31–40 of 91 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That thought is considered sacrilegious for some reason. If we would just start shrinking back to healthy population levels, a lot of problems would disappear. But nooo, an impossible reduction of everyones climate footprint by 10% is offset within 10 years of population growth instead.
Isn't world population supposed to drop from now on?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Want to reduce CO2 levels outside? Plant trees. This thread is about indoor air pollution. Trees aren't going to help with that. The best way to reduce it is to open a window. For outdoor air pollution, planting trees can actually increase it[1]. Even in ideal conditions, planting trees is not nearly enough to stop climate change. The best way to fix the CO2 problem is stop producing it, not to try to clean it up.…
> planting trees is not nearly enough to stop climate change The solution will be a mix of approaches, none of them in isolation doing the whole job. > For outdoor air pollution, planting trees can actually increase it Only if by doing so you remove vegetation to plant them.
That is not correct. Read the article I linked that explains it. Biology isn't as simple as "CO2 => biomass".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Want to reduce CO2 levels outside? Plant trees. This thread is about indoor air pollution. Trees aren't going to help with that. The best way to reduce it is to open a window. For outdoor air pollution, planting trees can actually increase it[1]. Even in ideal conditions, planting trees is not nearly enough to stop climate change. The best way to fix the CO2 problem is stop producing it, not to try to clean it up.…
> The best way to fix the CO2 problem is stop producing it, not to try to clean it up. I'd have to disagree. Stopping the production is important, but that doesn't solve the problem, it just doesn't make it worse. A true fix would always include removing some CO2 from the atmosphere, however that may be done.
Multiple approaches are needed, but it's far cheaper and easier to avoid CO2 production than to sequester carbon (even if plants are used to capture it).
Based on the photo, it seems more of a showpiece than an actually practical way of filtering large quantities of air. Those bubble columns are at most a few liters of air per minute -- not much more than your usual aquarium pump -- when large air purifiers are in the hundreds or even thousands of cubic feet per minute. I just can't imagine passing that much air through the columns without sending greenish water all o…
I have my doubts about this. In my experience, a house full of cannabis plants photosynthesizing full tilt under 15,000 watts of lights would still show elevated CO2 when two people went to it and tended it. Maybe the algae get around that, but I need to see some numbers. >A human breathes about 9.5 tonnes of air in a year, but oxygen only makes up about 23 per cent of that air, by mass, and we only extract a little…
This is going off topic but what an interesting idea... Can plants work day and night if you give them light 24x7? I assume they don't need to rest or get tired?
Just Google plant day night cycle.
I have my doubts about this. In my experience, a house full of cannabis plants photosynthesizing full tilt under 15,000 watts of lights would still show elevated CO2 when two people went to it and tended it. Maybe the algae get around that, but I need to see some numbers. >A human breathes about 9.5 tonnes of air in a year, but oxygen only makes up about 23 per cent of that air, by mass, and we only extract a little…
This is going off topic but what an interesting idea... Can plants work day and night if you give them light 24x7? I assume they don't need to rest or get tired?
This seems like a potentially nice thing for a home office or bedroom. Does anyone have any experience with their home version? https://algenair.com/
I use it in my office. Don't really notice a difference. I should get a CO2 reader and test it out.
These seem like they were specifically chosen due to them being things which you cant really test or quantify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good math. Another way to ballpark this - the airport tank holds 500 liters of spirulina. Algae extract around 0.5kg co2 per 1000 liters ( https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/sustainability/sustainabil... ). So this tank removes around 0.25kg of co2 per day. By comparison, an average human exhales 1kg co2 per day. So you need four of those tanks to offset a single passenger passing by. This does virtually nothing for t…
Wouldn’t it offset one passengers CO2 for a whole day and not just a single passenger passing by? I’m sure that’s what you mean but the wording is a bit confusing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't have to go that far. Choosing to not have children or choosing to have fewer children would be a good start. From what I understand, taking better care of the children we have so they have a better chance to reach healthy adulthood is the best way to suppress child birth rates. I say we because parents don't own their children. The children belong to all of us, the community.
That thought is considered sacrilegious for some reason. If we would just start shrinking back to healthy population levels, a lot of problems would disappear. But nooo, an impossible reduction of everyones climate footprint by 10% is offset within 10 years of population growth instead.
If the problem is Co2 in the outdoor air, I'm afraid that's a much bigger problem that you're not gonna solve with a tank.