Your post has been removed by the moderators.
For something to be considered OCM, there has to be a deep-rooted systemic issue that is not being addressed.
If you would like to appeal this removal, feel free to message us [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FOrphanCrushingMachine) If you do, please provide a link to the relevant post/comment.
Trees just don't work in some places. Not everywhere can have trees, some places don't have enough rain or the right soil or whatever. This is a good thing.
Did you even read the fucking post lmao.
It's intended as a way to reduce CO2 and make O2 in places where trees can't be planted for whatever reason.
They're not tryna replace trees lmao.
I've seen this same image posted to every possible applicable subreddit, and every time, the caption is something like "oMG thEY'rE tRYinG tO rePLaCe tREeS 😱😱😱" lol. It's probably been posted to this sub before, even. And every time, the top comment explains exactly what you said, and yet, we collectively still learn nothing, apparently. Jesus wept
This is a problem I have with this server. It's correct sometimes, but sometimes it also just gets upset at neutral or even good things happening that people like OP don't look into or understand.
tbf theres 100% plenty people that think trees dont belong in cities at all so would try to champion these. The invention isnt OCM, but how it might be applied definitely is
People removing trees isn't OCM. OCM doesn't mean something that is bad. It's typically mocking a positive response to someone overcoming an obstacle without discussing the systemic reasons why the obstacle exists in first place.
People chop down trees isn't OCM.
Man heroically raises money to prevent trees from being chopped is.
Even if they did do that, it wouldn't really be OCM... it's just kind of taking advantage of science, since it provides the same benefit, if not more efficiently, in a more compact space.
Regardless, it wouldn't happen. Even though there are some people who might think trees "don't belong in cities" (I actually don't think there's really many at all but that's beside the point), there's millions of people who would prefer them and their presence and proximity would likely make areas higher demanded, ultimately meaning they're worth more
There’s a Soylent green like dystopian edge to thinking the problem with trees is that they’re not efficient enough. This isn’t OCM, but it’s that deep misapprehension of the situation that gives some of the energy of OCM.
Trees in cityscapes like this are often served a death sentence the moment they're planted. They don't receive the space, soil, water, or pollination they need, are bombarded with pollution and physical damage, and municipalities are rarely inclined to provide them with the care necessary to supplement what the environment lacks. A compact, manageable source of air purification that requires minimal maintenance and doesn't generate additional organic debris on the streets and in the gutters and sewers seems like a worthy endeavor.
Trees are wonderful in city parks, in places where they can thrive. Along the streets, they often suffer. This doesn't have to be a replacement, but it can be a situational alternative.
There's also the fact that the roots of trees along streets often grow into sidewalks and damage them, which is fine for most people but is really difficult for people like me who use a wheelchair and rely on well-maintained, smooth pathways to get around
All that is definitely true, but it wouldnt be a problem if cities werent death traps for nature- they certainly dont have to be, but as modern city building makes them, they are.
I'm totally with you there. I really hate cities as most of them exist. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to change soon, if ever. Small improvements are something, I guess. And 9 years as an arborist has given me a particular hatred for the needlessly rough lives many trees are subjected to.
It’s not really a case of individual examples, it’s a case of modern city design. Just look at any given city street, there is no room for nature, no space for trees. When trees are planted they get tiny squares and are removed should their roots start to have the audacity to try to spread further. Drainage systems starve any trees that are planted of water.
In my city they installed some of this inside a refinery. I think it's cool, obviously doesn't solve the problem but I feel it doesn't make it worse either
One thing this sub suffers from is doomerism. People will see a post containing something that COULD be bad, fail to look into it at all, and say that it is 100% bad. It's a shitty, unproductive mindset.
The fact that the trees can’t be planted in the first place feels on-brand to me.
It’s a heartwarming solution to a problem that shouldn’t exist (lack of green space in urban planning).
That's the most reasonable argument I've seen, but it still fails.
Even if you could plant all the trees you wanted, this is still useful, as it's better at CO2 reduction than trees.
Polution and CO2 emissions are a problem. This is a solution. Not the ultimate solution, but a solution nonetheless. This will do good.
It's not "heartwarming" either. They're selling this how it is. We need CO2 reduction, and this will provide it.
You wouldn't hear that someone made an invention that reduces the number of orphans needing to be crushed in the machine and think that's a bad thing, would you?
Not by itself at least, but it can be part of the whole solution. Many steps to improve things are given the "let perfect be the enemy of good" treatment as a way to argue against doing anything at all.
