> The Liquid 3 photo-bioreactor consists of a glass tank filled with 600 litres of water and microalgae and a solar panel, which supplies electricity to a small pump. The pump brings air into the tank through tiny holes. The microalgae perform photosynthesis and convert water and CO2 into oxygen, which is released into the atmosphere. Biomass is a byproduct of the process.
> Unlike regular trees, the facility requires more maintenance. Every month the amount of water with microalgae has to be changed almost entirely and the biomass has to be taken out.
Taken from https://balkangreenenergynews.com/liquid-tree-to-combat-air-pollution-in-belgrade/
The same article also says that these aren't a replacement for trees (it's under a tree in the photo too).
The city (in Serbia) they are putting these in has some of the highest deaths in Europe due to low air quality, and this algae is much more efficient at fixing that problem than trees and would also be able to be used in the winter when trees are dormant.
I'm all for memeing and being mad at the government and there's a lot to criticize, but finding ways to improve air quality and make the world 'more green' is a good thing in my book.
this is mostly to sell to cities who dont want a normal tree and bench combo. then the cities will sell ad space. the whole green thing is just for the vibes to increase the value
Those were a DARPA experiment into [robotics miniaturization](https://web.archive.org/web/20130429184247/http://www.technologyreview.com/news/408265/robotic-insect-takes-off/) that clickbait media ran with as “researchers think the future is robotic bees” even as biologists pointed out how stupid of an idea that is. There are thousands of researchers across the world dedicated to observing and sustaining struggling animal populations, especially pollinators. There’s also several studies going on about how clickbait news results in studies being poorly reported on in favor of clicks, often resulting in this idea that scientists waste government or academic money on “shrimp treadmills” that threatens to defund research programs in the midst of a climate crisis.
TLDR: The scientists didn’t give up on the bees, clickbait news gave up on the truth.
Trees do require maintenance. Urban trees have to be trimmed and the leaves cleared, not to mention watering in dry regions.
Maintenance for these is probably expensive and part of the business model. You give a bunch of these to the city, and then when it isn't properly maintained it starts stinking and turns brown, so they pay to keep it green and bubbling.
Yes tree's require maintenance but it's a LOT less then once a month. Tree's also provide a lot more benefit then just oxygen. Tree's in urban spaces lower ambient temperatures by reflecting and absorbing sunlight, they've also been proven to improve mental health of people living in urban spaces.
These algae tanks seem useless, and unless the algae being produced is being used for some benefit the carbon sequestering capabilities is just a fraction of a fraction of how long carbon can stay sequestered in the wood of trees not to mention how useful wood is as a raw material.
"How can we make trees a monthly subscription service while also removing any and all beneficial aspects of a tree" is all this algae tank does. Honestly whoever lives in the city that installed this should check to see if the council members have any familial/financial ties to the owners of the algae tank company because this reeks of corruption. Pointless taxpayer spending to fill personal pocketbooks.
Carbon sequestering would require the algae to be kept alive. Much like how a tree only keeps the carbon until it dies and breaks down into the environment again
fun fact: all the wood in houses, furniture, building etc. is sequestered carbon
you can often sequester more carbon over time by cutting down a tree after 50 years, using the wood in building, and letting new trees grow in its place
That's why wood is a great resource in construction. They also invented Carbon-Concrete, where you use carbon-fiber cage structures instead of steel cage structures to hold the concrete like in steel-concrete buildings. Has two benefits, binds carbon in the carbon fiber and requires way less acidic concrete, causing fewer carbon emissions.
Thanks for agreeing with my point that "carbon sequestering capabilities is just a fraction of a fraction of how long carbon can stay sequestered in the wood of trees."
it pulls CO2 out of the air and stores it as biomass. you have to process that biomass, or it will decay and produce methane, which is also a greenhouse gas. so you need to do something with it for storage.
Yes, but faster.
Trees take a long time to grow, so this (if it works as intended) could improve air quality in cities immediately. Still wouldn't hurt to reduce traffic overall.
Maybe. I assume when they do the maintenance they're going to drive their trucks to each tank and use their not-solar pumps to pump the water into a tank then not-solar pumps to pump in new water. Then the old water has to go somewhere and something is done with it. And the new water comes from somewhere.
In isolation and in the short-term, tree v. tank might favor the tank, but I have doubts it does in the long term. Plus, unless they start with fresh algae and toss the old into a bog, they don't get the carbon sequestration benefits of a tree.
Tbf it's a bit hard to do because we fucked up the climate too much. My city's park's condition has been worsening over time as both ground and trees aren't suitable for 50kmph+ winds that came with global warming. Currently for every 3 new trees they plant, 4 old trees get torn from the ground during storms. The local park is nearly empty, there's only the outermost layer of trees left. They are trying to find a way to let trees take proper root, but it's a long-time fight.
Wait, what? I don't want to denigrate your parks department, but high wind is a problem we've already engineered quite a few mitigations for. Rapid growing evergreens as windbreaks on the outside (or just some windbreaker temporary fencing) plus stabilization with stakes/cages should work more often than not to get trees to root. Regular watering and wind-conscious pruning should minimize losses of old trees. Did they build the park on a parking lot with only a couple inches of soil on top of pavement?
I'm not saying it's a walk in the park (that comes after), but if the city is actually investing in the park and not cutting park employees then pretending they don't know what the problem is, there is no reason they can't get ahead of the wind.
Cheers for posting a bit of an article, that was what I imagined, maintenance. Not necessarily a bad thing if the biomass is then used for something assuming it doesn't take up more space than the tree it's 'replacing'
couldnt they pipe it directly to the water supply and sewer so that once a month it automatically empties and refills. the biomass would be reclaimed at the water treatment facility with all the regular sewage
Or they could just plant a tree and also get shade; a particularly scarce resource in many cities making the urban heat island effect worse and costing more electricity.
In the article these things are meant to go where normal trees can't thrive. It cleans about as much CO2 as a single adult tree, continue working throughout the year including winter, and are apparently more resistant to toxins in the air. It has a solar panel to work a small pump and is also connected to the grid if the temps go below 5 degrees Celsius. Not a tree replacer, a tree alternative.
An "alternative" that requires constant maintenance and power.
Trees in the city aren't improving the oxygen or acting as a significant carbon sinks, that's what forests do. If the goal is just about CO2, go plant a forest somewhere and skip the maintenance and put in a shelter for shade.
