Its cheaper, prettier and more effective to plant trees, climbers and hardy shrubs.<p>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.<p>The hard part through all of this is not getting the plant to grow, thats simple. Its keeping it watered and maintained.<p>To keep pollution down in london, growing a wide variety of trees is <i>an</i> answer. But they require maintenance.<p>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.<p>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.
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.
It's all PR fluff, so it's hard to know what they want to do. Perhaps just get investment $ for the CEO.<p>But, cleaning air (CO2, pm 2.5, volatile particles) indoors at home is probably very important and should be done more.<p>Well chosen indoor plants will do it, but this could compete. If it's edible it might make people more likely to do it.<p>Not sure how the masses will react to removing particles that kill, then eating them though.