While I don't want to spoil the joke (but I will) and I hate techno-optimist solutions that displace actual solutions for our biosphere as much as the next person: supposedly, Belgrade is such a dense concrete hell that trees aren't viable solution (at least in the short term).
There is some rumbling that liquid trees are not the solution to the real problems caused by large-scale deforestation, nor does it reduce erosion or enrich the soil. However, much of this wrath is misplaced as Liquid tree designers say that it was not made as a replacement for trees but was designed to work in areas where growing trees would be non-viable. Initiatives like Trillion Trees are laudable, but there is something to be said for the true utility of this tiny bioreactor. The fact that they can capture useful amounts of carbon dioxide from day one is another benefit for them. Such bioreactors are expected to become widespread in urban areas around the world as the planet battles rising carbon levels in the atmosphere.
And for people who think that the trillion tree idea is anything else than just the oil lobby running with a feel good solution, I have a great podcast episode for you
They seem to be focusing on CO2. Trees in cities are going to capture a negligible amount of CO2 and for relatively high cost versus doing things outside a city. The point of trees in cities is shade and looking nice (good for mental health). Liquid trees solve neither of those.
Also, trees are surprisingly difficult to keep alive if they were artificially introduced to a location. Turns out they don't thrive in a concrete hellscape super well.
Like I always think that people don’t get one thing about trees in a city. There purpose is is not about co2. The co2 reduction of city trees is neglectable. The reason you need them in a city is temperature regulation, shade, air quality, mood, the local eco system and maybe solidifying unsealed ground. Putting these tanks in a city is laughably inefficient w.r.t. co2 conversion if you compare this to any effort to do this in instustrial capacity ( which is is also still laughably inefficient)
From the top of my head, they also help manage storm water by filtering rainwater into the aquifer, while also lowering flood risks, provides habitats for plants, insects, birds, and small animals while also being a natural sound barriers, which reduces noise pollution. All of these together greatly increase mental health for everyone too
They were talking about CO2 which is what the algae tank is about.
Trees have other benefits around filtering pollutants that affect air quality such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. Also the shading effect reduces ozone accumulation as well as generally helping reduce the urban heat island effect (which in turn reduces the amount of air conditioning needed, even a small amount saves energy and reduces pollution from power stations).
City parks have clean air partly because of tree but also because youre away from roads and buildings so further from car exhausts and chimney stacks. The concentration of pollutants in wide open spaces is lower because the wind can move it around more easily, and there isn't a pollution source directly near by. Tree and grass do help too.
By far the most effective way of reducing pollution is reducing the sources. Trees are CO2 sinks and would reduce some CO2 if there was massive reforestation globally but that is outweighed by the ongoing CO2 production. The best solution is clean energy sources and getting rid of combustion engines.
I wish my garden was big enough for trees. There are quite a few trees in a park behind our house though, my wifi might just about reach the park too. A better access point would reach it easily.
Have wondered if there might be other options for shade. Perhaps some kind of vines on a trellis. But then sometimes you don't want the shade.
CO² isn't want you should be concerned about with air in a city anyway, its the other emissions like particulates. Just being further away from busy roads reduces that significantly so the park air would be better.
ITT: People who looked at some random headline, didn't bother looking further and assumed they knew everything.
It's a stupid headline. These tanks, are to directly affect air polution/quality in urban areas. Trees are terrible at that. The microalgae is 10-50x more effective in cleaning the air.
They aren't going to rip out trees for these. It would have taken you 10 seconds to find the source of the image and the article from 3 years ago to find out, the social media post was misleading. You spent more time making incorrect and wild accusations.
Even with the misleading headline, has nobody commenting about how bad it is ever seen how many trees die when set up in low light conditions?
These can be used in places trees wouldn't be effective, and that's before the whole "they're better at cleaning the air" bit.
Even with ideal light conditions, there's still more to consider.
I lived in Louisville for many years. It's fairly green as cities go. In older parts of the city, trees had been planted between the streets and sidewalks ... definitely a long time ago, maybe 30 to 50 years? Maybe longer?
Every spring, we lost a number of those trees to thunderstorms. Enough rain, followed by strong winds, would topple multiple trees. Every single one that I saw had a root ball that was exactly the size of the opening where it had been planted, so maybe two square meters and maybe a meter or two deep. (For those keeping score at home, that's not enough root volume to support a full-sized tree.)
So we'd lose those lovely trees and on a good day, we'd lose the use of the street for a while. On a bad day, someone would lose a car or a chunk of their house.
"Just plant more trees in the middle of the city" is not the brilliant fix that many people seem to think it is.
My condo complex is easily 5 degrees cooler than the rest of my city cause we’re covered in trees. It’s always noticeable when you leave the complex and go across the road
When this was proposed the idea was that one of tank can replace two trees and it can be put in corners that are too small for trees (and cars). When you consider the space for roots you can get at least one parking space per tank at the cost of making car-centric cities even more of an hell hole.
I think the idea behind this is that algae are more space-efficient than trees at producing oxygen and/or capturing CO2. Of course this is also ignoring that the bulk of a tree's volume is high above the ground, and they also provide other things like shade and shelter for insects etc.
I discovered when I joined a volunteer litter-picking group in my town that some people really hate trees. And I must emphasise HATE. They hate the shade they cast in summer, the way the leaves block the all-important View. They hate the fallen leaves in autumn. They hate the bare branches in winter. They hate the risk of branches falling in storms. They hate the racket the birds make. I was astonished - it never occurred to me that people would feel so strongly.
Yeah trees are assholes. They always ring my doorbell trying to sell me the book of Gaia. Constantly telling me "you can't smoke here, sir". There's a tree behind my house who constantly wears the same glasses as me. Whenever I buy new ones, a day later this tree has the same. He's constantly mocking me for no reason.