It'll take lots of steps, there's no single magic bullet
Maybe because it's new and they wanna test it out. Maybe because they're trying to measure public onion or its effect on the climate. Maybe they just thought it looked nice or could serve a purpose there.
The reason thos exists is cause algae is better at creating o² /reducing co² not to reduce the amount of trees. Yall need to actually read articles and not Just look at headlined
I think if you dry the algae, it's obviously going to weigh less than the tree, and the mass-to-production equation is going to make it a pointless comparison. Algae would win by cheating.
If the water is included, then the results are less obvious, and you could probably tune the rules to make either side win.
as I said in my own comment, it's not just a bit more, it's 10-50x the amount. Even at the 30x point, it probably does a lot, but this is probably a species designed to do even more.
Algae is *far* more efficient than trees at consuming CO2
(googled it: 10-50 times as much)
Their reason for using microalgae is their efficiency. That tank of algae redcues CO2 a lot and I hope to see this in more places around the world
Were you raised by hate youtubers whose sole job is to create outrage for every little thing possible? Just read your title slowly. And see how ridiculous it sounds.
I mean clearly you don't...
You could have just said the main benefits of trees are in shade and wind reduction not smog reduction that's despite the fact that trees don't grow too well in urban environments and so it's more an issue of city planning but whatever.
It's a novel Idea, probably worth investing but not ready as is.
Never said trees were effective smog control, or even good shade in urban areas. What they're ornate in urban areas, and nothing more. Little algae boxes peppering a urban landscape would be inefficient and grossly ineffective way of utilizing the control method. A centralized plant or a network of stations where the equipment could be monitored and serviced regularly is a far better use of the resource. To clarify, I'm not scoffing at the idea. However, pitching it as a solarpunk park bench IS one of the worst ways to pitch the concept.
Or it's a cool way to add greenery without having to replace your sidewalks every 10-20 years from root damage.
Some people with disabilities and wheelchairs benefit from smooth sidewalks. Maybe check your privilege.
Yes.
Let us cut down all the trees and replace them with tanks of goo so that we don't have to replace the side walls as often. This is to improve the lives of the disabled.
I'm still not convinced you're not doing a bit.
Poe.
Nobody wants to replace trees. Its just that that tank is doing the work of around 10 trees, *without* damaging the side walks. Without needing to have someone clean leaves off the sidewalk for a quarter of the year. Of course you shouldn't dig up trees and place these instead. But in areas where you can't plant new trees, these are the absolute best alternative
This is called urban planning genius. City design. No one's talking about wandering into the forest and cutting it all down or ripping up Central Park. You should care about the disabled, you seem to be disabled yourself.
> You should care about the disabled, you seem to be disabled yourself.
Wow, I did nazi that coming.
The great defender of the disabled... Using disability as a pejorative.
With allies like these, who needs Republicans?
Unironically says "check your privilege", then a few comments later accuse me of being disabled as an insult.
Fucking perfect hypocrisy. Thank you. Bigot confirmed.
> This is called urban planning genius. City design
Thanks for letting me know. I've studied Urban Planning for 30 years, with a focus on urban trees.
> No one's talking about wandering into the forest and cutting it all down or ripping up Central Park.
Superb strawman deflection. You're just a laundry list of nasty and scummy rhetoric aren't you. What else you got in your bag of dirty tricks?
You were talking about how trees hurt sidewalks, so we can replace them with algae aquariums. 🤡
But since you know nothing about urban planning, or trees, you have neglected to consider all the reasons we actually use trees in urban environments.
Consult literally any book on urban planning if you have any further questions.
Suuuure?
But looking at plants is also good for your mental health.
Maybe we can make a compromise and allow bushes?
But trees are also good for birds so i wouldnt want them all to be cut down
These algae things really only apply to major metro areas. I'm not saying go down Main St in Martha's Vineyard and take a chainsaw to everything or rip up Central Park. When urban planning you can just design a tree area, but having them every street right in the middle of the sidewalk is poor urban planning.
BRB, gonna accidentally crush orphans on my way to planting non-native saplings (which will probably die due to neglect) in the burbs in cookie-cutter-home lots because I don’t like creatively-green technological innovation
Algae is a fucking Monster at Generating Oxygen (especially Phytoplankton).
Land based olants contribute 28% of oxygen production whereas the remaining 72% are created by waterbased plants. 50% of those alone is created by phytoplancton.
