• abbadon420@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What you can do is take all the trees and put them in a tree museum and charge the people a dollar and a half to see them.

      • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        When this was proposed the idea was that one of tank can replace two trees and it can be put in corners that are too small for trees (and cars). When you consider the space for roots you can get at least one parking space per tank at the cost of making car-centric cities even more of an hell hole.

        • illi@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ok I can see that space wise. Have fun having an enormous concrete oven though

      • Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the idea behind this is that algae are more space-efficient than trees at producing oxygen and/or capturing CO2. Of course this is also ignoring that the bulk of a tree’s volume is high above the ground, and they also provide other things like shade and shelter for insects etc.

  • Redredme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is only the second time I’ve seen it, but please… there was a time when complaining about reposts was the most often repeated thing I saw on reddit. Can we not have that bit of irony become a thing here?

  • bennypr0fane@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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” pesticide any kind of benefit at all.

    • InFerNo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The roots destroy sewer systems etc too. There’s a bike path I take to work where the pavement is all distorted by the roots, making it very unsafe, but I still prefer that the trees are there.

      • pdqcp@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s why you have to properly select the species that will be planted, there are many different species which have roots that won’t cause this type of damage and you can most likely get by with native plants for better adaptability

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The amount of water required is trivial compared to most other water uses. Especially if correct species are selected.

        • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          True, but unfortunately, this species is way over-planted in many cities. I would not recommend them unless they happen to be uncommon in your local area. Urban forests need to be as diverse as possible to resist the constant barrage of pests and diseases being introduced by global trade.

          In California we have a relatively new pest called shot-hole borers which are killing off many of the London planes, so we’re scrambling to plant other species that can resist them.

          Also, resistance to air pollution isn’t as crucial as it once was due to better emissions technologies.

    • skisnow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the problem is putting them in those dumb tanks where a tree would be, as if to say “do this instead”. The principle would be fine if they got a bit more creative with it and played to its strengths, e.g. if you make a train platform out of it, or the railings of an overpass, or the external wall panels of buildings etc.

      Ofc OOP didn’t actually provide a source so we’ve no idea what the creators were actually thinking…

  • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • phx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

    • korazail@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I would hate to lose actual trees, I’m medium on the idea of this on it’s own. People need lots of things and space, which causes the removal of trees. If we can replicate some of their functions, such as CO2 absorption with this tech, then that seems good. If upkeep is the same as a tree, I don’t see a downside to the overall concept.

      My thought would be that this shows up on top of the buildings instead of at ground level, though… Plant real trees and put these on the roof. The real loss would be if we stop making green spaces because these things meet the need for O2. Green spaces in cities do way more than just clean the air, though, so I’m not sure we’re that dystopian yet.

      The photo looks like it doubles as a bench too, so maybe that helps justify its footprint. Make them a mini-light show with varied colors and it can become a functional art installation. How long until it has spikes to prevent someone from taking a nap on it, though?

  • epicstove@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • ubergeek@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not all do. That’s an oak thing really. Pines, most stone fruits, etc, take a path of least resistance, unlike oaks which are more “I am going that way, and NOTHING will stop me!”

      • AlolanYoda@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        They emit carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and oxygen, which causes rust in metals and aging in humans. So it’s a negative really…