I think all trees should be cut down and burned. Algae never complain, are always kind and always say "good day sir" when you walk by.
Leaves are annoying in urban areas with full concrete/asphalt/metal/glass environments. Different people like different things and some aesthetics are incompatible.
I guess the "problem" with trees is obvious: it takes decades for them to produce the desired cooling effect in urban areas.
You plant a dozen young trees today, you can begin to reap the cooldown 10 years later at best.
Also, they need a lot if water, and many of them just don't make it - urban surroundings are just much hotter and more stressful (smog, salt...) then standing with other trees in a forest.
I fail to see though how these artificial "trees" provide any kind of benefit at all.
True, but unfortunately, this species is way over-planted in many cities. I would not recommend them unless they happen to be uncommon in your local area. Urban forests need to be as diverse as possible to resist the constant barrage of pests and diseases being introduced by global trade.
In California we have a relatively new pest called shot-hole borers which are killing off many of the London planes, so we’re scrambling to plant other species that can resist them.
Also, resistance to air pollution isn’t as crucial as it once was due to better emissions technologies.
In Vienna, we actually import Australian species because of their strong resistance to heat. The very commonly used native buckeye trees have been eaten away at by pests for decades now, and I'm surprised they do not actually seem to die off, but they just stand there with brown leaves for most of the year.
I think the problem is putting them in those dumb tanks where a tree would be, as if to say "do this instead". The principle would be fine if they got a bit more creative with it and played to its strengths, e.g. if you make a train platform out of it, or the railings of an overpass, or the external wall panels of buildings etc.
Ofc OOP didn't actually provide a source so we've no idea what the creators were actually thinking...
Thanks for that. It looks from that like a relevant detail OOP missed out is that these thing (purportedly) claim to produce as much oxygen as 15 trees, which isn't nothing.
The roots destroy sewer systems etc too. There's a bike path I take to work where the pavement is all distorted by the roots, making it very unsafe, but I still prefer that the trees are there.
That's why you have to properly select the species that will be planted, there are many different species which have roots that won't cause this type of damage and you can most likely get by with native plants for better adaptability
This. Trees (especially large ones) are a pain to irrigate properly, might not be drought-resistant, grow very slowly until they reach their full potential at removing CO2, interfere with infrastructure that we humans are used to (piping, electricity, telco), roots break up pavements, branches can be a hazard after storms, fruit might attract rats, ...
I'm very much pro trees (despite what I've listed in the first paragraph), but I'm sure there are places in cities where you can't plant trees but could put up algae tanks.
If you understand German (specifically Austrian dialect) you might like this podcast episode about challenges and methods to overcome them in the context of greenery in the city of Graz:
Yes. Algae is better in absorbing co2 than tree, but tree is important as a shade and creating a cooling effect for the surrounding. Both is important for different thing and combine it you get the best of both world, especially in a lot of urban area where planting big tree isn't possible
The problem even with that is that an old, standing tree and a young one are very different in their ability to provide the services we seek from them.
Every tree must be municipally approved, plant one on your own without the city’s consent and without using their services and you will be heavily fined and asked to remove the tree at the very least
A few reasons:
Trees need a lot of space and the space underneath a sidewalk isn't enough for long term life. They can die after like 30 years? This is tree dependent and location dependent.
Tree roots can destroy sidewalks making it harder for people to go over them. (Think people in wheel chairs)
Liability in terms of damage (have you seen trees after a storm?)
I disagree. Pavement is valuable to pedestrians, cyclists, emergency and service vehicles, and the disabled. While it's important to preserve nature as much as possible, some urbanisation is also a good thing. That said, I'm not sure algae tanks would be necessary in areas where huge tracts of land aren't dedicated to parking. I can't really think of where my city would benefit from them.
Your potted tree isn’t a tree in the sense that I’m talking about. The environmental services trees provide are all based on size and so are predominantly provided by larger trees. Cities usually avoid planting these under electrical wires and in smaller tree basins to avoid damage to infrastructure. So practically, there are many urban locations where big trees won’t fit.
How much CO2 does the tree on your desk take in? Do you think it approaches 1/1000 of the amount that a bunch of algae can take in? So maybe it’s not the same and comparing it as being the same is done in bad faith. Trees are great and in many cases are superior as they also provide shade, but you can’t ignore the negatives of them(mostly related to their roots) and that they don’t work in every situation
Has the manufacturer even calculated how much energy is needed for production and how long it will take for the corresponding CO2 emissions to be amortized?
And trees that are planted in cities are not seeded. They are grown in a forestry until they reach a certain height. And then dug up with machines transported with machines and then planted with machines. The CO2 produced to plant a single tree also takes quite a while to be absorbed by that tree.
The issue with trees is you need to adapt the city to them, you can't adapt them to the city. And people have proven once and again that they would invent anything to not move by an inch when our way of life is put in question.
So we push forward with absurd solutions one after the other: carbon capture, atmospheric geo-engineering, a damned nuke in antarctica, and now "liquid trees".
Because the alternative is to change our ways, and we can't face that.
I would be fine with changing my ways if changing my anything didn’t require endless paperwork. How is it fair that some guy invents agriculture and now I have to have a credit score
All these technologies are improvements on the natural version, not a replacement for the natural version, but an upgrade. If you want nice trees go take a walk in a city park, these aren't for looking at they have a different objective. We can have both things, one isn't trying to replace the other.
Trees provide shades that cool down the cities. These algae don't. The main benefit of these "liquid trees" is to reduce pollution.
You know what reduces even more pollution? Electrification and public transportation.
Combine both. You'll need much less space for motor vehicles lane inside the city and no need for "depolluting" inventions. Add some bike lanes and you'll still have plenty of space for trees. They're better looking and will do the cooling job.
