Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 91 posts

Re: Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier

#51

Post by [deleted] »

valenceelectron wrote: post #48
nix23 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CO2 or Oxygen levels are normally never a problem, not even on mount Everest (where the air pressure is the problem). It's for sure not a solution but an interesting research field to remove toxic chemicals...for long duration spaceflight/bases ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Clean_Air_Study

The crucial part of this study is the following quote: "These results are not applicable to typical buildings, where outdoor-to-indoor air exchange already removes VOCs at a rate that could only be matched by the placement of 10–1000 plants/m2 of a building’s floor space." In general, the amount of plants needed is just too high to be practical. At least among those plants tested in this study. This also applies to p…

[deleted]

Re: Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier

#52

Post by b112 »

dontlaugh wrote: post #47
fooker wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, depopulating the earth will also accomplish that.

Or just building trains instead. Far lower energy consumption per distance travelled per person.

Bikes are even better! Yet bikes (with all the environmental cost of the metal mining, forging, production, shipping, plus replacement tires, brakes, and all the cost of air pressurized for the tires), are far worse than walking.

So we should all walk, yes?

But, I mean, the cost of shoes on the environment. They wear out quite fast, I walk 10 to 15km a day, and my shoes wear out every 3 to 4 months, so it makes more sense to go barefoot.

Yet again, the cost of all that food... food production is bad for the environment! Probably, I should not walk, or really go anywhere, and just sit still.

Right? Right?!

Here is the answer.

Don't suggest fewer plane trips. It will never happen, unless you purposefully hurt, and cause tyranny against others to enable your dream.

Instead, make a better plane. Make a better blimp.

Make people want your dream, instead of fighting your dream.

Make them love your solution, not your restrictions.

This is the way.

Re: Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier

#53

Post by nerdponx »

scns wrote: post #43
kolinko wrote: post #9

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…

> By comparison, an average human exhales 1kg co2 per day. So you need four of those tanks to offset a single passenger passing by. Passing by takes less then 24 hours.

"per day" is a rate and can be applied to any unit of time. 1kg per day is equivalent to 1/86400kg per second (1/(246060)). Math works out the same either way.

Re: Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier

#54

Post by nix23 »

valenceelectron wrote: post #48
nix23 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CO2 or Oxygen levels are normally never a problem, not even on mount Everest (where the air pressure is the problem). It's for sure not a solution but an interesting research field to remove toxic chemicals...for long duration spaceflight/bases ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Clean_Air_Study

The crucial part of this study is the following quote: "These results are not applicable to typical buildings, where outdoor-to-indoor air exchange already removes VOCs at a rate that could only be matched by the placement of 10–1000 plants/m2 of a building’s floor space." In general, the amount of plants needed is just too high to be practical. At least among those plants tested in this study. This also applies to p…

That's why i wrote "moonbase" where your fresh veggies could also clean the air.

But yes algea are maybe better if you have the power to circulate them, pressured air to blow it truth and a filter to take the dead ones out, bacteria etc in check, earlier or later your water will start to foul otherwise.

Re: Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier

#55

Post by tomschlick »

dontlaugh wrote: post #47
fooker wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, depopulating the earth will also accomplish that.

Or just building trains instead. Far lower energy consumption per distance travelled per person.

Trains are only viable regionally in the US, unless you want to spend 72 hours traveling for greater cost than a plane ticket that would have taken you 4ish hours to go from NY to LA. Even if we did build high speed rail the whole way, the number of stops along the way would only cut that to 24ish hours. Most people would choose the plane.

Re: Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier

#56

Post by dontlaugh »

b112 wrote: post #52
dontlaugh wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just building trains instead. Far lower energy consumption per distance travelled per person.

Bikes are even better! Yet bikes (with all the environmental cost of the metal mining, forging, production, shipping, plus replacement tires, brakes, and all the cost of air pressurized for the tires), are far worse than walking. So we should all walk, yes? But, I mean, the cost of shoes on the environment. They wear out quite fast, I walk 10 to 15km a day, and my shoes wear out every 3 to 4 months, so it makes more…

Trains are better than planes already. High speed trains are even exciting.

Ultimately, restrictions are necessary too. The frivolous per capita energy consumption in North America and Western Europe needs to be reduced.

Re: Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier

#57

Post by kwhitefoot »

bawolff wrote: post #28
ajmurmann wrote: post #4

This is super interesting! Sounds from the article like the main point is to remove CO2 from the air to improve air for humans. That's already really exciting. In essence it's a CO2 scrubber right? So how does this compare to devices built with the goal to remove CO2 with the goal to reduce climate change? Edit: To answer my own question, this probably does little. They have a home use version that supposedly removes…

I feel like i would rather have the airport full of plants. Airports are stresful and noisey. Imagine how calming it would be with greenery all over the place absorbing the noise.

They do not have to be noisy. Gardermoen is not noisy, Arlanda is not noisy, Copenhagen is not noisy. They just need to be designed deliberately to be quiet. Adding green plants won't make it much quieter unless you plant huge hedges indoors.

Re: Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier

#58

Post by kwhitefoot »

b112 wrote: post #50
bawolff wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like i would rather have the airport full of plants. Airports are stresful and noisey. Imagine how calming it would be with greenery all over the place absorbing the noise.

Yes, with garbage, ripped leaves, contraband stashed(people afraid and backing out), people hiding in bushes, bombs in the trees, and so on. I guess it could be in some inaccessible way, greenery 20 feet up, or behind baracades with alarms. But humanity is humanity, and part of airport security is probably the above. (Also, according to a movie I watched, the next pandemic will come from plants, so we will have to ki…

None of that is likely to happen in the airports I occasionally visit.

Re: Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier

#59

Post by dontlaugh »

tomschlick wrote: post #55
dontlaugh wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just building trains instead. Far lower energy consumption per distance travelled per person.

Trains are only viable regionally in the US, unless you want to spend 72 hours traveling for greater cost than a plane ticket that would have taken you 4ish hours to go from NY to LA. Even if we did build high speed rail the whole way, the number of stops along the way would only cut that to 24ish hours. Most people would choose the plane.

I haven’t been to the US, but it can’t be all that special. Plenty of countries have high speed trains instead of most domestic air travel, even similarly sized ones like China.

Especially if you count the time to get to the airport and through security, high speed trains are highly competitive or even better than planes in total travel time.

Re: Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier

#60

Post by snapcaster »

dontlaugh wrote: post #56
b112 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bikes are even better! Yet bikes (with all the environmental cost of the metal mining, forging, production, shipping, plus replacement tires, brakes, and all the cost of air pressurized for the tires), are far worse than walking. So we should all walk, yes? But, I mean, the cost of shoes on the environment. They wear out quite fast, I walk 10 to 15km a day, and my shoes wear out every 3 to 4 months, so it makes more…

Trains are better than planes already. High speed trains are even exciting. Ultimately, restrictions are necessary too. The frivolous per capita energy consumption in North America and Western Europe needs to be reduced.

Let me guess, you're the one that decides "frivolous"? I couldn't disagree more. Everyone needs way more energy. Most poverty is energy poverty and trying to reduce demand seems like a fool's errand. Electricity rules, stop pretending like it doesn't. We can figure out how to make more of it without destroying everything
Post reply on HN