Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier
61–70 of 91 posts
Re: Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier
#62Earlier 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.
But our rail system is outdated, our government won't allow realistic trains to be built. We don't need a million stops. We need metro to metro.
Re: Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier
#63This 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…
That said, having had the device for a few months, it brings plenty of present value. It's pretty, a literal living lava lamp, and it makes a lovely water bubbly sound. Watching the algae population grow in concentration and change the color of the water is very satisfying.
Re: Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Most poverty isn’t energy poverty at all, it’s a lack of control over the means of production in general. Energy is merely one aspect.
Some energy usage is clearly frivolous, like several ton cars with single occupants or vastly oversized armies. Alternatives that achieve the same goals with vastly lower energy usage already exist and in some places are even widespread. Life can be different without being worse.
Re: Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier
#65Earlier 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…
Once recommended exercise thresholds are met, a durable bicycle is better than walking. Faired LEVs and light ebikes are better than bicycles. And full capacity mid speed (Maximise flourishing within a resource and energy budget. And if you invent a better plane or a lower impact energy source, add it to the menu. Do not blow the budget by an order of magnitude (or three) and then demand that technology fix the problem after the fact.
Re: Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
That sort of thing needs to be democratically decided. Currently it isn’t, most countries have a few rich people dominating media and politics. Most poverty isn’t energy poverty at all, it’s a lack of control over the means of production in general. Energy is merely one aspect. Some energy usage is clearly frivolous, like several ton cars with single occupants or vastly oversized armies. Alternatives that achieve the…
Would you vote to ban video games?
Re: Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
That sort of thing needs to be democratically decided. Currently it isn’t, most countries have a few rich people dominating media and politics. Most poverty isn’t energy poverty at all, it’s a lack of control over the means of production in general. Energy is merely one aspect. Some energy usage is clearly frivolous, like several ton cars with single occupants or vastly oversized armies. Alternatives that achieve the…
Re: Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier
#68This 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…
Agree, I nevertheless bought one of their (AlgenAir) home devices, despite the fact that at present levels of efficiency I would need 100 of them to make a material difference in CO2 levels in a normal room. My thinking is that even given the incredible degree of efficiency of photosynthesis itself, there must be opportunities for other bioengineering-type improvements and 100x is not an unreasonable target over a 10…
Re: Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree, I nevertheless bought one of their (AlgenAir) home devices, despite the fact that at present levels of efficiency I would need 100 of them to make a material difference in CO2 levels in a normal room. My thinking is that even given the incredible degree of efficiency of photosynthesis itself, there must be opportunities for other bioengineering-type improvements and 100x is not an unreasonable target over a 10…
For actual sunlight, where only 45% of the light is in the photosynthetically active wavelength range, the theoretical maximum efficiency of solar energy conversion is approximately 11%. In actuality, however, plants do not absorb all incoming sunlight (due to reflection, respiration requirements of photosynthesis and the need for optimal solar radiation levels) and do not convert all harvested energy into biomass, w…
Re: Pittsburgh Airport installs an algae air purifier
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And that's the west coast, once you go inland you'd maybe have one viable stop in most states of you want to keep it high-speed.