So, as I was saying: praising a less efficient solution that may bring new unexpected issues down the road because the efficient solution requires people to change.
trees take don't come with actual requirement lists. An algae pool can and will come with explicit instructions that are able to be met and won't destroy the sidewalk for no reason.
Insert random copypasta about biotech breakthrough that turns water and CO2 and nutrients into sustainable building materials which sounds like space age technology but it's just trees
I agree trees are commies. Must be why Trump is going to clear cut several hundred million acres of the last remaining old growth forests …because they’re full of commie trees
Dumb take. If someone crashes their car into one of these, it can be replaced in a few days. Trees take decades to grow in ideal conditions. Between tall buildings in a city is far from ideal conditions.
Also algae is way more efficient at converting CO2 into O2; I think it's maybe multiple times more efficient using the same amount of light.
I've definitely seen "median trees" and "sidewalk trees" here in Atlanta get removed or replaced after a car hits them. But for sure, large trees can easily shrug off a car crash. Those are just not usually in heavily urban areas like these tanks are meant for.
Not that it is super relevant to this discussion, but last month someone with a chainsaw cut down multiple (I wanna say a dozen or so) trees along a street in Atlanta in the middle of the night. Who TF would do that?!?! Sad and pointless....
Emergency responder in a big city? Trees will fuck up a car no doubt but not usually the tiny ones lining the streets of major urban centers, most I see get to be maybe 5 in across. But it may all be location dependant.
Yes. Even a 50mm (2 inches) tree trunk will usually win against a car on urban roads, though I suppose it would depend on how well rooted they are (the tree, not the driver)
Dumb take, by the guy who has no idea how much it costs to maintain these tanks or any understanding of the scales involved, all while wanting to live in a world of green goo in tanks instead of one with trees in their cities.
Also really really hard to keep trees alive on the sides of buildings where these units could conceivably be used. Modular trees plus trees where we can fit them.
Few things about trees in cities: (1) tree roots ruin sidewalks because they upend that stuff; (2) tree roots get into and ruin infrastructure, (3) not every curb can sustain a tree, so these could fit where a tree could not; and (4) they damage stuff when they fall over in storms.
Crazy thought - instead of just putting trees near curbs, have dedicated green spaces in cities where there aren't sidewalks or other important infrastructure near the trees.
Welp, all the trees are gone but at least there are these cloudy stinking tanks of goo everywhere. Does anything not dystopian happen anymore? Like these things are a set piece from Blade Runner FFS.
It's a pretty bad example in this case because the picture is literally on a street with trees. What these are probably for is putting in places where no one's going to look at them but places where you can't put trees, like industrial estates and the rooftops of buildings. Aesthetics aren't important if no one is ever going to look at them aesthetically, and anyway they kind of look cool.
If it's actually more efficient then trees, could be a good idea. Saw a 51/49 video where he explained the urban development in the US requiring only male trees be planted leads to increased pollen levels and has made the "allergy season" 30+ days longer over the past 50 years or so.
While I would hate to lose actual trees, I'm medium on the idea of this on it's own. People need lots of things and space, which causes the removal of trees. If we can replicate some of their functions, such as CO2 absorption with this tech, then that seems good. If upkeep is the same as a tree, I don't see a downside to the overall concept.
My thought would be that this shows up on top of the buildings instead of at ground level, though.... Plant real trees and put these on the roof. The real loss would be if we stop making green spaces because these things meet the need for O2. Green spaces in cities do way more than just clean the air, though, so I'm not sure we're that dystopian yet.
The photo looks like it doubles as a bench too, so maybe that helps justify its footprint. Make them a mini-light show with varied colors and it can become a functional art installation. How long until it has spikes to prevent someone from taking a nap on it, though?
I still want the trees outdoors, but this would be cool for indoor spaces. Each mall or parking lot could have a solar panel overhead and slime-tanks to produce useful byproducts.
Maybe it could be mixed with and aquaculture like fish and sea plants to create cool scenery
Less infrastructure erosion from roots? Integration into places like above ground parking spaces? Hell could you imagine integrating them into bridge underpasses or walk ways? Heck make a semi destructible version and use that for crash bollards. Only a level 5 vegan is going to complain if some allege is spilt.
All these braindead silicon valley tech bros trynna reinvent existing solutions to problems in very expensive and unnecessary ways, marketing it as "revolutionary" and "groundbreaking"
The majority of our oxygen comes from algae, they aren’t reinventing existing solutions they just put a tank of them in a city and blow air into it so that a city can use the same more efficient fauna flora that is available in coastal cities
I would support legislation that mandated these be used around the highest carbon emitting facilities. Maybe a few very well designed structures (algae tanks) in very densely populated cities.
These would be in no way a replacement for trees in a community but, I could see forcing the corporations to use them. Such as those that must pollute because, they can not manufacture these products without polluting.
The problem with trees is they are used as lumber. The national parks has always been protected. But Trump has unprotected parts of the national parks to be cut down for lumber.
What happens when one of these breaks and drains into the sewer system? Algae blooms cause noxious odors and would proliferate quickly in the nitrogen-rich environment of human waste water, potentially building up as clogs in the sewer lines. And if the system drains into a natural body of water, the algae can have devastating toxic effects on the natural wildlife. If it doesn't drain and instead gets recycled, then the water treatment process becomes much more difficult and expensive.
There are algae in the ocean. The problem with ocean algae is not that they aren't there, but that their requirements (sunlight, oxygen, acidity, temperature, etc.) prevent them from expanding any further.
Not all do. That's an oak thing really. Pines, most stone fruits, etc, take a path of least resistance, unlike oaks which are more "I am going that way, and NOTHING will stop me!"
The issue with trees is you need to adapt the city to them, you can't adapt them to the city. And people have proven once and again that they would invent anything to not move by an inch when our way of life is put in question.
