (very condescending) assertion.
It is much easier to destroy something than it is to repair it. This applies to the original changes we made through exploitation, pollution, etc. But also to the radical change you propose, it is much easier for it to have a destructive effect compared to having a positive effect.
I agree on the first part of what you said.
But we aren't fixing the problem either way so what's really at stake?
Pedantic, but for carbon dioxide or oxygen (or most other molecules you’ll write out) it’s a subscript for the number. Wikipedia
~So it would be CO~2~ or H~2~O or O~2~~
Seems my markdown is rusty, however you make subscripts I guess for CO<sub>2</sub>
If they didn't just breath oxygen and give off CO² at night, maybe, but trees actually undo much of their oxygen creation overnight... 😅
Much, not all.
Yep, as opposed to algea's none.
I might have eyed over some parts as it's lengthy and I have little time rn, but that seems to mostly agree with what I said?
