As a scientist (in bioprocess engineering), I reserve the right to be proven wrong and change my opinion, but I would have to agree that having bioreactors everywhere sounds like a suboptimal idea. The things that can go wrong, need maintenance etc., just makes it too complex. Certainly, fewer and larger systems will be easier to maintain, but then, they will be vertical and/or high up which greatly complicates it too. I'd rather see giant farms in the desert.

I was the lead electrical and control systems engineer on a bio-conversion plant in Perth Western Australia. Unfortunately the Stage 2 expansion was stuffed up by a civil engineer who thought he was God's gift to project management. I actually started with a degree in aerospace and about 20 years ago a classmate who was by that stage in the ISS program at NASA told me that until the life support issue was solved NOBODY was going back to the moon. Let alone onto Mars. So I have tended towards projects that might give me ways to get around that problem. I've listened to a few of Dr. Jonathan Trent's talks and lectures. I'm convinced that this areas of science is going to become a major part of our future economies. In the space life support systems they have either been to complex (like Bio-dome) or too simplistic (like aquaponics) to be viable. But before we go back to the Moon or go to Mars we need to do a lot of work here. In this area I saw a vid the other day about solid and this guy showed how much water biologically active (where the microbes are thriving) can hold and what the effect on crop yield is. I don't know what your doing now but I think your in an area whose time has arrived (or very close to arriving). Even if we believe some of the demographics experts who think we are headed for population collapse we'll still need to feed the planet without damaging it any further.

Just leave it to the whales...they are doing a grand job now that their numbers are increasing👍🌞.

I like bioreactors, but I don't think they are a good replacement for solar. But they are good in making some stuff, better than plants we use at the moment. And in industrial scale they may would be competitive.

gosh this was my master's thesis too ;P I just completed my master's. It was based upon the bioprospecting of aquatic microalgae of Phormidium.

:-)

I'm sure the fish like to see the sun as well, or at least the light from the room.

Get yourself a UV light filter. That should help take care of it.

@@David-il6hn It would kill the biological filter.

Do you have live plants in your aquarium? Keeping the whole tank in a equalized state between the plants cleaning the water of what the fish put in it gives the algae less to grow with. But of course one of those magnetic scrubs is going to be a part of having a aquarium.

The whole idea is ridiculous. Its a scam for ESG investors.

did you watch the video about the old russian guy and family trying to raise raindeer

@@brandy2378 That's kinda vauge, maybe? But this project is much more than reindeer, they started with horses but now even have camels

Ah, Professor Bernard Quatermass, I presume... 🤭

What’s the difference, Sequestration IS ‘’Carbon Capture’’.

@@Kiyarose3999 Algae captures carbon. Once the water is saturated with algae it no longer has room to grow and so your capture stops, you need to sequester it. That means burying it somewhere it won't just rot releasing methane and converting it to biofuel to burn makes the entire point moot.

It does kind of defeat the purpose by burning it for fuel, especially in a building, where the electric grid could possibly be supplied by non-emitting generation sources. Liquid fuels are most beneficial for transportation, particularly aviation. That's a place where a goal of carbon neutral makes sense.

@@DFPercush Yeah, you're generating biofuels or capturing carbon, not both.

Water cooled windows would be extremely heavy and likely to catastrophically fail. They will never be used.

Algae would be interesting but also moss it can have many benefits it help cooling the surrounding, sound reduction to blocking and it cleans the air

There was a major study published by the Lancet quantifying 5.1 million lives lost annually due to extreme temperatures. Interestingly- for every 1 death associated to heat extremes there a 9 associated with cold. Shouldn’t the argument lean towards heating the planet not cooling it?? 🤔🤔🤔

​@@georgeeighmy7660 The 46 million people who die every year due to being too cold certainly is Interestingly- to say the least considering that about 60 million people die every year from all causes so the Lancet and you say that 77% of all humans who died over the last couple decades or whatever died because they were too cold. Are you certain that Lancet didn't take body temperature 48 hours after death and conclude all these bods were too cold which killed them ? Or maybe they found that coddling geriatric humans in a blanket in a sauna made them live for ever so they died because too cold.