So we push forward with absurd solutions one after the other: carbon capture, atmospheric geo-engineering, a damned nuke in antarctica, and now "liquid trees".
Because the alternative is to change our ways, and we can't face that.
Can we please, stop reposting this same shit pic for the last, I dunno, year?
This is the gazillionth time. I get it. Is a stupid algea tank. where a simple tree does the same for a fraction of the cost. It's of no use in the public space except as a tech demo or art object.
This is only the second time I've seen it, but please... there was a time when complaining about reposts was the most often repeated thing I saw on reddit. Can we not have that bit of irony become a thing here?
Green shit on your terrace, leaves fucking everywhere, looming threat of bird shit on your head, seeds everywhere, roots growing through everything, blocking the sun at every step, tough lessons in gravity for things kids climbing them, lot of damage when it's stormy out.
But nah trees are great, really.
Edit: apparently I need to clarify that I really do love nature more than the concrete jungle, but there are things you can find that are not that great about trees.
Gray shit on your everything, concrete fucking everywhere, looming threat of 2-ton steel death machines caving in your head, overheating everywhere, asphalt plowing through everything, soaking up the sun at every step, tough lessons in momentum for kids crossing them, lot of traffic and pollution when there are drivers out.
You could change half of your words, and keep the meaning the same, and make a compelling case that roads, or any other things, are humanity's greatest scourge.
If all you can do is complain that the natural world is insufficiently bent to your personal convenience, you are the problem with humanity right now.
Go touch whatever remaining local flora people like you have allowed to continue to exist, and quit being an imbecilic bellend online.
While I don't want to spoil the joke (but I will) and I hate techno-optimist solutions that displace actual solutions for our biosphere as much as the next person: supposedly, Belgrade is such a dense concrete hell that trees aren't viable solution (at least in the short term).
Source
So maybe they can be used in regions that are too hot for trees, like desert cities
And for people who think that the trillion tree idea is anything else than just the oil lobby running with a feel good solution, I have a great podcast episode for you
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3AZIvnCFvavc9Qfs10XPxW
Spotify doesn't work on my phone. Care to link the podcast page on a platform not trying to corner the market, please?
https://podbay.fm/p/the-climate-deniers-playbook/e/1727859600
Much obliged.
I listen to it on apple podcasts if that helps
How, if I can't find out which podcast it is?
You can click the spotify link and it literally tells you what it is
I already said thatspotify doesn't work on my phone (the homepage crashes)
It's an episode of "The Climate Denier's Playbook" entitled "Let's Just Plant a Trillion Trees."
https://podcasts.apple.com/sk/podcast/the-climate-deniers-playbook/id1694759084?i=1000671531664
They seem to be focusing on CO2. Trees in cities are going to capture a negligible amount of CO2 and for relatively high cost versus doing things outside a city. The point of trees in cities is shade and looking nice (good for mental health). Liquid trees solve neither of those.
And ameliorating the heat island effect.
But mainly quality of life.
Also, trees are surprisingly difficult to keep alive if they were artificially introduced to a location. Turns out they don't thrive in a concrete hellscape super well.
Which is why native species are always recommended
There are places with no native trees. A majority of the earth's land area is naturally treeless.
im guessing "where will the animals go" is also a stupid question?
Also, where do I find the shade?
You will shelter next to the goo tank and you will like it.
Only until a person who is unhoused tries it and they decide to install spikes all the way around.
Liquid thorn trees!
Exactly what I love about the Seattle tree coverage. So much shade.
Shade from what? Yall don't even have the sun, lol
It’s one of Seattle’s best kept secrets that our 3 months of summer has very little rain and highs in the 70-80’s. Perfect weather.
Under the actual tree next to it. This is effectively just a large bench. Which also helps the air.
I would guess into the tree soup.
But you can for oxygen. Total Recall taught us this.
You mean Space Balls?
Perri-air.
It even came in the old fashioned steel cans.
Like I always think that people don’t get one thing about trees in a city. There purpose is is not about co2. The co2 reduction of city trees is neglectable. The reason you need them in a city is temperature regulation, shade, air quality, mood, the local eco system and maybe solidifying unsealed ground. Putting these tanks in a city is laughably inefficient w.r.t. co2 conversion if you compare this to any effort to do this in instustrial capacity ( which is is also still laughably inefficient)
From the top of my head, they also help manage storm water by filtering rainwater into the aquifer, while also lowering flood risks, provides habitats for plants, insects, birds, and small animals while also being a natural sound barriers, which reduces noise pollution. All of these together greatly increase mental health for everyone too
So.. are you saying the air inside a city park isn't better at all?
They were talking about CO2 which is what the algae tank is about.
Trees have other benefits around filtering pollutants that affect air quality such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. Also the shading effect reduces ozone accumulation as well as generally helping reduce the urban heat island effect (which in turn reduces the amount of air conditioning needed, even a small amount saves energy and reduces pollution from power stations).
City parks have clean air partly because of tree but also because youre away from roads and buildings so further from car exhausts and chimney stacks. The concentration of pollutants in wide open spaces is lower because the wind can move it around more easily, and there isn't a pollution source directly near by. Tree and grass do help too.
By far the most effective way of reducing pollution is reducing the sources. Trees are CO2 sinks and would reduce some CO2 if there was massive reforestation globally but that is outweighed by the ongoing CO2 production. The best solution is clean energy sources and getting rid of combustion engines.
I wish my garden was big enough for trees. There are quite a few trees in a park behind our house though, my wifi might just about reach the park too. A better access point would reach it easily.
Have wondered if there might be other options for shade. Perhaps some kind of vines on a trellis. But then sometimes you don't want the shade.
Amazing answer, thanks a lot!