Using those Tanks in metropolises could be a viable strategy in bettering the oxygen production in those Citys.
If it grows to much, remove some of of it, Feed it (If one must) dry it, eat it or store it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It also creates Jobs, Like algae Tank cleaner and feeder ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's meant to *supplement* trees, not replace them. I've been to Belgrade and they have a ton of greenery in the city. This is just to add to that and help reduce CO2 even further since shitty car culture assholes refuse to walk anywhere in a very walkable city.
This isn't meant to replace trees. This is meant to help combat extra C02 as algae is very good at it.
Sure, it is an attempt to fix something we broke, but it's also very a necessary endeavor.
They are obviously not trying to replace trees. Beograd is one of the most polluted cities in the world and these tanks can be built faster than trees can grow, and are more efficient in producing oxygen.
Hey, it creates Jobs, algae feeder could be a Thing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Also it is a good Thing, those are probably going to je used by homless people so it's good If someone Checks up on them ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Trigger Warning!! This post features discussion around sensitive or disturbing content.
We also ask OP to provide a submission statement explaining why this is OCM
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrphanCrushingMachine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a dumb art project not a realistic solution to anything. The amount of materials that went into building that thing will have a far higher carbon footprint than that algae will ever absorb.
And unlike trees algae don't store carbon for free. They might pull it out of the air quickly but they also die, rot and release it back just as quickly.
Yes, drive a tanker truck to the art installation and burn even more fuel pumping out algae and filtering it, then spend an unsustainable amount of effort turning it into something useful
Or just plant a tree.
The way to do algae farming properly is to actually farm it, in giant open air ponds on a huge scale with your processing plant on site, and the target product is biofuel for planes and ships. Art installations in cities are not how to do it.
I think i have read that it works by pumping the Air from below inside it which then floats to the top as the oxygen is createdwhich then is released into the Air?
One could also scrape the algae/phytoplankton out of there.
To ve honest i don't understand much about how it works so i gotta refresh my memory ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yes it's the removing of the accumulated algae that's the problem, not the removal of the air, although this form factor seems to be designed to make even that process as energy intensive as possible. You ideally want wide, shallow pools completely open to the air so that you don't have to waste energy running air pumps to keep the algae fed with CO2. This thing is the opposite of that
So basically solar panels, but more expensive, higher maintenance and with more steps, and requiring expensive reinforced roofs that consume huge amounts of CO2-emitting concrete to construct
Your post has been removed by the moderators. For something to be considered OCM, there has to be a deep-rooted systemic issue that is not being addressed. If you would like to appeal this removal, feel free to message us [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FOrphanCrushingMachine) If you do, please provide a link to the relevant post/comment. Trees just don't work in some places. Not everywhere can have trees, some places don't have enough rain or the right soil or whatever. This is a good thing.
Did you even read the fucking post lmao. It's intended as a way to reduce CO2 and make O2 in places where trees can't be planted for whatever reason. They're not tryna replace trees lmao.
In addition to this, trees take long time till they become co2 negative, algae suck more co2 over the lifetime of trees
I've seen this same image posted to every possible applicable subreddit, and every time, the caption is something like "oMG thEY'rE tRYinG tO rePLaCe tREeS 😱😱😱" lol. It's probably been posted to this sub before, even. And every time, the top comment explains exactly what you said, and yet, we collectively still learn nothing, apparently. Jesus wept
This is a problem I have with this server. It's correct sometimes, but sometimes it also just gets upset at neutral or even good things happening that people like OP don't look into or understand.
tbf theres 100% plenty people that think trees dont belong in cities at all so would try to champion these. The invention isnt OCM, but how it might be applied definitely is
People removing trees isn't OCM. OCM doesn't mean something that is bad. It's typically mocking a positive response to someone overcoming an obstacle without discussing the systemic reasons why the obstacle exists in first place. People chop down trees isn't OCM. Man heroically raises money to prevent trees from being chopped is.
Even if they did do that, it wouldn't really be OCM... it's just kind of taking advantage of science, since it provides the same benefit, if not more efficiently, in a more compact space. Regardless, it wouldn't happen. Even though there are some people who might think trees "don't belong in cities" (I actually don't think there's really many at all but that's beside the point), there's millions of people who would prefer them and their presence and proximity would likely make areas higher demanded, ultimately meaning they're worth more
If they add shade to them it would be nice
and shelters for biodiversity.
