8 ms·

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.

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 as much Co2 as twenty indoor plants. The paper linked below had three most efficient plant remove about 17% of Co2 in a cubic meter of air with optimal light conditions. So twenty of those wouldn't have much impact in a reasonably sized dwelling. That's assuming it's equivalent to the most efficient plant and great lighting. I cannot imagine the much larger installation at the airport making much of a difference either given the massive amount of air. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315968651_Effectiveness_of_Indoor_Plant_to_Reduce_CO_2_in_Indoor_Environment https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315968651_Effective...

kolinko 4y ago
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/sustainability-14-03801/article_deploy/sustainability-14-03801-v2.pdf?version=1648090121 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 the air freshness, and is possibly not even carbon negative if you were to count emissions from the device cleanup and algae storage. Green washing at it’s finest.
- ac29 4y ago
  I would assume the electricity used to power the pumps and lights ends up emitting substantially more than 250g of CO2 per day as well.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    If only there was a large parcel of land nearby to an airport terminal where a renewable power source could be installed. Hmm, where could we find a large piece of relatively flat land with little to no trees to shade the sunlight? Hell, you could even cover the remote parking areas bringing extra value by providing covered parking and still leave the majority of that flat, cleared, open space unadulterated.
    - mwint 4y ago
      I’m guessing they don’t want to put stuff in the areas around runways, because that’s where planes go when something bad happens. I wouldn’t want to be escaping a plane directly into a chopped-up field of HV solar panels.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- domoritz 4y ago
  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.
  - stavros 4y ago
    It sounds like it would offset one person staying in the airport for a quarter of a day, yes. Though, with how many people pass through an airport, it means that this would do, instead of almost nothing, four times almost nothing.
    - majou 4y ago
      Really it's about the average occupance of the airport over 24h, which is going to be far greater than 0.25.
- scns 4y ago
  > 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.
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    "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.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Someone must have missed the news stories of airlines preferring to cancel flights leaving travelers stranded in airports for extended periods of time. Seems like 24 hours in an airport is becoming routine /s
- landemva 4y ago
  And the PIT airport is under construction with passenger areas being replaced with removal of the mini-train. I hope they didn't pay for this green washing demonstration.
garte 4y ago
The irony is strong in this one: Not building airports would definitely improve the situation as a whole.
- fooker 4y ago
  Of course, depopulating the earth will also accomplish that.
  - pooper 4y ago
    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.
    - Traubenfuchs 4y ago
      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.
      - Accacin 4y ago
        Isn't world population supposed to drop from now on?
        orwin 4y ago
        If you believe world3 was correct, yes, we're nearing the decade where it happens, but this won't be by choice. Basically our production+pollution seems to strain our renewable ressources more than our technological advances protect them. In most world3 scenarii it means a decrease in food production that lead to a population decrease. It such a simple and interesting model, i find it sad that people tend to link it to 'the population bomb' which wasn't based on anything but gut feelings.
bawolff 4y ago
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.
- b112 4y ago
  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 kill them all, you see...)
  - kwhitefoot 4y ago
    None of that is likely to happen in the airports I occasionally visit.
- kwhitefoot 4y ago
  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.
jonahbenton 4y ago
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 10-20 year timeframe. My dollars are an economic signal in support of investment in a machine to turn electricity into captured CO2. 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.
- TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
  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, which results in a maximum overall photosynthetic efficiency of 3 to 6% of total solar radiation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency
  - jonahbenton 4y ago
    Thanks! Lots of room for engineered improvement!
    - dylan604 4y ago
      Of the plants?

kolinko 4y ago

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/sustainability-14-03801/article_deploy/sustainability-14-03801-v2.pdf?version=1648090121 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 the air freshness, and is possibly not even carbon negative if you were to count emissions from the device cleanup and algae storage. Green washing at it’s finest.

ac29 4y ago
I would assume the electricity used to power the pumps and lights ends up emitting substantially more than 250g of CO2 per day as well.
- dylan604 4y ago
  If only there was a large parcel of land nearby to an airport terminal where a renewable power source could be installed. Hmm, where could we find a large piece of relatively flat land with little to no trees to shade the sunlight? Hell, you could even cover the remote parking areas bringing extra value by providing covered parking and still leave the majority of that flat, cleared, open space unadulterated.
  - mwint 4y ago
    I’m guessing they don’t want to put stuff in the areas around runways, because that’s where planes go when something bad happens. I wouldn’t want to be escaping a plane directly into a chopped-up field of HV solar panels.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
domoritz 4y ago
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.
- stavros 4y ago
  It sounds like it would offset one person staying in the airport for a quarter of a day, yes. Though, with how many people pass through an airport, it means that this would do, instead of almost nothing, four times almost nothing.
  - majou 4y ago
    Really it's about the average occupance of the airport over 24h, which is going to be far greater than 0.25.
scns 4y ago
> 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.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  "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.
- dylan604 4y ago
  Someone must have missed the news stories of airlines preferring to cancel flights leaving travelers stranded in airports for extended periods of time. Seems like 24 hours in an airport is becoming routine /s
landemva 4y ago
And the PIT airport is under construction with passenger areas being replaced with removal of the mini-train. I hope they didn't pay for this green washing demonstration.

garte 4y ago

The irony is strong in this one: Not building airports would definitely improve the situation as a whole.

fooker 4y ago
Of course, depopulating the earth will also accomplish that.
- pooper 4y ago
  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.
  - Traubenfuchs 4y ago
    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.
    - Accacin 4y ago
      Isn't world population supposed to drop from now on?
      - orwin 4y ago
        If you believe world3 was correct, yes, we're nearing the decade where it happens, but this won't be by choice. Basically our production+pollution seems to strain our renewable ressources more than our technological advances protect them. In most world3 scenarii it means a decrease in food production that lead to a population decrease. It such a simple and interesting model, i find it sad that people tend to link it to 'the population bomb' which wasn't based on anything but gut feelings.

bawolff 4y ago

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.

b112 4y ago
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 kill them all, you see...)
- kwhitefoot 4y ago
  None of that is likely to happen in the airports I occasionally visit.
kwhitefoot 4y ago
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.

jonahbenton 4y ago

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 10-20 year timeframe. My dollars are an economic signal in support of investment in a machine to turn electricity into captured CO2. 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.

TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
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, which results in a maximum overall photosynthetic efficiency of 3 to 6% of total solar radiation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency
- jonahbenton 4y ago
  Thanks! Lots of room for engineered improvement!
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Of the plants?