Dunno what i'm getting downvotes for
I think it's because they mentioned trees improve air quality right there in their comment, and then you responded like you didn't read it
To be fair, I think it's important to make a distinction between a city park, and a handful of trees lining a busy street.
I think there is a difference between air quality (pollution) and co2 levels.
Cool they you think they but there are not walls that prevent air from mixing.
I mean conceptually, not physically like between a park area and a road.
CO² isn't want you should be concerned about with air in a city anyway, its the other emissions like particulates. Just being further away from busy roads reduces that significantly so the park air would be better.
It is, because of the humidity, temperature and also they remove air pollution. Just not CO2
Probably not a statistically significant difference since wind is a thing.
ITT: People who looked at some random headline, didn't bother looking further and assumed they knew everything.
It's a stupid headline. These tanks, are to directly affect air polution/quality in urban areas. Trees are terrible at that. The microalgae is 10-50x more effective in cleaning the air.
They aren't going to rip out trees for these. It would have taken you 10 seconds to find the source of the image and the article from 3 years ago to find out, the social media post was misleading. You spent more time making incorrect and wild accusations.
Even with the misleading headline, has nobody commenting about how bad it is ever seen how many trees die when set up in low light conditions? These can be used in places trees wouldn't be effective, and that's before the whole "they're better at cleaning the air" bit.
Even with ideal light conditions, there's still more to consider.
I lived in Louisville for many years. It's fairly green as cities go. In older parts of the city, trees had been planted between the streets and sidewalks ... definitely a long time ago, maybe 30 to 50 years? Maybe longer?
Every spring, we lost a number of those trees to thunderstorms. Enough rain, followed by strong winds, would topple multiple trees. Every single one that I saw had a root ball that was exactly the size of the opening where it had been planted, so maybe two square meters and maybe a meter or two deep. (For those keeping score at home, that's not enough root volume to support a full-sized tree.)
So we'd lose those lovely trees and on a good day, we'd lose the use of the street for a while. On a bad day, someone would lose a car or a chunk of their house.
"Just plant more trees in the middle of the city" is not the brilliant fix that many people seem to think it is.
No standing or sitting allowed. Resume consumerism!
My condo complex is easily 5 degrees cooler than the rest of my city cause we’re covered in trees. It’s always noticeable when you leave the complex and go across the road
taller buildings and smog do a more consistent job of providing shade than a new tree will in a decade.
They get in the way of parking spots. The steel cages must rule supreme.
These have to take up more space than a tree...
When this was proposed the idea was that one of tank can replace two trees and it can be put in corners that are too small for trees (and cars). When you consider the space for roots you can get at least one parking space per tank at the cost of making car-centric cities even more of an hell hole.
Ok I can see that space wise. Have fun having an enormous concrete oven though
I think the idea behind this is that algae are more space-efficient than trees at producing oxygen and/or capturing CO2. Of course this is also ignoring that the bulk of a tree's volume is high above the ground, and they also provide other things like shade and shelter for insects etc.
also moisture retention, windbraking.
Just ask The Undertaker and Mankind...
I discovered when I joined a volunteer litter-picking group in my town that some people really hate trees. And I must emphasise HATE. They hate the shade they cast in summer, the way the leaves block the all-important View. They hate the fallen leaves in autumn. They hate the bare branches in winter. They hate the risk of branches falling in storms. They hate the racket the birds make. I was astonished - it never occurred to me that people would feel so strongly.
Turns out I'm a bloody tree-hugging extremist.
That's just unhinged. The trees are the view.
Those "people" would better serve as fertilizer (specifically for trees)
Yeah trees are assholes. They always ring my doorbell trying to sell me the book of Gaia. Constantly telling me "you can't smoke here, sir". There's a tree behind my house who constantly wears the same glasses as me. Whenever I buy new ones, a day later this tree has the same. He's constantly mocking me for no reason.
I think all trees should be cut down and burned. Algae never complain, are always kind and always say "good day sir" when you walk by.
A tree stole my wallet and had sex with my wife!
So many trees have destroyed people their houses with stupid forest fires. Have you ever heard of algae fires? No! Because algae aren't assholes!
I guess I'm too...born and raised in a forest?...to be the same species as those people.
Leaves are annoying in urban areas with full concrete/asphalt/metal/glass environments. Different people like different things and some aesthetics are incompatible.
annoying how?
I guess the "problem" with trees is obvious: it takes decades for them to produce the desired cooling effect in urban areas. You plant a dozen young trees today, you can begin to reap the cooldown 10 years later at best. Also, they need a lot if water, and many of them just don't make it - urban surroundings are just much hotter and more stressful (smog, salt...) then standing with other trees in a forest. I fail to see though how these artificial "trees" provide any kind of benefit at all.
The amount of water required is trivial compared to most other water uses. Especially if correct species are selected.
The London plane tree is particularly suitable for urban areas, it's resistant to air pollution.
True, but unfortunately, this species is way over-planted in many cities. I would not recommend them unless they happen to be uncommon in your local area. Urban forests need to be as diverse as possible to resist the constant barrage of pests and diseases being introduced by global trade.
In California we have a relatively new pest called shot-hole borers which are killing off many of the London planes, so we’re scrambling to plant other species that can resist them.
Also, resistance to air pollution isn’t as crucial as it once was due to better emissions technologies.
Tell that to the recently defunded EPA...
In Vienna, we actually import Australian species because of their strong resistance to heat. The very commonly used native buckeye trees have been eaten away at by pests for decades now, and I'm surprised they do not actually seem to die off, but they just stand there with brown leaves for most of the year.
I think the problem is putting them in those dumb tanks where a tree would be, as if to say "do this instead". The principle would be fine if they got a bit more creative with it and played to its strengths, e.g. if you make a train platform out of it, or the railings of an overpass, or the external wall panels of buildings etc.
Ofc OOP didn't actually provide a source so we've no idea what the creators were actually thinking...