#1, global warming will not kill off humans. CO2 in the Cretaceous was 2500 ppm. Today, 410 ppm. #2 nuclear. All energy is nuclear anyway.

@@georgeeighmy7660 you are joking right?

I did that a couple of years ago in this video kzfaq.info/get/bejne/maqlrbmjy6i2p6s.html

@@JustHaveaThink so what is the general "up-date" policy without necessarily major new additions - the kelp farming - maybe just be the thing that touches several points get us 'green' plastic, heat removal from the oceans, fish breeding space, fertilise additions for all these new mini gardens, etc., etc. I realise your capacity is limited - and a fantastic job is done, but "plagiarizing" some of your own older content is a time-honoured method. : )))))

I wonder how warm the algae can get under glass from the sun. Obviously on overcast days that won't help, in which case they would need a solution, but if one thinks of how hot it can get behind glass when in direct sun, even on a cool day, it might not be an issue for many parts of the world. I think the companies highlighted in this video were based in (and developing products for) hot climate countries, Australia and Mexico, where it shouldn't be a problem. However, note near the start of the video (@2:20) where he mentions that a Hamburg building used the premise a decade ago; no mention of cold weather is mentioned but evidently it worked in that climate, which would face cold winter weather.

Yes. To elaborate further on your point, I feel we're hedging all our bets on science solving climate change in order that we we may continue unending economic growth. It just isn't going to work like that. We have to reduce consumption and with it economic growth in order that we survive. One day the penny will drop - probably when it's too late.

@@ThePaulv12 If we do more like recapture leaking methane as fuel rather than treating it as bad we solve some problems. Methane is a hotter gas than CO2 and by using low tech-bladders to capture it from oil wells, septics and sewage treatments and dairy and CAFO manure ponds that will quickly and positively impact homesteaders and businesses using the methane on private land and help veterans and campers who use it on Federal lands (many vets choose to live on Fed land away from others, this might be a great way to support them.) They other ethical but higher tech way to also address climate change is to employ hydrochar for fuel, mined chemicals, and a charcoalized topsoil amendment. These will do much to cool the climate while decentralizing power, which is very important for both growth and climate cooling. The fact that most eco proponents fail to comprehend is most that eco solutions do more harm than good in both the long and short term. It is very bad that most solutions offered by high-tech are expensive, cause significant harm in other areas, increase poverty rather than decrease poverty, fail to meet expectations, operate in old paradigms etc. One of the biggest problems is that tech is making dubious CO2 mitigation solutions in a eco Ponzi pyramid scheme of reduced returns because the need for more perceived solutions means more points for profit. Our biggest problem is that we've messed with the earth's lungs to mitigate global warming by reducing diverss, site appropriate greenery and especially trees. If we solve the problems around regreening including rehydrating soil and improving soil biota to support proper regreening, we can rapidly alter CO2 as well as provide adequate climate mitigation as we adjust down CO2 levels...

Lots of old construction in the Middle East used water inside to cool the air. Before photovoltaics started becoming cost effective there were a lot of cool passive solar buildings that could regulate their temperature just with things like solar mass and shade.

I have wondered similar things bc the buildings are close together and offer proper support for boards or strings for plants grow across. I see this with rope lights going from one side of the street to the other so I figure we could do it with plants and it would help keep the roads cooler plus it is pretty.

@@brandy2378 people do not permit their buildings being used for public purposes. it is related to access permissions because the plants and supports need to be maintained on a regular basis

@@janami-dharmam cities maintain trees and other such plants that they have placed so im sure such things can be worked out.