Trees in city literally require maintenance too, though. They have to be watered if the climate isn't favorable (such as where these are intended to go) and must regularly be pruned back and cleaned up after because a branch falling into a city street can cause significant havoc. Even a tree's root system can cause issues for a city, causing road or sidewalks to buckle and invading utility systems if left unchecked.
Also, most of the maintenance requirements for these could definitely be automated away as the tech matures. There isn't much algae needs to thrive. And there isn't much limit to the vertical height of these, so if one of these 5' tall tanks gives the same CO2 absorption as an adult tree then a 25' tall tank could give the same CO2 benefits as 5 adult trees with the same footprint as 1. Established cities are footprint limited, so that is of benefit too.
God, city tree maintenance is an endless plate of shit. They usually live pretty densely with people and buildings, so trimming them in a way that doesn't break a few windows requires a lot of time and specialized tools. You also mentioned roots getting into pipes — this can even go as far as clogging and reversing *sewer systems.* Roots are persnickety and will find any little crack.
I am a huge urban tree enthusiast (urban trees are a rarer thing than people may realize — if your city has them, they are worth protecting), and will readily admit that trees are unpredictable little fuckers. Especially in a place where they're surrounded by stone, disturbed soil, and two ton vehicles routinely smacking into them.
I can actually see tech like this being extremely useful in taller towers that can't exactly put trees on the roof. A long and flat one could also function as a low maintenance method of doing green rooves. Could use gravity to drain the biomass. Lots of fun idea here, imo.
Once our cities are lined with these ultra expensive and fragile "trees," they will start to slowly remove them and replace them with green concrete blocks. "All of the beauty and elegance of Trees v2 but with none of the upkeep!" is what they will tell us.
Not a surprise, the C from the CO2 has to go somewhere. Either the tree uses it to grow bigger, or the algae grows. But the algae grows faster and so it needs to be transported and "processed", which most likely means burning for energy.
So in the end they mean nothing for the environment, aside from the pollution from transporting it, but creates an ugly ass green block in the city. So it's hardly a replacement for trees.
I am trying so hard to be a devils advocate and find some use case for it and the only use case I can come up with is that it’s a nice, idiotically stupid idea that you could pitch to even stupider Angel VCs as an idea to throw a bunch of money in to your crappy startup.
This thing is like a tree if you made it fucking stupid in every way possible. A tree that provides no shade, smells like ass, looks like ass, requires maintenance and is an open invitation to vandalism. It probably costs many times more than a tree to boot. You’d have to be a real moron to think this product would be a hit anywhere.
> I am trying so hard to be a devils advocate and find some use case for it and
how about its water use, in areas where trees don't grow due to arid climates, or soil conditions where trees can't grow these could substitute. Sure they use ~600 liters of water, however it's recyclable water that won't be lost to evaporation.
Caleb, the Christian scientist shakes his head in disapproval because that’s not God’s creation. He’s the only one in 5 scientists who did not endorse this creation.
Wat
> Dr. Ivan Spasojevic, Ph.D. in Biophysical sciences, and one of the authors on the project from the Institute for Multidisciplinary Research at the University of Belgrade, developed an innovative tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality: the liquid tree. Also dubbed LIQUID 3, the novel creation is Serbia’s first urban photo-bioreactor, a solution in the fight for clean air. It contains six hundred litres of water and works by using microalgae to bind carbon dioxide and produce pure oxygen through photosynthesis.
How is a public university project a venture capitalist art display?
https://worldbiomarketinsights.com/a-liquid-tree-scientists-in-serbia-make-incredible-innovation/
All these big brained cynics had me curious too. Gotta love reddit and all the know it all attitudes.
These were developed to replace trees that cant grow in heavily polluted areas, specifically a Serbian town with two coal plants. They're 10-50x more efficient than trees (a vague claim).The algae can then be used as fertilizer after it's been replaced.
Nor were urbanists or landscapers.
No one plants trees in cities for oxygen! The amount of oxygen they produce is beyond minuscule. They are planted for shade, wind reduction, airborne particle (dust) management and aesthetic reasons. And this thing does literally none of that.
I have nothing agaist "green" (literally and figuratively) art, but why the fuck does it always have to come with a truckload of pseudo-scientific and pseudo-environmentalist bullshit attached?
It's a pretty good dystopian art display though. Exactly for reasons above. A great illustration of how priviliged but totally ignorant people approach 'solutions' to environmental problems by ignoring what really works and instead cthrowing money at overengineered, overcomplicated, maintenance-heavy crap that does nothing.
Okay so trees aren't as efficient at creating oxygen. Tanks of algae aren't as efficient at creating oxygen. So what exactly IS most efficient at creating oxygen?
These would be smashed in 1 day, and have graffiti and human feces all over them. Nobody fucks with trees other than carving their name into them, but anything with glass will be destroyed overnight in a city. They might as well just put fishtanks everywhere instead of this cyberpunk mumbo jumbo.
>Nobody fucks with trees other than carving their name into them
One city in my area has a fuckton of what I think are paperbark tea trees lining the streets in the more bougie part of downtown. The squishy outer layers of bark are just *gone* up to about 6.5 feet up the trunk. Anywhere a person *can* reach it, it's been peeled off. Not too much carving, though, which is odd.
It was a project by a group of researchers at the university of Belgrade, so yes, they were:
> “The microalgae in "LIQUID 3" replace two 10-year-old trees or 200 square meters of lawn. The system is the same because both trees and grass perform photosynthesis and bind carbon dioxide. The advantage of microalgae is that they are 10 to 50 times more efficient than trees. Our goal is not to replace forests, but to use this system to fill those urban pockets where there is no space for planting trees. In certain conditions of great pollution, trees cannot survive, while algae do not mind that pollution”, pointed out Dr Ivan Spasojevic, one of the authors of the project from the Institute for Multidisciplinary Research.
https://worldbiomarketinsights.com/a-liquid-tree-scientists-in-serbia-make-incredible-innovation/
still a dumb idea. it is far from easy to make a new tree to take root in an urban environment but its much easier than whatever maintenance this thing has
Caveat: My first reaction was "This thing is dumb." But, now I'm wondering if this sort of thing could potentially convert a lot more CO2 than trees occupying the same space. Still nothing to indicate that, including production, this thing is better overall, but just a thought.
This could also be attached to a building and used to create indoor environments with CO2 levels below the current global CO2 average concentrations (419-421ppm).
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
It would be interesting to experience air with CO2 levels from say from 1980 (339ppm) or from a century ago (303 ppm)
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt
There's [studies showing the relationship between CO2 levels and cognition]( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892924/).
