• dtc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    206
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So I think the general idea is that you can convert more CO² to carbon in the form of sugars and O² molecules per square foot with algae than with trees. Trees would totally do the same thing if we ripped up all the concrete and buildings to replant a forest, but that process would take decades.

    This can be added into existing infrastructure and helps I guess. Kinda a neat concept.

    • Nate@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      …if we ripped up all the concrete and buildings to replant a forest…

      You say this like it’s a downside, we’d better get started!

      • dtc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hey, I’d be the first wanker with a sledge out breaking it up if we all went in on it together. Something tells me I wouldn’t get very far tho

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        It would be. Cities and urban areas aren’t the problem. Suburbs, with 20+ Minute commutes, on hot swollen rivers of concrete and asphalt flowing from them, with every individual in their own metal/polymer box burning hydrocarbons is the bigger problem. Cities might be a solution.

        Conversely these algae tanks can go lots of places a tree wouldn’t be practical. They’ll never need to be trimmed out of power lines etc. Or tear up sidewalks, streets or foundations. That’s not to say we shouldn’t have trees. Just more green overall.

    • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have this fantasy where we humanity has a whole biotechnology skill tree that we never unlocked but there’s like a Renaissance waiting to happen that will one day uncover all these cool new branch’s

    • knorke3@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      also algae farms can be arbitrarily vertical and can be built underground if you supply them with CO2 - trees are mostly limited to the surface.

        • kase@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          On this note, think of all the benefits if we filled all our public swimming pools with algae!! I’m sure nobody would notice the difference

          • dtc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Honestly unless it was a red cyanobacteria bloom I doubt anyone would notice. I for one don’t drink pool water so I wouldn’t be very affected 🤷

    • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      But why not just like… Do that somewhere where the mass actually makes a difference? You’d be better off dumping acres full of this shit instead of regrowing a forest. Doing it in individual tanks, sparsely within a city, is both an inefficient use of resources and fucking ugly.

      Trees only purpose in a city is not to clean out CO2. It’s not even their primary purpose in a city. If it was, they’d be selecting specific species etc.

      • kase@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Alright I’m just going off of what I learned in environmental science class this summer, not an expert here. There was something about algae blooms (usually caused by fertilizer runoff) being a really bad thing for local ecosystems. I’m not sure if this is relevant to what you’re saying, just throwing it out there lol

      • dtc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean ideally we would flood the ocean with Fe³ and spark a mass breed of this shit where it belongs. The biomass could work it’s way up the food chain as an added benefit too.

        But we won’t 🙃

        • FierySpectre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If history taught us anything it is that purposely messing with an ecosystem seldom has the effect we want to achieve.

          • dtc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Better to leave it with just the environmental changes we made without intent right?

            • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean, sort of?

              We created a big problem by injecting a lot of shit where it shouldn’t be. If we stop that, some pieces will bounce back.

              Injecting more shit in another place means we have one big problem, that we haven’t stopped, and now a new problem that we don’t know the repurcussions of or how to reverse.

              So uh, yeah, I’ll stick with the one beast we know over one we know and also another we don’t.

              • dtc@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s okay to say you don’t understand marine chemistry, there is no shame in it.

                The whole “seed the oceans with ferrous oxide” idea isn’t mine. In fact many better minds came up with it. You can check it out if you want, no pressure.

            • FierySpectre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              It is much easier to destroy something than it is to repair it. This applies to the original changes we made through exploitation, pollution, etc. But also to the radical change you propose, it is much easier for it to have a destructive effect compared to having a positive effect.

              • dtc@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I agree on the first part of what you said.

                But we aren’t fixing the problem either way so what’s really at stake?

    • subtext@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Pedantic, but for carbon dioxide or oxygen (or most other molecules you’ll write out) it’s a subscript for the number. Wikipedia

      ~So it would be CO~2~ or H~2~O or O~2~~

      Seems my markdown is rusty, however you make subscripts I guess for CO<sub>2</sub>

    • Doctor xNo@r.nf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      If they didn’t just breath oxygen and give off CO² at night, maybe, but trees actually undo much of their oxygen creation overnight… 😅