@@nacoran I think here in Europe we NEED TO BUIL MORE SUN SHADES

Growing or keeping one tree alive in the middle of a city would take a shit ton of water, this is why trees are better when surrounded by other trees since the transpiration area is less than the humid volume, one tree by itself has a 1/1 ratio, while 1 tree in the middle of a forest has a 1/8 ratio. If one were to grow one giant tree then he would need to make a giant greenhouse first.

Storing carbon in plant matter is always going to be temporary (unless buried / not allowed to decompose), if they could make anthracite or diamonds that's a little more permanent but would require power. As for feeding it to animals that's already a thing (part of some blends) yet the carbon still comes out in the end :). Meat growth from companies like cultivated meat from GFI is the future of all meat production, inevitable.

Can algae be use make rabbit food ❓

@@iandaniel1748 Yes.

@@jaspertell6764 You can put plant matter into a metal container and cook it into charcoal and then use it in farmland it remains for centuries and provides water retention and fungal, bacterial lodgings for beneficial species.

Really? Say more, please. 🙂

@@judydepenau567 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bJqTeNCb2d22l6s.html

Small squeegee bots :)

Again so funny you people that have not a clue what you talk about, just have to criticize what you don’t understand. Just because you can’t figure out what others have, because you don’t know how their solutions work, does it make you feel better about your inadequacy?

@@TheLosamatic Oil from algae is not a new idea and ensuring the algae does not block out the sun light to enable continued growth has been a stumbling block for decades. I sincerely hope it is solved in an economically feasible way. Going forward I suggest you point your critical feedback against real detractors that didn’t start a statement with “I have always liked the idea of getting oil from algae” .

@@jeffsteinmetz7188 I don’t remember starting my statement with “Jeff” I do think it’s funny when people take the time to point out the obvious, like those that are working out solutions should be paying you for consulting fees! But hey maybe they should, go for it! That is if you really think they haven’t seen these problems.

There is a company in Kenya doing this. Or at least there was a couple of years ago.

🎓

It's also of tremendous food value not only to ducks. I'd like to cultivate it to feed carp in an aquaponic garden.

We don't need to make our cities mimic nature, we need to make our cities compact and efficient so they don't sprawl all over and replace the actual nature that's out their.

​@@kennethferland5579 Couldn't disagree with you more. a lot of times city dwellers think that riding a bicycle and buying "local" means there is a low carbon footprint but there are two basic types of sprawl out there, the suburban sprawl we all know and the logistical sprawl that follows every city. The amount of land, and far away land, that a city eats up and populates with shipping lanes bringing product and produce from all over the world is intense. I would argue that both have a large impact. What we need is to think of ourselves as part of nature and to make our cities productive instead of deserts of concrete and death. We also need to get rid of single family zoning and have more low rise buildings across all our NA cities with again productive landscapes. If we can fully get off of gasoline then bees and other life can thrive in the city. We can also have fresher air, better water infiltration (instead of a deluge of water going into the storm system and out into lakes and rivers with pollution), reduced heat Island effect with continuous greenery and trees. Again, bear in mind that compact dead cities take tons of concrete/sand/materials/produce tons of Carbon and pollution and as repeated are dead zones or blights on the landscape, why should we design like that? Why can't we have urban hydroponic farms so the food is actually local? Why can't the city produce oxygen instead of just carbon and pollution? Why should we design cities so they help kill birds and bees when they can be living places. And why can't we have beautiful cities that incorporate landscape? Your solution in the end says humanity is the problem, lets keep them as far away from nature as much as possible which likely also argues for keeping the human population low... which then seems to always result in trying to control African populations and promoting abortion in those areas (Justin Trudeau of Canada 600million to promote abortion in mostly black dominant countries and Bill gates in articles for the WEF saying Africa is a problem for population growth). Which is insanely bigoted and evil. What if we switched our approach and technologies around and started making our cities more environmentally productive? Electric cars will win out, solar, wind, batteries and nuclear can make it all decarbonized, why not have our cities green? Theres this really interest hotel in Japan (i believe) that has over 100 times more biomass running up the building than what the site on its own could hold. Why can't cities look more like that?