A cursory search for "liquid trees micro algae" led me here: https://liquidtrees.org/urban-solutions
Thanks for that. It looks from that like a relevant detail OOP missed out is that these thing (purportedly) claim to produce as much oxygen as 15 trees, which isn't nothing.
The roots destroy sewer systems etc too. There's a bike path I take to work where the pavement is all distorted by the roots, making it very unsafe, but I still prefer that the trees are there.
That's why you have to properly select the species that will be planted, there are many different species which have roots that won't cause this type of damage and you can most likely get by with native plants for better adaptability
Real answer is probably that they'd be used in addition to trees, designed to fit in places unsuitable for a tree.
This. Trees (especially large ones) are a pain to irrigate properly, might not be drought-resistant, grow very slowly until they reach their full potential at removing CO2, interfere with infrastructure that we humans are used to (piping, electricity, telco), roots break up pavements, branches can be a hazard after storms, fruit might attract rats, ...
I'm very much pro trees (despite what I've listed in the first paragraph), but I'm sure there are places in cities where you can't plant trees but could put up algae tanks.
If you understand German (specifically Austrian dialect) you might like this podcast episode about challenges and methods to overcome them in the context of greenery in the city of Graz:
Simple Smart Buildings: Bäume in der Stadt
Webseite der Episode: https://podcasted3e6b.podigee.io/153-baume-in-der-stadt
Mediendatei: https://audio.podigee-cdn.net/1742586-m-9ecab280e580cd07f75c83ed9379b970.mp3?source=feed
TL;DL of this episode: it's not as simple as "just plant more trees".
Yes. Algae is better in absorbing co2 than tree, but tree is important as a shade and creating a cooling effect for the surrounding. Both is important for different thing and combine it you get the best of both world, especially in a lot of urban area where planting big tree isn't possible
Like walls of high-rises.
I recently learned that there's a group dedicated to planting 1000 trees in the city of Trenton, NJ, USA. I'm really glad to see a city working to bring back a little nature!
In Vienna, Austria, Europe, every tree removed has to be replaced with a new as per regulation
The problem even with that is that an old, standing tree and a young one are very different in their ability to provide the services we seek from them.
Same in Oslo
In Toronto Canada if you plant trees you get arrested
For real though?
Every tree must be municipally approved, plant one on your own without the city’s consent and without using their services and you will be heavily fined and asked to remove the tree at the very least
A few reasons: Trees need a lot of space and the space underneath a sidewalk isn't enough for long term life. They can die after like 30 years? This is tree dependent and location dependent.
Tree roots can destroy sidewalks making it harder for people to go over them. (Think people in wheel chairs)
Liability in terms of damage (have you seen trees after a storm?)
I disagree. Pavement is valuable to pedestrians, cyclists, emergency and service vehicles, and the disabled. While it's important to preserve nature as much as possible, some urbanisation is also a good thing. That said, I'm not sure algae tanks would be necessary in areas where huge tracts of land aren't dedicated to parking. I can't really think of where my city would benefit from them.
Yes to ripping up roads for greenspace, not to removing sidewalks too.
Make the city green and walkable, and you solve so many problems in one go
If cities where walkable they wouldn't be sprawling masses that they are.
Trees don’t attract VC funding the way some dumb new invention does.
I guess this could be useful in places trees don’t fit but I think there are other simpler solutions.
I have a tree sitting in a pot on my desk.
Your potted tree isn’t a tree in the sense that I’m talking about. The environmental services trees provide are all based on size and so are predominantly provided by larger trees. Cities usually avoid planting these under electrical wires and in smaller tree basins to avoid damage to infrastructure. So practically, there are many urban locations where big trees won’t fit.
Are you discriminating because lil' tree is lil'? /s
My tree is not small, it's average sized
Depends how you use it
How much CO2 does the tree on your desk take in? Do you think it approaches 1/1000 of the amount that a bunch of algae can take in? So maybe it’s not the same and comparing it as being the same is done in bad faith. Trees are great and in many cases are superior as they also provide shade, but you can’t ignore the negatives of them(mostly related to their roots) and that they don’t work in every situation
Does its root structure break the pavement above it?
Has the manufacturer even calculated how much energy is needed for production and how long it will take for the corresponding CO2 emissions to be amortized?
We are living in strange times...
And trees that are planted in cities are not seeded. They are grown in a forestry until they reach a certain height. And then dug up with machines transported with machines and then planted with machines. The CO2 produced to plant a single tree also takes quite a while to be absorbed by that tree.
Who cares? You can sell these tanks for a better profit than trees.
The issue with trees is you need to adapt the city to them, you can't adapt them to the city. And people have proven once and again that they would invent anything to not move by an inch when our way of life is put in question.
So we push forward with absurd solutions one after the other: carbon capture, atmospheric geo-engineering, a damned nuke in antarctica, and now "liquid trees".
Because the alternative is to change our ways, and we can't face that.
I would be fine with changing my ways if changing my anything didn’t require endless paperwork. How is it fair that some guy invents agriculture and now I have to have a credit score
That's an incredibly negative spin.
All these technologies are improvements on the natural version, not a replacement for the natural version, but an upgrade. If you want nice trees go take a walk in a city park, these aren't for looking at they have a different objective. We can have both things, one isn't trying to replace the other.
Yeah, can plant a tree? Plant a tree. If you can't, the alternative right now is nothing. This introduces another option.
Trees provide shades that cool down the cities. These algae don't. The main benefit of these "liquid trees" is to reduce pollution. You know what reduces even more pollution? Electrification and public transportation. Combine both. You'll need much less space for motor vehicles lane inside the city and no need for "depolluting" inventions. Add some bike lanes and you'll still have plenty of space for trees. They're better looking and will do the cooling job.