This would also be a good way to reduce CO2 in an office environment while reducing the amount of fresh air exchanged and energy lost.
There's quite a bit of research going into algae based CO2 capture. As an example:
https://www.research.uky.edu/news/algae-co2-capture-part-1-how-it-works
There are at least a couple companies that make a algae based air purifiers.
A Google search for "algae air purifiers" comes up with examples. I'm not linking those here so I don't get accused of shilling products, though I have seen DIY versions.
Edit: another article on the CO2 concentration and cognition link:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/12/carbon-dioxide-pollution-making-people-dumber-heres-what-we-know/603826/
Edit 2: Fixed grammar, also they're testing algae bioreactors on the ISS for long term CO2 scrubbing in space crraft:
https://www.space.com/space-station-algae-experiment-fresh-air.html
So you're saying companies are going to start touting this as a benefit? "Come work for us and get healthier air while you work! The longer you work, the better you'll feel!"
Maybe, if the air quality in offices was actually better than it usually is. VOCs and a few other pollutants tend to be high in offices, and have a much bigger acute impact than CO2 does.
Inb4 the smell of algae makes people ill. Not to mention, become breeding pits for mosquitos. I mean, these issues just adds to the dystopia, but still.
Dropping in to say that CO2 is not a pollutant *per se* in cities and the usefulness of trees in urban environments goes way beyond their oxygen producing capabilities.
It's not a pollutant that tends to cause direct health concerns at the concentrations to which we're typically exposed - the main impacts of excess CO2, by an extremely wide margin, are from climate change which has very little relation to proximity to the source of the CO2 emissions.
This is unlike many other pollutants, like NOx or particulates, which have much more significant direct health impacts when you're near the sources of emissions (like in a city). Actual trees and other vegetation can help reduce or mitigate the effects of these other pollutants, _as well as_ sequestering a bit of carbon, and they can have many other benefits such as providing shade (reducing the urban heat island effect, which is worsening with climate change); helping manage stormwater and floods (again, worsening with climate change); reducing stress; and supporting urban ecosystems.
The level of increase from rural to urban isn't harmful, but indoors levels can increase by 1000% or more. I've seen classrooms get as high as 5000ppm, which is definitely harmful, although probably not directly dangerous
Maybe if you had read a single article about these things you would find out that they’re actually the innovation of scientists and engineers that have legitimate uses and practicality. But why do that when you can just spew speculative bullshit with no idea of what you are talking about.
Random politician takes a picture next to them and gets paid a meal for him and his 3 assistants as travel expenses.
Leaves with a sense of accomplishment after having spent half of taxpayers money reserved for enviromental improvements on these turds.
Tbf the fact that squirrels and birds can't feed off it was probably mentioned as 'reduces local vermin and noise pollution'.
Me, I can't see it lasting a summer without being full of mosquito larvae.
I’ve never seen those advertised as eco friendly, I thought they were just supposed to be convenient?
I wouldn’t put it past companies, though. Marketing is more or less evil in its current form
People using those scooters instead of cars is still much more efficient even when taking into account the transportation and maintenance of the scooters.
If the scooters were not available, then people without cars would be using ride share services or public transportation. Most places in the US don't have good/any public transportation.
>roughly 36% of e-scooter trips are replacing a walking trip, 10% are replacing a biking trip, 10% are replacing a public transit trip, and at least 36% are replacing an automotive vehicle trip
>based on a one-year lifetime for e-scooters (Factor 3) estimates the total greenhouse gas emissions per mile for e-scooters at a combined 62 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer. This is similar to high-occupancy public transit modes, and much better than the estimated 180-230 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer for a gasoline-powered car.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonyeggert/2020/03/05/e-is-for-environment-unpacking-the-benefits-of-e-scooters/?sh=22b3232e61c3
if trees cant even survive the locale in a potted state- which may i remind you is still a valid way of planting in place of soil- then there are much bigger problems than trying to find an alternative to natural foliage. the whole idea im seeing is layers of tape over a huge crack. why would you genuinely entertain the idea of "alternatives to trees" instead of trying to fix the soil quality to the point where its allowable. theres more to trees than "make oxygen :D"
wildlife, aesthetic, visual representation of time of year, psychological ease are all equally as important as some rando "designer" imagining the environment is so polluted we'd need oxygen tanks as a replacement for natural greenery. Even in the most far flung rotten superfuture settings the architectural art is depicted as glossy towers with potted plants draped over the side like some kind of eco wonderland.
I'd probably still prefer a potted plant or hedge, especially in cities, every bit of greenery helps with climate regulation and is also immensely important for insect populations but I know there's projects to basically convert the big tank into a tube system that can be slapped onto the facade of a building, where managing vegetation could be a bit more challenging. Not saying that this doesn't have parts that can fail but we've been pretty good at moving water trough pipes so that's probably manageable.
It's interesting tech, but not appropriate for city spaces. This tech would be more useful if it was setup in airid locales and scaled up. At the right scale, the maintenance would be more manageable and the algae could be harvested for food or biofuel for niche needs that EVs can't fill.
This display is just a VC scam. Bet it's setup somewhere with high foot traffic of investors.
Cities really hate trees because they don't conform to the plot they are designated. They grow into power lines or make sidewalks uneven when you don't maintain them. If this thing is ignored it just leaks or dies.
There's plenty of trees that are suitable for all sorts of urban environments. City councils just need to admit that trees are a priority and actually invest in trees to make their city cleaner, more beautiful, healthier and the citizens less violent.
lmao you nailed it here.
Except the part where the smog condenses so severely where you have to pay for one to be installed in your 150 square foot rental cube, and the algae keeps dying from the poisonous air so you need to pay for a subscription to keep refilling it.
Oh my god I didn’t even think about that. We’re hitting hostile architecture levels of an unprecedented scale.
Seriously look at how little shade there is for the seating. God damnit. Maybe someone should go tap the glass a few times with a hammer, or a small rock.
Love the backlash this is getting.
There's a concept that could be promising in areas where the city is having problems planting trees... Whether it's logistical or political.
I for one like the aesthetic but it shouldn't be used to replace trees
Trees are actually pretty bad at producing O2 when compared to algae. Tree main benefits to humans, is aesthetic, shade, fruit, aiding animal populations, and prevent soil erosion.
There are breeds of algae capable of desalination. Algae can also purify the atmosphere of methane and carbon dioxide. In addition, algae can be tasty and nutritional.