Sounds like living in an uncleaned by algae eating fish (or snails) aquarium. : P

... plus wouldn’t you need more lighting inside as the windows green-up? One thing I’d like too see would be shoals of those ‘cleaner fish’ zipping around .. albeit they would need to stay small to remain between the sheets of glass.

@@CTCTraining1 Could use cleaner snails. They'd stay reasonably small. However, the panels would fill up with shells after some time.

@@debbiehenri345 .. very true but perhaps the calcium could itself be useful. 😀👍

Apparently it performs well and is still going strong :-)

@@JustHaveaThink I used to work at Arup now i'm working with micro anaerobic digesters, and I was quite excited to visit the "algae building " I went there in may of 2019 and it was not operational, the brise soleil tanks was empty...maybe it was at maintenance, not sure. nice video! tanks a lot!

algae shall need lots of other nutrients for growth; phosphorous, nitrogen, calcium, iron, copper, magnesium... you basically need a culture medium

This is what I was thinking. It's people could grow their own compost in plastic algae reactors on their roofs that would be really compelling..

@@janami-dharmam Most of those elements are available in screened and filtered sewage. Or the waste from aquaculture fish tanks... Feed the fish on a mix of algae and insects from recycling food waste and you can take the nutrient rich water and feed it into the algae panels On the outside of your fish farming facility in vertical columns.

@@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665 There are already experimental projects combining tilapia fishtanks under tomato plants in greenhouses. The water from the tanks is filtered by the plants that use fish feces as fertilizer. No idea how functional it is and if the experiments ever got in to commercial phase.

@@janami-dharmam I'd recommend context as you had missed it

No, this idea is catastrophically bad. They're talking about moving (essentially fish-tanks) into windows, shove a bunch of plumming into every single one, connect that to a pump & air in-take that continuously blares in air. Absurdly complex, very prone to leaks (and if there is a leak, it's catastrophic), room will eventually run out constantly, it's prone to become hazardous in-case there is extreme weather (like cold) where the water will freeze to expand and shatter the windows or severely damage the system... List goes on.

@@Coecoo ......not only is your glass half empty but someone pissed in it as well and you didn't pay attention to the demonstration building in cold ass Germany that has been in operation for years without your predicted disasters.

@@Barskor1 And someone apparently took a piss directly into your brain if you think a non-transparent single DEMONSTRATION BUILDING installed by the CREATORS is some sort of sample size that you can deduct data from.

I’m not sure the view of wherever will, soon to be a hellish landscape, would be better than the greenish one that for starters be in only one direction! Are you sure that your punching down on this doesn’t come from your being just a petroleum troll?

@@TheLosamatic I doubt that Mike is a petroleum troll. I have to question the concept of "punching down". Mindless boosterism is harmful, because it causes us to waste resources on ideas that will ultimately fail. We should instead be offering a clear-eyed examination of new ideas, so we can promote the ones that have real promise.

There's no reason the slime cladding couldn't be limited to just the non-window parts of the outer walls. In fact, it could be designed into any new structure so that it is the outer part of all outside walls.

Alternatively, it could be genetically modified to have different colors, and combined to form living stained-glass windows!

Hi Mike. That's definitely one of the question marks, yes.

Agreed. I came here to make a similar comment. How are they going to keep the algae alive? This sounds like it would require single, enclosed panels that run the entire height of the building, and how would they prevent gravity from causing the algae to collect in giant heaps at the bottom of the lengths of the panels, and any protuberances inside those building-height channels would hinder full collection of the algae, unless they flushed the channels from the top of the building. That might require water pressure approaching the level of fire hoses, which would cause leaks over time as the seals on the system age.

It wouldn't be 0 impact as long as that fuel replaces classic fossil fuels. Yes, the biofuel is by itself just neutral to the atmosphere, but every million ton of fuel not dug up from on the Earth is a win.