So, as I was saying: praising a less efficient solution that may bring new unexpected issues down the road because the efficient solution requires people to change.
trees take don't come with actual requirement lists. An algae pool can and will come with explicit instructions that are able to be met and won't destroy the sidewalk for no reason.
Wake me up as soon as some goofy ass startup found out how to arrange the algae to display ads.
Add a blockchain and you could get libertarians tripping over to invest
let me introduce you to this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/robo-bees-could-aid-insects-with-pollination-duties/
humans are crazy. You want to know whats wrong with trees and bees? It's pretty hard to make a profit of them
Insert random copypasta about biotech breakthrough that turns water and CO2 and nutrients into sustainable building materials which sounds like space age technology but it's just trees
You can’t charge a subscription fee for trees.
What you can do is take all the trees and put them in a tree museum and charge the people a dollar and a half to see them.
Trees don’t create shareholder profits
useless pests they are. who cares that they provide free shade, free oxygen, free beauty for all to enjoy. Fucking commies.
I agree trees are commies. Must be why Trump is going to clear cut several hundred million acres of the last remaining old growth forests …because they’re full of commie trees
Dumb take. If someone crashes their car into one of these, it can be replaced in a few days. Trees take decades to grow in ideal conditions. Between tall buildings in a city is far from ideal conditions.
Also algae is way more efficient at converting CO2 into O2; I think it's maybe multiple times more efficient using the same amount of light.
As an emergency responder, I can say with confidence that when a car hits a tree, it's rare that the car wins. The tree usually just shrugs it off.
I've definitely seen "median trees" and "sidewalk trees" here in Atlanta get removed or replaced after a car hits them. But for sure, large trees can easily shrug off a car crash. Those are just not usually in heavily urban areas like these tanks are meant for.
Not that it is super relevant to this discussion, but last month someone with a chainsaw cut down multiple (I wanna say a dozen or so) trees along a street in Atlanta in the middle of the night. Who TF would do that?!?! Sad and pointless....
Emergency responder in a big city? Trees will fuck up a car no doubt but not usually the tiny ones lining the streets of major urban centers, most I see get to be maybe 5 in across. But it may all be location dependant.
Yes. Even a 50mm (2 inches) tree trunk will usually win against a car on urban roads, though I suppose it would depend on how well rooted they are (the tree, not the driver)
Dumb take, by the guy who has no idea how much it costs to maintain these tanks or any understanding of the scales involved, all while wanting to live in a world of green goo in tanks instead of one with trees in their cities.
Who said I wouldn't want to live in a city with trees? I just said that in some areas, these make more sense than trees.
Jeez, get off the Internet for a while. Obviously you're looking for someone to argue with. I'm not that guy.
Trees take ages to grow, and their root systems damage buildings and pavements.
Also really really hard to keep trees alive on the sides of buildings where these units could conceivably be used. Modular trees plus trees where we can fit them.
But the shade of a tree is far superior and reduces the overall temperature around them if many are planted, so overall much better.
Also certain trees dont need deep roots and can grow without neccessairliy damaging the pavement.
You can take trees and replant them in the city, you don't have to grow it there. There are tree farms.
Few things about trees in cities: (1) tree roots ruin sidewalks because they upend that stuff; (2) tree roots get into and ruin infrastructure, (3) not every curb can sustain a tree, so these could fit where a tree could not; and (4) they damage stuff when they fall over in storms.
Crazy thought - instead of just putting trees near curbs, have dedicated green spaces in cities where there aren't sidewalks or other important infrastructure near the trees.
Where did you get these ideas you freak
Parks? Gross. I like parking lots.
How about multi level parking garages teeming with algae?
Why not both green spaces (central park anyone?) and these alge pods everywhere else?
I think the current plan is to simply depopulate the United States through fiscal policies and have everyone move back to Europe.
Welp, all the trees are gone but at least there are these cloudy stinking tanks of goo everywhere. Does anything not dystopian happen anymore? Like these things are a set piece from Blade Runner FFS.
It's a pretty bad example in this case because the picture is literally on a street with trees. What these are probably for is putting in places where no one's going to look at them but places where you can't put trees, like industrial estates and the rooftops of buildings. Aesthetics aren't important if no one is ever going to look at them aesthetically, and anyway they kind of look cool.
I'm sure they're probably a good idea, I'm just crabby.
The issue is that the roof is smaller than the bench, so it doesn't even provide shade.
Like I said though that isn't what they're for. They're not going to replace trees they're just going to augment their CO2 absorption.
If it's actually more efficient then trees, could be a good idea. Saw a 51/49 video where he explained the urban development in the US requiring only male trees be planted leads to increased pollen levels and has made the "allergy season" 30+ days longer over the past 50 years or so.
While I would hate to lose actual trees, I'm medium on the idea of this on it's own. People need lots of things and space, which causes the removal of trees. If we can replicate some of their functions, such as CO2 absorption with this tech, then that seems good. If upkeep is the same as a tree, I don't see a downside to the overall concept.
My thought would be that this shows up on top of the buildings instead of at ground level, though.... Plant real trees and put these on the roof. The real loss would be if we stop making green spaces because these things meet the need for O2. Green spaces in cities do way more than just clean the air, though, so I'm not sure we're that dystopian yet.
The photo looks like it doubles as a bench too, so maybe that helps justify its footprint. Make them a mini-light show with varied colors and it can become a functional art installation. How long until it has spikes to prevent someone from taking a nap on it, though?
Yeah completely agree, I like trees and don't want them completely gone or anything.
I still want the trees outdoors, but this would be cool for indoor spaces. Each mall or parking lot could have a solar panel overhead and slime-tanks to produce useful byproducts.
Maybe it could be mixed with and aquaculture like fish and sea plants to create cool scenery
But they look good and provide shade. Worth it.
