4 ms·

‘BioSolar Leaf’ to Tackle Air Pollution in White City

45 points by Osiris30 7y ago

burlesona 7y ago
Looks very cool, but I was disappointed not to see any numbers. Has anyone heard what this kind of thing costs, and how much CO2 it removes?
- KaiserPro 7y ago
  custom glass, unknown aeration systems, pumping and filtering. Its not going to be cheap.
- ozaark 7y ago
  For CO2 removal the article says they "can remove carbon dioxide and produce breathable oxygen at a rate equivalent to a hundred trees from the surface area of just a single tree". Trees sequester ~48 lbs of CO2 per year.[1][2] So 48*100 = ~4800lbs CO2 removed per year for this project. As others have said I'm interested to see if they can do it cost effectively. [1] https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.htm https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.h... [2] http://urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/air%20quality.htm http://urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/air%20quality.htm
  - gpm 7y ago
    Humans exhale something around 2.3 pounds of CO2 per day [0], 2.3 * 365 = 839.5 pounds per year, 4800 / 839.5 = 5.7 people per "surface area of a tree". That might be small enough that this can keep the CO2 level constant in a office... The average american carbon footprint is 19.8 tonnes per year [1], 19.8 tonnes / 4800 (pounds / "sa tree") = 9.082 surfaces areas of a tree per person to eliminate their carbon footprint. That's a lot better than I expected really... somewhat doubt my numbers. (All number here have huge standard deviations, decimal points on the approximation should not be read as indicators of variance). [0] https://www.reference.com/science/much-co2-human-exhale-3f8cfdd9076c129 https://www.reference.com/science/much-co2-human-exhale-3f8c... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capita https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02...
KaiserPro 7y ago
Its cheaper, prettier and more effective to plant trees, climbers and hardy shrubs. I get that algae is all fun and that, but it needs a boat water, glass, filtering and pumping. The other part is its a massive monoculture. which means that its very prone to fungal and other algae types. The hard part through all of this is not getting the plant to grow, thats simple. Its keeping it watered and maintained. To keep pollution down in london, growing a wide variety of trees is an answer. But they require maintenance. If you could create self contained boxes for something like dwarf cheery trees, which can be connected to the grey water system by capillary, it would have a far bigger impact on pm2.5, temperature and no2. having vast vats of water on roofs, with pumping filtering and airating systems isn't co2 efficient. I suspect the amount of c02 sequestered is significantly less than the glass/running energy requirements.
- fit2rule 7y ago
  I'm with you. We need to make planting trees and growing local gardens cool again. One thing that is kind of popular here in Vienna are window gardens .. there's a high jankiness factor, but it always feels very rewarding to visit someone who has put the effort into tending their window gardens a little .. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/206673070369456616/ https://www.pinterest.com/pin/206673070369456616/ It cools down the apartment and in many cases provides fresh herbs, which - in a concrete jungle like Vienna - is a welcome reward. Plus, at least in the ones I've visited, it smells so good. I wonder what can be done to push window gardens a little higher up the mainstream acceptance scale?
  - amatecha 7y ago
    I was looking for the source of that image and came across what appears to be the source video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkCuPrsPn_I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkCuPrsPn_I Edit: I previously linked to their website (it's linked in the video) but it seems to have been hacked, or somehow containing some unrelated/unexpected content.
    - StavrosK 7y ago
thinkpad20 7y ago
This project is very interesting and I think it’s great that this is being studied, but we already have a technology for reducing greenhouse gasses in trees and other plants. They do not have expensive and pollution-causing manufacturing processes, contribute to biodiversity and natural ecosystems and don’t produce lasting waste. Perhaps I’m being cynical, but it seems like the ultimate driver of this technology is still profit. There’s a lot of trademarks and business speak in this article.
aaron695 7y ago
It's all PR fluff, so it's hard to know what they want to do. Perhaps just get investment $ for the CEO. But, cleaning air (CO2, pm 2.5, volatile particles) indoors at home is probably very important and should be done more. Well chosen indoor plants will do it, but this could compete. If it's edible it might make people more likely to do it. Not sure how the masses will react to removing particles that kill, then eating them though.