@@oerthling Essentially no impact then. The point remains that its an extremely expensive and inefficient way to make either energy or carbon capture. Besides people will just buy diesel from fossil fuels for their car because its 10 times cheaper than fuel derived from algae grown in a tower block window. The only way you can realistically tackle climate change is by inventing green alternatives that are cheaper than their polluting counterparts.

@@joeblogs6598 I wasn't arguing for using algae fuel - just explaining how it would replace fossil fuels dug or pumped from the ground and thus make a difference. I agree that it won't be the future of transportation, we're already seeing the rise of BEVs. Together with improved public transport (on powered rails, also using batteries or green hydrogen, depending on use and infrastructure). Fuel burning motors are mostly doomed.

@@oerthling Green hydrogen is just a complicated battery, and it's only as green as the energy used to create it. It's a shame the government makes it so hard to have economical nuclear power. Too many unnecessary regulations.

@@joeblogs6598 Yes, hydrogen is effectively a form of battery - which is useful for some use cases (for example heavy machinery away from charging infrastructure, or perhaps planes). "Green" hydrogen implies that it is produced with non-fossil energy - otherwise it wouldn't be green hydrogen. Nuclear power is only safe-ish BECAUSE of the regulations. Drop the regulations and the safety record goes down.

I know, right? I was starting to get a bit twitchy.

Bless you Jim :-)

Oh wow you must be brilliant, to think how much time, effort, and money you could have saved this company, hell the whole world should just stop trying unless you approve. Cause you know those people are just idiots, can’t possibly have figured out solutions to problems that your brilliance in just criticizing … or maybe your just always jealous of real problem solvers!

@@TheLosamatic your solution?

Such things tend to get built on a scale too small to reduce greenhouse gas loading by those minuscule few who have great wealth owing to oil, Dubai & Middle East in general for example.

Yes, it's a big contrast between 'rugged and practical solution' vs 'hyped yuppy novelty'. The biggest challenge we face in communicating green tech is distinquishing between these two, the latter are incressingly becoming a means to scam people in crowdfunding with naive youtubers contributing to the hype cycles. Just Have a Think is far far more dilligent then most in this regard.

Isn’t it funny that there are now those that are doing what you obviously failed at?

@@TheLosamatic well, as far as I see, they still haven’t done it. I don’t even see they would have a feasible plan. To be honest I didn’t try to make it either I just thought about the system and designed it in my mind. I have hundreds of these plans in my mind 😊

@@drpk6514 seems to me, now, that they must have stole your idea! You should get a lawyer and sue, at least for a percentage of the funding they have obviously already received.

@@TheLosamatic lol no let them have it. I’m even happy to help them with that for free 😂

The ethanol lowers the pollution that comes out of your tail pipe for the same mile driven. Also understand how scum politicians work by subsidizing monoculture million acre corn farming they get the added benefit of putting South American peasants out of work because they can’t compete with the how cheap that subsidized corn is then sold for!

Thanks 👍

@Lainey bug. Living in rural America I think algae panels would go over much better Here because This seems like a technology that could be Repaired Instead of thrown away After 25 years that's one of many reasons why a lot of people refuse to get solar panels Because after 25 years you just throw them away and you have to purchase new ones People out here tend to hold on to scrap metal and used parts and even entire cars and trucks that are no longer worth fixing in the conventional sense And the best part would be that we could create a carbon-neutral fuel Or it could be and compressed into pellets and used as animal feed there's so many possibilities that we would just have to wait and see what people came up with.

#unrealistic #materials

@@CHIEF_420 apparently there is a promising startup that is looking to use a laser to “burn” holes down to 20km. We’ll know how feasible this is by the end of next year. If we can even get to 10km fairly cheaply it’s a huge step in the right direction

... and clients have to pay for such expertise. I used to work for Arup, and even back then the shopping list of additional services was high and ignored by most clients, so these specialist teams are small - and that also makes them expensive.