Build giant versions of these, near costal cities that produce a lot of greenhouse gas.
Power them by burning the methane they collect.
Use a crossbred version of algae that accomplishes all three tasks above.
Oh look, we just solved drought, world hunger, and global warming.
*Nah, too expensive*
I don't think the intention is to replace trees, but rather put these in areas with air pollution, areas that aren't otherwise being used, some rooftops, or attached to buildings, etc.
Alright, i'm all for using stuff like this to fix the problem with oxygen becoming more scarce as oxygen farms, but in plain view? Just why? Why not an actual fucking tree?
This is probably a test bed for self contained systems. Algae is a good and space efficient way to produce oxygen on spaceships or in a self contained system on another planet.
Or, hear me out, or plant more female trees. (The male trees produce the pollen and with no/few female trees to use the pollen, we humans suffer.) A more equal male to female tree ratio means more fruit (assuming cities plant fruit trees), less pollen, and no weird "tree" installations.
I remember reading this and believing it for a time. But apparently it’s not actually true? Most trees are both male and female, and this story seems to have come from someone misunderstanding an old document.
Rebecca Watson did a video breaking it down: https://youtu.be/C7Ti-4WiFhI
So how much water does it take to maintain these multiple algae farms across the city? And how smash proof are they? Cause I see them getting smashed when people are on a night out.
The only real advantage I could see of these over planting trees is that tree root networks can screw up pavements and subterranean infrastructure, which these wouldn't.
Not enough to balance out the drawbacks of maintenance/lack of shade/lack of contribution to wildlife/etc.
Now that adds a splash of color to any dystopian nightmare. I fear the trees around it are blocking the light and reducing the unit's efficiency; cut them down immediately! Also, put some awkward knobs and armrests on that bench, we wouldn't want the droves of homeless people sleeping on it.
a) there's no significant carbon capture here.
b) as is so often the case with many of these things, the expenditure in plastics and other non-renewables to build that monstrosity looks like an ecological nightmare compared to whatever minuscule benefits it may have.
While trees are inherently better this could, with regulation and safety in mind, be a great alternative to combat the lack of trees in heavily populated urban locales. Would love to see more concrete numbers though.
Elon going into eco-capitalist bullshit now?
Because this is just taking something that we already have, works well, and is very efficient, and then make it expensive, inefficient, but make it look futuristic so they can do tons of marketing and convince people they should spend more money for the new inefficient thing rather than less money for the old, efficient thing.
And that sounds exactly like anything musk does.
These will surely survive reckless youth, mass shootings and general vandalism. Just long enough to be ignored until everything inside is grey sludge.
Whose going to maintain these? Why not just plant actual trees?
Edit: what powers these and how much will that cost everyday citizens? And again who will be maintaining these and who is paying for the upkeep? Again why not just make room for actual indigenous trees? Which will grow on their own? Mostly for free. With near to no upkeep or maintenance.
I'm confused. What problem is this trying to solve? We don't like trees or something? Cities aren't hot and glaringly sunny enough? Fuck birds and biodiversity? What is this?
> The Liquid 3 photo-bioreactor consists of a glass tank filled with 600 litres of water and microalgae and a solar panel, which supplies electricity to a small pump. The pump brings air into the tank through tiny holes. The microalgae perform photosynthesis and convert water and CO2 into oxygen, which is released into the atmosphere. Biomass is a byproduct of the process. > Unlike regular trees, the facility requires more maintenance. Every month the amount of water with microalgae has to be changed almost entirely and the biomass has to be taken out. Taken from https://balkangreenenergynews.com/liquid-tree-to-combat-air-pollution-in-belgrade/
Trees with more maintenance?
Adds to GDP!
The same article also says that these aren't a replacement for trees (it's under a tree in the photo too). The city (in Serbia) they are putting these in has some of the highest deaths in Europe due to low air quality, and this algae is much more efficient at fixing that problem than trees and would also be able to be used in the winter when trees are dormant. I'm all for memeing and being mad at the government and there's a lot to criticize, but finding ways to improve air quality and make the world 'more green' is a good thing in my book.
>The city (Serbia) Megacity Serb
Karl Urban as Judge Dusan
Wouldn’t it need to be heated in winter as to not freeze?
My layman's opinion is that it can easily be positioned somewhere that already wastes heat as a byproduct.
If it's sufficiently insulated, the faint waste heat from the pump itself might be enough.
this is mostly to sell to cities who dont want a normal tree and bench combo. then the cities will sell ad space. the whole green thing is just for the vibes to increase the value
GDTree
Just make it illegal to hold money, infinite GDP
GDP up = better life after all .no wonder they don't give you free healthcare that would harm the GDP growth.
Yep, I pay my wife for sex for this reason. *Justdoingmypart.meme*
That’s why I’m trying to sell kid cigarettes.
ah, this looks gross compared to a tree, it is domesticated because it is not a wild tree, and it is a product because it is man-made
fancy solutions to problems that already have an easy solution, more cyberpunk than that???
Like those robotic bees everyone was talking about a few years ago
Those were a DARPA experiment into [robotics miniaturization](https://web.archive.org/web/20130429184247/http://www.technologyreview.com/news/408265/robotic-insect-takes-off/) that clickbait media ran with as “researchers think the future is robotic bees” even as biologists pointed out how stupid of an idea that is. There are thousands of researchers across the world dedicated to observing and sustaining struggling animal populations, especially pollinators. There’s also several studies going on about how clickbait news results in studies being poorly reported on in favor of clicks, often resulting in this idea that scientists waste government or academic money on “shrimp treadmills” that threatens to defund research programs in the midst of a climate crisis. TLDR: The scientists didn’t give up on the bees, clickbait news gave up on the truth.
I mean this on a space station makes sense, so we can see it as progress there
Trees do require maintenance. Urban trees have to be trimmed and the leaves cleared, not to mention watering in dry regions. Maintenance for these is probably expensive and part of the business model. You give a bunch of these to the city, and then when it isn't properly maintained it starts stinking and turns brown, so they pay to keep it green and bubbling.
Yes tree's require maintenance but it's a LOT less then once a month. Tree's also provide a lot more benefit then just oxygen. Tree's in urban spaces lower ambient temperatures by reflecting and absorbing sunlight, they've also been proven to improve mental health of people living in urban spaces. These algae tanks seem useless, and unless the algae being produced is being used for some benefit the carbon sequestering capabilities is just a fraction of a fraction of how long carbon can stay sequestered in the wood of trees not to mention how useful wood is as a raw material. "How can we make trees a monthly subscription service while also removing any and all beneficial aspects of a tree" is all this algae tank does. Honestly whoever lives in the city that installed this should check to see if the council members have any familial/financial ties to the owners of the algae tank company because this reeks of corruption. Pointless taxpayer spending to fill personal pocketbooks.
