you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 208 points 2 years ago* (9 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 100 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Also tree roots will tear stuff up

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 2 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    ...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!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 20 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    But they provide little shade 😒

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    Jump in and you won't need shade to cool down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years 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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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 🙃

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    You are being very pretentious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's funny, because your own ignorance is showing. There's plenty of research to suggest that iron fertilization is controversial, which directly contradicts your (very condescending) assertion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Again, not my assertion but go on about my ignorance. Of course not all scientific papers agree. That's why we have field testing and peer review.

    I aquaculture cnidaria and get paid for algae abatement so maybe you could trust me a bit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    My point is that you're being dismissive of very reasonable concerns that are supported by published scientific literature. Further, rather than address those concerns directly, you chose to deflect with condescension and belittlement.

    So no, I'm not going to trust you, because the only thing that you've done to prove your point is be an ass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years 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 CO2

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yep, as opposed to algea's none.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments