Wake me up as soon as some goofy ass startup found out how to arrange the algae to display ads.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
They can thrive in tap water and can withstand temperature extremes.
So maybe they can be used in regions that are too hot for trees, like desert cities
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.
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
This is missing out on likely the most important part of trees in urban areas. Shade. They give you a cooler place to stand or walk through.
No standing or sitting allowed. Resume consumerism!
im guessing "where will the animals go" is also a stupid question?
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.
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.
Why not both green spaces (central park anyone?) and these alge pods everywhere else?
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.
These algae also produce biogas that can be used for heating or producing electricity.
They get in the way of parking spots. The steel cages must rule supreme.
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 with trees in an urban setting is trees have roots, and these cause issues. The can damage pipes and other underground objects. And many trees that are designed to not have these issues, end up with stunted/damaged roots which severely effects the trees growth. Planting trees in urban settings take quite a lot of pre-planning, and aren't drop in solutions, and if the areas weren't originally designed with trees in mind, you are likely to cause more problems than solutions.
https://greenblue.com/gb/avoid-root-heave-pavement-damage-caused-urban-trees/ https://tiptoptreeandgroundcare.co.uk/2025/01/06/tree-roots-in-urban-spaces/
Back when I was a kid, trees still lived under water.
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?)
Sounds like we need to remove the need for sidewalks. Rip up all the roads in the city and replace them with green space. Problem solved
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.
Trees take ages to grow, and their root systems damage buildings and pavements.
We can have both trees and this ! Let’s replace the stupid ad spots on bus stops with these 😮
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?
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
You see, trees get in the way when we want to put down more asphalt to make more room for cars. We need more lanes for cars to park in and more parking lots for cars to park in. The goal is to turn the city into a place devoid of anything but asphalt. Then with no access to dirt to grow food or water to keep them alive, the people will be 100% dependent on their capitalist overlords. Everyone wins.
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