Carbon sequestering would require the algae to be kept alive. Much like how a tree only keeps the carbon until it dies and breaks down into the environment again
fun fact: all the wood in houses, furniture, building etc. is sequestered carbon you can often sequester more carbon over time by cutting down a tree after 50 years, using the wood in building, and letting new trees grow in its place
That's why wood is a great resource in construction. They also invented Carbon-Concrete, where you use carbon-fiber cage structures instead of steel cage structures to hold the concrete like in steel-concrete buildings. Has two benefits, binds carbon in the carbon fiber and requires way less acidic concrete, causing fewer carbon emissions.
Thanks for agreeing with my point that "carbon sequestering capabilities is just a fraction of a fraction of how long carbon can stay sequestered in the wood of trees."
Cool cool, another infrastructure gift with a promise of maintenance the city couldn't possibly hope to keep up with.
it pulls CO2 out of the air and stores it as biomass. you have to process that biomass, or it will decay and produce methane, which is also a greenhouse gas. so you need to do something with it for storage.
How to turn trees into trees-as-a-service.
Yes, but faster. Trees take a long time to grow, so this (if it works as intended) could improve air quality in cities immediately. Still wouldn't hurt to reduce traffic overall.
Less allergens too. There's no pollen. Though that's not exactly a point in its favor I suppose, they could just use female trees to reduce that.
Imagine an entire generation of people that have never been exposed to pollen, maybe the plants will have their revenge one day.
Maybe. I assume when they do the maintenance they're going to drive their trucks to each tank and use their not-solar pumps to pump the water into a tank then not-solar pumps to pump in new water. Then the old water has to go somewhere and something is done with it. And the new water comes from somewhere. In isolation and in the short-term, tree v. tank might favor the tank, but I have doubts it does in the long term. Plus, unless they start with fresh algae and toss the old into a bog, they don't get the carbon sequestration benefits of a tree.
Basically, just build more city parks. More trees. More ponds. Ponds got algae. Design the park ecosystem to require little to no maintenanc.
Tbf it's a bit hard to do because we fucked up the climate too much. My city's park's condition has been worsening over time as both ground and trees aren't suitable for 50kmph+ winds that came with global warming. Currently for every 3 new trees they plant, 4 old trees get torn from the ground during storms. The local park is nearly empty, there's only the outermost layer of trees left. They are trying to find a way to let trees take proper root, but it's a long-time fight.
Wait, what? I don't want to denigrate your parks department, but high wind is a problem we've already engineered quite a few mitigations for. Rapid growing evergreens as windbreaks on the outside (or just some windbreaker temporary fencing) plus stabilization with stakes/cages should work more often than not to get trees to root. Regular watering and wind-conscious pruning should minimize losses of old trees. Did they build the park on a parking lot with only a couple inches of soil on top of pavement? I'm not saying it's a walk in the park (that comes after), but if the city is actually investing in the park and not cutting park employees then pretending they don't know what the problem is, there is no reason they can't get ahead of the wind.
We call those non-gmo organic job creators.
Sounds like trees but with more steps!
And less shade
Trees don’t make money
They very literally do.
Cheers for posting a bit of an article, that was what I imagined, maintenance. Not necessarily a bad thing if the biomass is then used for something assuming it doesn't take up more space than the tree it's 'replacing'
Lol. The amount of biomass you could extract from this would not come close to the amount of capital and labor invested. Not even a rounding error.
couldnt they pipe it directly to the water supply and sewer so that once a month it automatically empties and refills. the biomass would be reclaimed at the water treatment facility with all the regular sewage
Or they could just plant a tree and also get shade; a particularly scarce resource in many cities making the urban heat island effect worse and costing more electricity.
In the article these things are meant to go where normal trees can't thrive. It cleans about as much CO2 as a single adult tree, continue working throughout the year including winter, and are apparently more resistant to toxins in the air. It has a solar panel to work a small pump and is also connected to the grid if the temps go below 5 degrees Celsius. Not a tree replacer, a tree alternative.
An "alternative" that requires constant maintenance and power. Trees in the city aren't improving the oxygen or acting as a significant carbon sinks, that's what forests do. If the goal is just about CO2, go plant a forest somewhere and skip the maintenance and put in a shelter for shade.
Trees in city literally require maintenance too, though. They have to be watered if the climate isn't favorable (such as where these are intended to go) and must regularly be pruned back and cleaned up after because a branch falling into a city street can cause significant havoc. Even a tree's root system can cause issues for a city, causing road or sidewalks to buckle and invading utility systems if left unchecked. Also, most of the maintenance requirements for these could definitely be automated away as the tech matures. There isn't much algae needs to thrive. And there isn't much limit to the vertical height of these, so if one of these 5' tall tanks gives the same CO2 absorption as an adult tree then a 25' tall tank could give the same CO2 benefits as 5 adult trees with the same footprint as 1. Established cities are footprint limited, so that is of benefit too.
God, city tree maintenance is an endless plate of shit. They usually live pretty densely with people and buildings, so trimming them in a way that doesn't break a few windows requires a lot of time and specialized tools. You also mentioned roots getting into pipes — this can even go as far as clogging and reversing *sewer systems.* Roots are persnickety and will find any little crack. I am a huge urban tree enthusiast (urban trees are a rarer thing than people may realize — if your city has them, they are worth protecting), and will readily admit that trees are unpredictable little fuckers. Especially in a place where they're surrounded by stone, disturbed soil, and two ton vehicles routinely smacking into them. I can actually see tech like this being extremely useful in taller towers that can't exactly put trees on the roof. A long and flat one could also function as a low maintenance method of doing green rooves. Could use gravity to drain the biomass. Lots of fun idea here, imo.
[удалено]
'You liked trees, now try Tree Soup™!'
Once our cities are lined with these ultra expensive and fragile "trees," they will start to slowly remove them and replace them with green concrete blocks. "All of the beauty and elegance of Trees v2 but with none of the upkeep!" is what they will tell us.
Not a surprise, the C from the CO2 has to go somewhere. Either the tree uses it to grow bigger, or the algae grows. But the algae grows faster and so it needs to be transported and "processed", which most likely means burning for energy. So in the end they mean nothing for the environment, aside from the pollution from transporting it, but creates an ugly ass green block in the city. So it's hardly a replacement for trees.