Less infrastructure erosion from roots? Integration into places like above ground parking spaces? Hell could you imagine integrating them into bridge underpasses or walk ways? Heck make a semi destructible version and use that for crash bollards. Only a level 5 vegan is going to complain if some allege is spilt.
trees are not as profitable
This just makes me think it’s an aquarium that needs to be cleaned.
People really like vandalizing trees, diseases exist, and they are less efficient carbon sinks
Like how we found it’s better to feed cattle seaweed than grass but nobody wants to
Carbon sinks? Dude, people are planting trees in cities for the shade.
There’s a quote about planting trees and not living to see their shade
I’m a bit more pessimistic of people plus with smog cover how often will they need shade?
I promise you we have better space than city sidewalks for carbon sinks.
Yes, grass roofs, vines/trees on the sides of buildings and such but there’s never a bad spot for it
Good thing people don't like to vandalize glass.
Usually spray paint it rather than breaking it, and you would hope it’d be fiberglass so it doesn’t just break
When I was visiting Europe, seeing all the trees so well integrated into urban areas was so nice.
Then we git our flight back to Toronto. Concrete jungle.
Upkeep costs. Oh, wait.
All these braindead silicon valley tech bros trynna reinvent existing solutions to problems in very expensive and unnecessary ways, marketing it as "revolutionary" and "groundbreaking"
The majority of our oxygen comes from algae, they aren’t reinventing existing solutions they just put a tank of them in a city and blow air into it so that a city can use the same more efficient
faunaflora that is available in coastal citiesI believe algae are flora, not fauna
You are absolutely correct and that was a stupid on my part
Mistakes aren't stupid, they are human. Hell we are even making our AI in our own image now...
Back when I was a kid, trees still lived under water.
These algae also produce biogas that can be used for heating or producing electricity.
Damn if only trees created something gaseous that was useful
They emit carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and oxygen, which causes rust in metals and aging in humans. So it's a negative really...
I would support legislation that mandated these be used around the highest carbon emitting facilities. Maybe a few very well designed structures (algae tanks) in very densely populated cities.
These would be in no way a replacement for trees in a community but, I could see forcing the corporations to use them. Such as those that must pollute because, they can not manufacture these products without polluting.
The problem with trees is they are used as lumber. The national parks has always been protected. But Trump has unprotected parts of the national parks to be cut down for lumber.
I guess it would take a lot of time to accommodate Mars for trees. More than for algae ;)
What happens when one of these breaks and drains into the sewer system? Algae blooms cause noxious odors and would proliferate quickly in the nitrogen-rich environment of human waste water, potentially building up as clogs in the sewer lines. And if the system drains into a natural body of water, the algae can have devastating toxic effects on the natural wildlife. If it doesn't drain and instead gets recycled, then the water treatment process becomes much more difficult and expensive.
Can't they just put the algae in the ocean?
If we put the algae in the oceans, then sink all of our cities underwater, all of our problems will be solved.
There are algae in the ocean. The problem with ocean algae is not that they aren't there, but that their requirements (sunlight, oxygen, acidity, temperature, etc.) prevent them from expanding any further.
even your trees will be slop. nice.
Keep in mind that tree roots can brake through anything
Not all do. That's an oak thing really. Pines, most stone fruits, etc, take a path of least resistance, unlike oaks which are more "I am going that way, and NOTHING will stop me!"
Alternative in what sense?
Pretty sure some cities have about zero areas for a tree to grow. Algae produces a much larger percentage of oxygen compared to any tree.
Pretty sure trees in cities aren't there to produce oxygen or capture carbon.
Mostly they're there either for decoration or to lower street temperature. Depending on how long ago they were planted.
Exactly
Trees do actually improve air quality, by absorbing harmful gases like sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide through their leaves. Additionally they can reduce particulate pollution by up to 70% - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200504-which-trees-reduce-air-pollution-best
I totally agree, and that's not the oxygen production these tech bros want to make more efficient.
Trees won't get some tech bros bought out by Google.
Nothing to manufacture, very little maintenance. Trees took our jerbs.
Your just thinking outside the box!
The issue with trees is you need to adapt the city to them, you can't adapt them to the city. And people have proven once and again that they would invent anything to not move by an inch when our way of life is put in question.
So we push forward with absurd solutions one after the other: carbon capture, atmospheric geo-engineering, a damned nuke in antarctica, and now "liquid trees".
Because the alternative is to change our ways, and we can't face that.
Deja Vu
Can we please, stop reposting this same shit pic for the last, I dunno, year?
This is the gazillionth time. I get it. Is a stupid algea tank. where a simple tree does the same for a fraction of the cost. It's of no use in the public space except as a tech demo or art object.
So. Yeah... Next?
This is only the second time I've seen it, but please... there was a time when complaining about reposts was the most often repeated thing I saw on reddit. Can we not have that bit of irony become a thing here?
Green shit on your terrace, leaves fucking everywhere, looming threat of bird shit on your head, seeds everywhere, roots growing through everything, blocking the sun at every step, tough lessons in gravity for things kids climbing them, lot of damage when it's stormy out.
But nah trees are great, really.
Edit: apparently I need to clarify that I really do love nature more than the concrete jungle, but there are things you can find that are not that great about trees.
That's a feature. I don't want to be grilled by the sun everywhere I go.
Great for local air quality, too.
Oh no, nature is getting in the way of...a civilization of bipedal animals that encroached on nature!
It's abhorrent!!
ETA: Yes, that definitely needed clarification.
You could change half of your words, and keep the meaning the same, and make a compelling case that roads, or any other things, are humanity's greatest scourge.
If all you can do is complain that the natural world is insufficiently bent to your personal convenience, you are the problem with humanity right now.
Go touch whatever remaining local flora people like you have allowed to continue to exist, and quit being an imbecilic bellend online.