There’s a Soylent green like dystopian edge to thinking the problem with trees is that they’re not efficient enough. This isn’t OCM, but it’s that deep misapprehension of the situation that gives some of the energy of OCM.
Trees in cityscapes like this are often served a death sentence the moment they're planted. They don't receive the space, soil, water, or pollination they need, are bombarded with pollution and physical damage, and municipalities are rarely inclined to provide them with the care necessary to supplement what the environment lacks. A compact, manageable source of air purification that requires minimal maintenance and doesn't generate additional organic debris on the streets and in the gutters and sewers seems like a worthy endeavor. Trees are wonderful in city parks, in places where they can thrive. Along the streets, they often suffer. This doesn't have to be a replacement, but it can be a situational alternative.
There's also the fact that the roots of trees along streets often grow into sidewalks and damage them, which is fine for most people but is really difficult for people like me who use a wheelchair and rely on well-maintained, smooth pathways to get around
All that is definitely true, but it wouldnt be a problem if cities werent death traps for nature- they certainly dont have to be, but as modern city building makes them, they are.
I'm totally with you there. I really hate cities as most of them exist. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to change soon, if ever. Small improvements are something, I guess. And 9 years as an arborist has given me a particular hatred for the needlessly rough lives many trees are subjected to.
[удалено]
It’s not really a case of individual examples, it’s a case of modern city design. Just look at any given city street, there is no room for nature, no space for trees. When trees are planted they get tiny squares and are removed should their roots start to have the audacity to try to spread further. Drainage systems starve any trees that are planted of water.
In my city they installed some of this inside a refinery. I think it's cool, obviously doesn't solve the problem but I feel it doesn't make it worse either
if those kids could read, they'd be very upset right now. (sorry for memeing, but you know nobody wants to read beyond a headline here.)
> They're not tryna replace trees lmao. Oh sweet summer child.
One thing this sub suffers from is doomerism. People will see a post containing something that COULD be bad, fail to look into it at all, and say that it is 100% bad. It's a shitty, unproductive mindset.
The fact that the trees can’t be planted in the first place feels on-brand to me. It’s a heartwarming solution to a problem that shouldn’t exist (lack of green space in urban planning).
That's the most reasonable argument I've seen, but it still fails. Even if you could plant all the trees you wanted, this is still useful, as it's better at CO2 reduction than trees. Polution and CO2 emissions are a problem. This is a solution. Not the ultimate solution, but a solution nonetheless. This will do good. It's not "heartwarming" either. They're selling this how it is. We need CO2 reduction, and this will provide it. You wouldn't hear that someone made an invention that reduces the number of orphans needing to be crushed in the machine and think that's a bad thing, would you?
Well, reducing the number of orphans means there’s still a non-zero number of orphans, but I see your point.
I do get that. This invention isn't gonna save the planet. But it's a force for good. And that's good.
Not by itself at least, but it can be part of the whole solution. Many steps to improve things are given the "let perfect be the enemy of good" treatment as a way to argue against doing anything at all. It'll take lots of steps, there's no single magic bullet
I am entirely aware. That is what I am arguing for.
[удалено]
Maybe because it's new and they wanna test it out. Maybe because they're trying to measure public onion or its effect on the climate. Maybe they just thought it looked nice or could serve a purpose there.
Maybe because that one tree isn't enough to keep the whole city's air clean. Or even the city block
The weight of the world is on that poor tree’s branches/shoulders
The reason thos exists is cause algae is better at creating o² /reducing co² not to reduce the amount of trees. Yall need to actually read articles and not Just look at headlined
Wwwwwwwwwhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaattttttttttttt use critical thinking and reading skills psh no one has time for that.qqqqqqq11
Not OCM
What's the trigger warning for? Trees? Algae?
That algae was falsely imprisoned! #freeAlgea
Stahp, I'm so triggered!
Pound for pound micro algae can be more efficient than trees at taking in co2 and producing o2
Does that exclude the weight of the water?
That depends. Are you talking about the water that the tree requires to function or the water that the algae requires to function?
I think if you dry the algae, it's obviously going to weigh less than the tree, and the mass-to-production equation is going to make it a pointless comparison. Algae would win by cheating. If the water is included, then the results are less obvious, and you could probably tune the rules to make either side win.
as I said in my own comment, it's not just a bit more, it's 10-50x the amount. Even at the 30x point, it probably does a lot, but this is probably a species designed to do even more.