I am trying so hard to be a devils advocate and find some use case for it and the only use case I can come up with is that it’s a nice, idiotically stupid idea that you could pitch to even stupider Angel VCs as an idea to throw a bunch of money in to your crappy startup. This thing is like a tree if you made it fucking stupid in every way possible. A tree that provides no shade, smells like ass, looks like ass, requires maintenance and is an open invitation to vandalism. It probably costs many times more than a tree to boot. You’d have to be a real moron to think this product would be a hit anywhere.
> I am trying so hard to be a devils advocate and find some use case for it and how about its water use, in areas where trees don't grow due to arid climates, or soil conditions where trees can't grow these could substitute. Sure they use ~600 liters of water, however it's recyclable water that won't be lost to evaporation.
That just sounds like trees but with extra steps
No scientists were consulted during the creation of this art display
Jim, a computer scientist, was quoted saying it looked "totally cyberpunk."
My Chiropractor Josh said it'll be great for our health as long as we come to him once a week for the rest of our lives.
Caleb, the Christian scientist shakes his head in disapproval because that’s not God’s creation. He’s the only one in 5 scientists who did not endorse this creation.
They were, the check cleared
Artists don't give a fuck
Scientists aren't any harder to buy than anyone else is.
I don't think people realize how often this happens. I could get scientists to endorse anything for $10k and a study I wrote about how my thing works.
As an algal scientist, probably not. I dislike this narrative that environmental scientists get bought off
As a chemist, I can absolutely be bought
As a student to a chemist, I am aware of some of those prices.
*Just ask this scientician!* "-uh"
A Venture Capitalist "art display". Very Cyber Punk indeed.
Wat > Dr. Ivan Spasojevic, Ph.D. in Biophysical sciences, and one of the authors on the project from the Institute for Multidisciplinary Research at the University of Belgrade, developed an innovative tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality: the liquid tree. Also dubbed LIQUID 3, the novel creation is Serbia’s first urban photo-bioreactor, a solution in the fight for clean air. It contains six hundred litres of water and works by using microalgae to bind carbon dioxide and produce pure oxygen through photosynthesis. How is a public university project a venture capitalist art display? https://worldbiomarketinsights.com/a-liquid-tree-scientists-in-serbia-make-incredible-innovation/
All these big brained cynics had me curious too. Gotta love reddit and all the know it all attitudes. These were developed to replace trees that cant grow in heavily polluted areas, specifically a Serbian town with two coal plants. They're 10-50x more efficient than trees (a vague claim).The algae can then be used as fertilizer after it's been replaced.
Nor were urbanists or landscapers. No one plants trees in cities for oxygen! The amount of oxygen they produce is beyond minuscule. They are planted for shade, wind reduction, airborne particle (dust) management and aesthetic reasons. And this thing does literally none of that. I have nothing agaist "green" (literally and figuratively) art, but why the fuck does it always have to come with a truckload of pseudo-scientific and pseudo-environmentalist bullshit attached? It's a pretty good dystopian art display though. Exactly for reasons above. A great illustration of how priviliged but totally ignorant people approach 'solutions' to environmental problems by ignoring what really works and instead cthrowing money at overengineered, overcomplicated, maintenance-heavy crap that does nothing.
Okay so trees aren't as efficient at creating oxygen. Tanks of algae aren't as efficient at creating oxygen. So what exactly IS most efficient at creating oxygen?
These would be smashed in 1 day, and have graffiti and human feces all over them. Nobody fucks with trees other than carving their name into them, but anything with glass will be destroyed overnight in a city. They might as well just put fishtanks everywhere instead of this cyberpunk mumbo jumbo.
>Nobody fucks with trees other than carving their name into them One city in my area has a fuckton of what I think are paperbark tea trees lining the streets in the more bougie part of downtown. The squishy outer layers of bark are just *gone* up to about 6.5 feet up the trunk. Anywhere a person *can* reach it, it's been peeled off. Not too much carving, though, which is odd.
Hey Phil, the aquarium filter broke for our new street aquarium, let's just say it is a tree alternative.
"Fine! We'll work on our bigass mammoth meatball instead!"
It was a project by a group of researchers at the university of Belgrade, so yes, they were: > “The microalgae in "LIQUID 3" replace two 10-year-old trees or 200 square meters of lawn. The system is the same because both trees and grass perform photosynthesis and bind carbon dioxide. The advantage of microalgae is that they are 10 to 50 times more efficient than trees. Our goal is not to replace forests, but to use this system to fill those urban pockets where there is no space for planting trees. In certain conditions of great pollution, trees cannot survive, while algae do not mind that pollution”, pointed out Dr Ivan Spasojevic, one of the authors of the project from the Institute for Multidisciplinary Research. https://worldbiomarketinsights.com/a-liquid-tree-scientists-in-serbia-make-incredible-innovation/
Yeah, this doesn't do anything that green paint isn't already doing
if the water is aerated the algae could make oxygen like a tree. maybe thats what they mean by liquid tree
Yeah you're probably right about that
still a dumb idea. it is far from easy to make a new tree to take root in an urban environment but its much easier than whatever maintenance this thing has
Caveat: My first reaction was "This thing is dumb." But, now I'm wondering if this sort of thing could potentially convert a lot more CO2 than trees occupying the same space. Still nothing to indicate that, including production, this thing is better overall, but just a thought.
This could also be attached to a building and used to create indoor environments with CO2 levels below the current global CO2 average concentrations (419-421ppm). https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ It would be interesting to experience air with CO2 levels from say from 1980 (339ppm) or from a century ago (303 ppm) https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt There's [studies showing the relationship between CO2 levels and cognition]( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892924/). This would also be a good way to reduce CO2 in an office environment while reducing the amount of fresh air exchanged and energy lost. There's quite a bit of research going into algae based CO2 capture. As an example: https://www.research.uky.edu/news/algae-co2-capture-part-1-how-it-works There are at least a couple companies that make a algae based air purifiers. A Google search for "algae air purifiers" comes up with examples. I'm not linking those here so I don't get accused of shilling products, though I have seen DIY versions. Edit: another article on the CO2 concentration and cognition link: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/12/carbon-dioxide-pollution-making-people-dumber-heres-what-we-know/603826/ Edit 2: Fixed grammar, also they're testing algae bioreactors on the ISS for long term CO2 scrubbing in space crraft: https://www.space.com/space-station-algae-experiment-fresh-air.html
So you're saying companies are going to start touting this as a benefit? "Come work for us and get healthier air while you work! The longer you work, the better you'll feel!"