45 points by Osiris30 7y ago

Looks very cool, but I was disappointed not to see any numbers. Has anyone heard what this kind of thing costs, and how much CO2 it removes?

KaiserPro 7y ago
custom glass, unknown aeration systems, pumping and filtering. Its not going to be cheap.
ozaark 7y ago
For CO2 removal the article says they "can remove carbon dioxide and produce breathable oxygen at a rate equivalent to a hundred trees from the surface area of just a single tree". Trees sequester ~48 lbs of CO2 per year.[1][2] So 48*100 = ~4800lbs CO2 removed per year for this project. As others have said I'm interested to see if they can do it cost effectively. [1] https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.htm https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.h... [2] http://urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/air%20quality.htm http://urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/air%20quality.htm
- gpm 7y ago
  Humans exhale something around 2.3 pounds of CO2 per day [0], 2.3 * 365 = 839.5 pounds per year, 4800 / 839.5 = 5.7 people per "surface area of a tree". That might be small enough that this can keep the CO2 level constant in a office... The average american carbon footprint is 19.8 tonnes per year [1], 19.8 tonnes / 4800 (pounds / "sa tree") = 9.082 surfaces areas of a tree per person to eliminate their carbon footprint. That's a lot better than I expected really... somewhat doubt my numbers. (All number here have huge standard deviations, decimal points on the approximation should not be read as indicators of variance). [0] https://www.reference.com/science/much-co2-human-exhale-3f8cfdd9076c129 https://www.reference.com/science/much-co2-human-exhale-3f8c... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capita https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02...

KaiserPro 7y ago

Its cheaper, prettier and more effective to plant trees, climbers and hardy shrubs. I get that algae is all fun and that, but it needs a boat water, glass, filtering and pumping. The other part is its a massive monoculture. which means that its very prone to fungal and other algae types. The hard part through all of this is not getting the plant to grow, thats simple. Its keeping it watered and maintained. To keep pollution down in london, growing a wide variety of trees is an answer. But they require maintenance. If you could create self contained boxes for something like dwarf cheery trees, which can be connected to the grey water system by capillary, it would have a far bigger impact on pm2.5, temperature and no2. having vast vats of water on roofs, with pumping filtering and airating systems isn't co2 efficient. I suspect the amount of c02 sequestered is significantly less than the glass/running energy requirements.

fit2rule 7y ago
I'm with you. We need to make planting trees and growing local gardens cool again. One thing that is kind of popular here in Vienna are window gardens .. there's a high jankiness factor, but it always feels very rewarding to visit someone who has put the effort into tending their window gardens a little .. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/206673070369456616/ https://www.pinterest.com/pin/206673070369456616/ It cools down the apartment and in many cases provides fresh herbs, which - in a concrete jungle like Vienna - is a welcome reward. Plus, at least in the ones I've visited, it smells so good. I wonder what can be done to push window gardens a little higher up the mainstream acceptance scale?
- amatecha 7y ago
  I was looking for the source of that image and came across what appears to be the source video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkCuPrsPn_I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkCuPrsPn_I Edit: I previously linked to their website (it's linked in the video) but it seems to have been hacked, or somehow containing some unrelated/unexpected content.
  - StavrosK 7y ago

thinkpad20 7y ago

This project is very interesting and I think it’s great that this is being studied, but we already have a technology for reducing greenhouse gasses in trees and other plants. They do not have expensive and pollution-causing manufacturing processes, contribute to biodiversity and natural ecosystems and don’t produce lasting waste. Perhaps I’m being cynical, but it seems like the ultimate driver of this technology is still profit. There’s a lot of trademarks and business speak in this article.

aaron695 7y ago

It's all PR fluff, so it's hard to know what they want to do. Perhaps just get investment $ for the CEO. But, cleaning air (CO2, pm 2.5, volatile particles) indoors at home is probably very important and should be done more. Well chosen indoor plants will do it, but this could compete. If it's edible it might make people more likely to do it. Not sure how the masses will react to removing particles that kill, then eating them though.