• leggettc18@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Putting a ton of water on the roof isn’t a good idea, unless it was already rated for a swimming pool.

      They don’t need to be inside cities at all.

      • leggettc18@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        For the conversion of Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen? That was the main point of these, the algae does that and is actually even more efficient at it than a tree. Trees do have other benefits hence why they shouldn’t be replaced, but these should go in places where trees can’t.

        • millie@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Nah, I just think it’s really silly.

          If growing algae is effective at anything, why do it in a small sealed tank in the middle of a street? Most of the oxygen we breathe is produced in the ocean, regardless of where we personally are. Why would we need to stand vaguely near a rather sealed looking algae tank? If simply growing algae is effective for oxygen replenishment and carbon capture, surely we’d be better off simply growing massive ponds of it away from city centers? Like, out in the open?

          It seems like green-washing bullshit to me.

          Trees provide a lot more than oxygen. They provide shade, habitation for animals, and psychological well-being for humans. Dirty fish tanks don’t provide any of those things.

          People are seriously in this thread complaining about roots like they’re a reason to replace trees with algae boxes. Getting some big plant-based NFT cryptobro carbon-credit nonsense vibes.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s actually hilariously ignorant that you people are pretending this is a cost effective idea for carbon capture. It will, in fact, just make a bunch of dirty fishtanks that are abandoned or thrown away almost immediately.

          • Ben Hur Horse Race@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            thanks for calling me you people dude!

            who said it was cost effective? I only said I cant believe this person didnt get the idea.

            its not “in fact” its “you believe” . youre probably right, just saying