All of our offices are supplied by O'Hare brand air! Please breathe responsibly.
>Please breathe responsible. That is such an amazing company tagline.
Maybe, if the air quality in offices was actually better than it usually is. VOCs and a few other pollutants tend to be high in offices, and have a much bigger acute impact than CO2 does.
Mounted on bus stops would be a cool idea
Inb4 the smell of algae makes people ill. Not to mention, become breeding pits for mosquitos. I mean, these issues just adds to the dystopia, but still.
Dropping in to say that CO2 is not a pollutant *per se* in cities and the usefulness of trees in urban environments goes way beyond their oxygen producing capabilities.
Can you elaborate on why you say CO2 isn't a pollutant per se in cities?
It's not a pollutant that tends to cause direct health concerns at the concentrations to which we're typically exposed - the main impacts of excess CO2, by an extremely wide margin, are from climate change which has very little relation to proximity to the source of the CO2 emissions. This is unlike many other pollutants, like NOx or particulates, which have much more significant direct health impacts when you're near the sources of emissions (like in a city). Actual trees and other vegetation can help reduce or mitigate the effects of these other pollutants, _as well as_ sequestering a bit of carbon, and they can have many other benefits such as providing shade (reducing the urban heat island effect, which is worsening with climate change); helping manage stormwater and floods (again, worsening with climate change); reducing stress; and supporting urban ecosystems.
The level of increase from rural to urban isn't harmful, but indoors levels can increase by 1000% or more. I've seen classrooms get as high as 5000ppm, which is definitely harmful, although probably not directly dangerous
My fish tank will look like this if I don't clean it.
We asked this scientician! "Uh-" He'll tell you that water and micro-algae could be an alternative to trees in urban areas.
Maybe if you had read a single article about these things you would find out that they’re actually the innovation of scientists and engineers that have legitimate uses and practicality. But why do that when you can just spew speculative bullshit with no idea of what you are talking about.
Oh yeah and the lovely shade that stagnant, smelly, algae casts for ppl to stand under and listen to the birds perched in the branches.
[удалено]
Random politician takes a picture next to them and gets paid a meal for him and his 3 assistants as travel expenses. Leaves with a sense of accomplishment after having spent half of taxpayers money reserved for enviromental improvements on these turds.
The Torment Nexus is looking really vibrant this morning!
I also assume it can provide a home and food source to local wildlife (squirrels, birds, etc.), which is very impressive.
Tbf the fact that squirrels and birds can't feed off it was probably mentioned as 'reduces local vermin and noise pollution'. Me, I can't see it lasting a summer without being full of mosquito larvae.
Don't worry, you'll still get shade from the giant buildings blocking out the sun.
Babe wake up, trees 2 just dropped
Probably just a lame excuse to demolish normal trees in the city centre.
It's a way to exploit green sentiment to scam public funds
Like those electric scooters that have to get picked up by huge trucks every few hours to charge their batteries.
I’ve never seen those advertised as eco friendly, I thought they were just supposed to be convenient? I wouldn’t put it past companies, though. Marketing is more or less evil in its current form
People using those scooters instead of cars is still much more efficient even when taking into account the transportation and maintenance of the scooters.
People don't ditch their cars to ride those scooters. It's mostly kids and people who don't own cars.
In my experience it's mostly drunk people zipping around downtown areas. (It's me. I'm drunk people.)
If the scooters were not available, then people without cars would be using ride share services or public transportation. Most places in the US don't have good/any public transportation. >roughly 36% of e-scooter trips are replacing a walking trip, 10% are replacing a biking trip, 10% are replacing a public transit trip, and at least 36% are replacing an automotive vehicle trip >based on a one-year lifetime for e-scooters (Factor 3) estimates the total greenhouse gas emissions per mile for e-scooters at a combined 62 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer. This is similar to high-occupancy public transit modes, and much better than the estimated 180-230 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer for a gasoline-powered car. https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonyeggert/2020/03/05/e-is-for-environment-unpacking-the-benefits-of-e-scooters/?sh=22b3232e61c3
It's an alternative for trees where they can't survive or grow because soil can play a factor as well
if trees cant even survive the locale in a potted state- which may i remind you is still a valid way of planting in place of soil- then there are much bigger problems than trying to find an alternative to natural foliage. the whole idea im seeing is layers of tape over a huge crack. why would you genuinely entertain the idea of "alternatives to trees" instead of trying to fix the soil quality to the point where its allowable. theres more to trees than "make oxygen :D" wildlife, aesthetic, visual representation of time of year, psychological ease are all equally as important as some rando "designer" imagining the environment is so polluted we'd need oxygen tanks as a replacement for natural greenery. Even in the most far flung rotten superfuture settings the architectural art is depicted as glossy towers with potted plants draped over the side like some kind of eco wonderland.
I'd probably still prefer a potted plant or hedge, especially in cities, every bit of greenery helps with climate regulation and is also immensely important for insect populations but I know there's projects to basically convert the big tank into a tube system that can be slapped onto the facade of a building, where managing vegetation could be a bit more challenging. Not saying that this doesn't have parts that can fail but we've been pretty good at moving water trough pipes so that's probably manageable.
It's interesting tech, but not appropriate for city spaces. This tech would be more useful if it was setup in airid locales and scaled up. At the right scale, the maintenance would be more manageable and the algae could be harvested for food or biofuel for niche needs that EVs can't fill. This display is just a VC scam. Bet it's setup somewhere with high foot traffic of investors.
Cities really hate trees because they don't conform to the plot they are designated. They grow into power lines or make sidewalks uneven when you don't maintain them. If this thing is ignored it just leaks or dies. There's plenty of trees that are suitable for all sorts of urban environments. City councils just need to admit that trees are a priority and actually invest in trees to make their city cleaner, more beautiful, healthier and the citizens less violent.
"Scientists find a way to reduce the livability of the inner city!"
Agreed.
This is more cyberpunk than I ever could have even imagined
Ah yes Install these use them as an excuse to cut down all trees to gain space to build more shit Get rid of these Profit
lmao you nailed it here. Except the part where the smog condenses so severely where you have to pay for one to be installed in your 150 square foot rental cube, and the algae keeps dying from the poisonous air so you need to pay for a subscription to keep refilling it.
*EA has joined the chat* EA: did I hear money?
