lol at this title following the Betteridge piece, given that this piece was a prime candidate for a Betteridge title… perhaps this introduces an alternate title format to appease the question-title haters?
If accessing the solution requires watching a 46-minute video, I'll just have to accept the cognitive deficits. However, my summarizer tool suggests that the wattage calculations might actually line up pretty well?
> Title: How much ALGAE do you need to breathe? TESTED
> In the video titled "How much ALGAE do you need to breathe? TESTED," content creator Joel explores whether his DIY ALGAE photobioreactors can sustain him inside a sealed 200-gallon room by converting his carbon dioxide back into oxygen. After failing early tests and struggling with variables like pH balance, temperature control, and tank lighting, he consults with experts to refine his experimental setup. By cleaning his systems, upgrading his lighting to 400 watts, and utilizing efficient Basswood airstones for gas exchange, Joel ultimately achieves a record-breaking stay of 7 hours and 5 minutes within the chamber. While he concludes that he would need two to three times as much ALGAE to remain inside indefinitely, the experiment proves that the ALGAE significantly extends his survival time compared to breathing with water alone.
I haven't looked into in detail, but the energy requirements won't much change, nor will the need to grow and permanently remove your own weight in biomass every two weeks. I think the primary advantage is just that it could be logistically easier to concentrate the necessary amount of algae and light in a small amount of space, without such high losses? And maybe it's possible to automate the process of filtering out and discarding all the algae? It seems like you end up being limited more by engineering difficulty more than anything else. At some point, you might as well switch to chemical scrubbers, like they use on submarines!
at least what I remember reading, algae is just more efficient (per... at removing CO2 (not having roots/bark/etc...) but then die quickly, and unless they fall to the bottom of the pond/ocean, are indeed recycled back into the air.
"And maybe it's possible to automate the process of filtering out and discarding all the algae?"
But yes, if you can grow tons of algae in places where you can ensure the dead algae is sunk/stored, that's where (or so whatever theory I remember) it can work.
When you say chemical scrubbers, is that equiv to just mechanical carbon capture?
Depends on the plant! Succulents actually absorb CO₂ at night. But we should already be accounting for this using the fact that ~40% of energy is lost to staying alive / respiration, which is what emits CO₂.
That said, if you have non-succulent plants in your bedroom, then they would do all their absorbing during the day and would indeed be negative at night. (Although of course the magnitude is trivial unless you go really crazy.)
Footnote 7 is really interesting. Given that sunlight is 1000 W/m^2 on Earth and plants can only take in 52 W/m^2, maybe agrivoltaics could work. Though currently only makes economic sense in a handful of circumstances.
I'm not sure. That 52 W/m² number is for a shade-tolerant houseplant. I believe something like corn could plausibly absorb 10× as much. And while sunlight is 1000 W/m², I think only around around half of that energy falls in the 400-700 nm spectrum. Solar panels can and do apparently absorb in a wider band (maybe 300-1100 nm), but still, it's hard to see how the economics would work out...
lol at this title following the Betteridge piece, given that this piece was a prime candidate for a Betteridge title… perhaps this introduces an alternate title format to appease the question-title haters?
There's similar math about removing other toxins from the air (eg benzene) even when using the special NASA-studied official air cleaning plants.
Just open a window or run any old air filter.
This is a solved problem: https://youtu.be/AAbyUaLN2QA?is=7IybWgnZr4ny5PB3
If accessing the solution requires watching a 46-minute video, I'll just have to accept the cognitive deficits. However, my summarizer tool suggests that the wattage calculations might actually line up pretty well?
> Title: How much ALGAE do you need to breathe? TESTED
> In the video titled "How much ALGAE do you need to breathe? TESTED," content creator Joel explores whether his DIY ALGAE photobioreactors can sustain him inside a sealed 200-gallon room by converting his carbon dioxide back into oxygen. After failing early tests and struggling with variables like pH balance, temperature control, and tank lighting, he consults with experts to refine his experimental setup. By cleaning his systems, upgrading his lighting to 400 watts, and utilizing efficient Basswood airstones for gas exchange, Joel ultimately achieves a record-breaking stay of 7 hours and 5 minutes within the chamber. While he concludes that he would need two to three times as much ALGAE to remain inside indefinitely, the experiment proves that the ALGAE significantly extends his survival time compared to breathing with water alone.
What about algae?
I haven't looked into in detail, but the energy requirements won't much change, nor will the need to grow and permanently remove your own weight in biomass every two weeks. I think the primary advantage is just that it could be logistically easier to concentrate the necessary amount of algae and light in a small amount of space, without such high losses? And maybe it's possible to automate the process of filtering out and discarding all the algae? It seems like you end up being limited more by engineering difficulty more than anything else. At some point, you might as well switch to chemical scrubbers, like they use on submarines!
at least what I remember reading, algae is just more efficient (per... at removing CO2 (not having roots/bark/etc...) but then die quickly, and unless they fall to the bottom of the pond/ocean, are indeed recycled back into the air.
"And maybe it's possible to automate the process of filtering out and discarding all the algae?"
But yes, if you can grow tons of algae in places where you can ensure the dead algae is sunk/stored, that's where (or so whatever theory I remember) it can work.
When you say chemical scrubbers, is that equiv to just mechanical carbon capture?
Not to worry, Nature will have this covered once we go extinct and stop fucking everything up.
Don't plants emit CO2 at night making the problem worse?
Depends on the plant! Succulents actually absorb CO₂ at night. But we should already be accounting for this using the fact that ~40% of energy is lost to staying alive / respiration, which is what emits CO₂.
That said, if you have non-succulent plants in your bedroom, then they would do all their absorbing during the day and would indeed be negative at night. (Although of course the magnitude is trivial unless you go really crazy.)
Footnote 7 is really interesting. Given that sunlight is 1000 W/m^2 on Earth and plants can only take in 52 W/m^2, maybe agrivoltaics could work. Though currently only makes economic sense in a handful of circumstances.
I'm not sure. That 52 W/m² number is for a shade-tolerant houseplant. I believe something like corn could plausibly absorb 10× as much. And while sunlight is 1000 W/m², I think only around around half of that energy falls in the 400-700 nm spectrum. Solar panels can and do apparently absorb in a wider band (maybe 300-1100 nm), but still, it's hard to see how the economics would work out...