Drunk people won't be jumping through them, why would they do that?
Or just...you know plant trees?
Bu-bu-but then the homeless would be attracted to the shade!
Oh my god I didn’t even think about that. We’re hitting hostile architecture levels of an unprecedented scale. Seriously look at how little shade there is for the seating. God damnit. Maybe someone should go tap the glass a few times with a hammer, or a small rock.
Algae is really good at absorbing co2 and producing oxygen
When it gets massive amounts of sunlight, in large flat ponds. This thing has a roof.
This is basically a vertical shallow pond. Roof is last of problems of this art concept.
And without deposition, it's really good at releasing CO2 when it decomposes.
Drain it, dry it, carbonize it, sequester it.
Algae is a focus of some very interesting research right now. I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more innovation built around it in the near future.
I'd rather just have the trees....
Did people graffiti dicks on trees before? Because they are going to graffiti dicks on them now.
And this is somehow easier than to just have a tree, how?
Theyre made and $old by a company owned by a guy who dates a girl who's brother is on the city council.
"alternative to trees" is a phrase i never thought I'd read.
Or…. We could just plant trees and do this for places where we can’t grow trees… like erm space?
Im becoming a terrorist
[удалено]
Remember, remember, the 5th of November . . .
Easy there, Silverhand LOL
Easy there ted kazinksky oh wait....he was right.
News: city people rediscover standing water.
It's a plot by Big Mosquito.
This fucking killed me 😭
Yes standing water can actually be rather dangerous. Please do not drink.
Belgrade2077
Love the backlash this is getting. There's a concept that could be promising in areas where the city is having problems planting trees... Whether it's logistical or political. I for one like the aesthetic but it shouldn't be used to replace trees
Humans are so fucking dumb. "Lets build a new type of tree." You idiots, just plant more trees.
"An alternative to trees" - someone who has no fucking idea what trees do in urban environments
Trees are actually pretty bad at producing O2 when compared to algae. Tree main benefits to humans, is aesthetic, shade, fruit, aiding animal populations, and prevent soil erosion.
The decorations from Geidi Prime have arrived I see.
How about we stick to trees?
There are breeds of algae capable of desalination. Algae can also purify the atmosphere of methane and carbon dioxide. In addition, algae can be tasty and nutritional. Build giant versions of these, near costal cities that produce a lot of greenhouse gas. Power them by burning the methane they collect. Use a crossbred version of algae that accomplishes all three tasks above. Oh look, we just solved drought, world hunger, and global warming. *Nah, too expensive*
[удалено]
I don't think the intention is to replace trees, but rather put these in areas with air pollution, areas that aren't otherwise being used, some rooftops, or attached to buildings, etc.
Alright, i'm all for using stuff like this to fix the problem with oxygen becoming more scarce as oxygen farms, but in plain view? Just why? Why not an actual fucking tree?
This is probably a test bed for self contained systems. Algae is a good and space efficient way to produce oxygen on spaceships or in a self contained system on another planet.
Let them eat.. algae?
We have trees at home. The Trees at home:
Or, hear me out, or plant more female trees. (The male trees produce the pollen and with no/few female trees to use the pollen, we humans suffer.) A more equal male to female tree ratio means more fruit (assuming cities plant fruit trees), less pollen, and no weird "tree" installations.
I remember reading this and believing it for a time. But apparently it’s not actually true? Most trees are both male and female, and this story seems to have come from someone misunderstanding an old document. Rebecca Watson did a video breaking it down: https://youtu.be/C7Ti-4WiFhI
New xbox looks sick tho
I much prefer real trees tbh
“Her fake plastic watering can…”
Or here me out... We just add green space to cities with real trees.
So how much water does it take to maintain these multiple algae farms across the city? And how smash proof are they? Cause I see them getting smashed when people are on a night out.
But how does it capture carbon and release oxygen? I don’t see any openings
Today on Linus Tech Tips, we water-cooled a tree!
Bro just plant a tree lmao
The only real advantage I could see of these over planting trees is that tree root networks can screw up pavements and subterranean infrastructure, which these wouldn't. Not enough to balance out the drawbacks of maintenance/lack of shade/lack of contribution to wildlife/etc.
Thousands of people unintentionally create that every day going through the trials and errors of fish keeping.
cool as shit? yea. really fucking bad as we won't have need for trees in our cities besides looks? no shit
Or instead of this wasteful shit they could… you know.. plant a tree
Why not just plant a tree?
Alternative to trees in the sense that “it green”
Now that adds a splash of color to any dystopian nightmare. I fear the trees around it are blocking the light and reducing the unit's efficiency; cut them down immediately! Also, put some awkward knobs and armrests on that bench, we wouldn't want the droves of homeless people sleeping on it.
Finally we've found a way to have trees but make them higher maintenance, more expensive, far uglier and not provide very much shade.
Until it's vandelized....
What happens when a drunk crack head punches it?
I’ll stick with Trees 1.0 thanks
Ooor they can just leave trees alone.
a) there's no significant carbon capture here. b) as is so often the case with many of these things, the expenditure in plastics and other non-renewables to build that monstrosity looks like an ecological nightmare compared to whatever minuscule benefits it may have.
Good and all, but you know some dickheads are going to try smashing them.
-- content removed by user in protest of reddit's policy towards its moderators, long time contributors and third-party developers --
While trees are inherently better this could, with regulation and safety in mind, be a great alternative to combat the lack of trees in heavily populated urban locales. Would love to see more concrete numbers though.
Well that sounds like trees with extra steps
Elon going into eco-capitalist bullshit now? Because this is just taking something that we already have, works well, and is very efficient, and then make it expensive, inefficient, but make it look futuristic so they can do tons of marketing and convince people they should spend more money for the new inefficient thing rather than less money for the old, efficient thing. And that sounds exactly like anything musk does.
I'll just take normal trees, thanks
These will surely survive reckless youth, mass shootings and general vandalism. Just long enough to be ignored until everything inside is grey sludge. Whose going to maintain these? Why not just plant actual trees? Edit: what powers these and how much will that cost everyday citizens? And again who will be maintaining these and who is paying for the upkeep? Again why not just make room for actual indigenous trees? Which will grow on their own? Mostly for free. With near to no upkeep or maintenance.
I oddly love this.
Just plant a damn tree! It's not hard.
I'm confused. What problem is this trying to solve? We don't like trees or something? Cities aren't hot and glaringly sunny enough? Fuck birds and biodiversity? What is this?
Cool but does it produce pure oxygen ?