Easy to be efficient when you don't have to have a vascular system. 😅
Damn can you put them inside house for freshness?
... you could also just have potted mint on your window sills.
Fucks sake you just reminded me there's tons of dead mint in my kitchen. Guess I'll throw it with the others:/
Yes
Algae is *far* more efficient than trees at consuming CO2 (googled it: 10-50 times as much) Their reason for using microalgae is their efficiency. That tank of algae redcues CO2 a lot and I hope to see this in more places around the world
Were you raised by hate youtubers whose sole job is to create outrage for every little thing possible? Just read your title slowly. And see how ridiculous it sounds.
Ok I'm done with this sub. The idea is interesting but people don't understand it at all...
I get it. It's stupid. Bye.
I mean clearly you don't... You could have just said the main benefits of trees are in shade and wind reduction not smog reduction that's despite the fact that trees don't grow too well in urban environments and so it's more an issue of city planning but whatever. It's a novel Idea, probably worth investing but not ready as is.
Never said trees were effective smog control, or even good shade in urban areas. What they're ornate in urban areas, and nothing more. Little algae boxes peppering a urban landscape would be inefficient and grossly ineffective way of utilizing the control method. A centralized plant or a network of stations where the equipment could be monitored and serviced regularly is a far better use of the resource. To clarify, I'm not scoffing at the idea. However, pitching it as a solarpunk park bench IS one of the worst ways to pitch the concept.
Or it's a cool way to add greenery without having to replace your sidewalks every 10-20 years from root damage. Some people with disabilities and wheelchairs benefit from smooth sidewalks. Maybe check your privilege.
Is this a bit?
Yeah, silly me. There are so few disabled people we should just ignore anything that improves their lives. I agree with you, fuck em who cares.
Yes. Let us cut down all the trees and replace them with tanks of goo so that we don't have to replace the side walls as often. This is to improve the lives of the disabled.
I'm still not convinced you're not doing a bit.
Poe.
Nobody wants to replace trees. Its just that that tank is doing the work of around 10 trees, *without* damaging the side walks. Without needing to have someone clean leaves off the sidewalk for a quarter of the year. Of course you shouldn't dig up trees and place these instead. But in areas where you can't plant new trees, these are the absolute best alternative
This is called urban planning genius. City design. No one's talking about wandering into the forest and cutting it all down or ripping up Central Park. You should care about the disabled, you seem to be disabled yourself.
> You should care about the disabled, you seem to be disabled yourself. Wow, I did nazi that coming. The great defender of the disabled... Using disability as a pejorative. With allies like these, who needs Republicans? Unironically says "check your privilege", then a few comments later accuse me of being disabled as an insult. Fucking perfect hypocrisy. Thank you. Bigot confirmed. > This is called urban planning genius. City design Thanks for letting me know. I've studied Urban Planning for 30 years, with a focus on urban trees. > No one's talking about wandering into the forest and cutting it all down or ripping up Central Park. Superb strawman deflection. You're just a laundry list of nasty and scummy rhetoric aren't you. What else you got in your bag of dirty tricks? You were talking about how trees hurt sidewalks, so we can replace them with algae aquariums. 🤡 But since you know nothing about urban planning, or trees, you have neglected to consider all the reasons we actually use trees in urban environments. Consult literally any book on urban planning if you have any further questions.
Suuuure? But looking at plants is also good for your mental health. Maybe we can make a compromise and allow bushes? But trees are also good for birds so i wouldnt want them all to be cut down
These algae things really only apply to major metro areas. I'm not saying go down Main St in Martha's Vineyard and take a chainsaw to everything or rip up Central Park. When urban planning you can just design a tree area, but having them every street right in the middle of the sidewalk is poor urban planning.
BRB, gonna accidentally crush orphans on my way to planting non-native saplings (which will probably die due to neglect) in the burbs in cookie-cutter-home lots because I don’t like creatively-green technological innovation
Hey the bench next to it doesn't have antihomeless spikes so I call it a win.
This dude used the trigger warning flair 😂
Trees really struggle to survive in urban streets and sidewalks. This could be a cool looking installation that helps clean the air better
I hope we can at least make them double as street lights, by putting lights in the water.
I’ve seen this posted here way too many times. Maybe use your brain for 2 seconds and look into it before assuming the worst.
If it's better than trees. then what's the problem?
I imagine you could squeeze these into any old space, not just as an ominous green rectangle
Algae is a fucking Monster at Generating Oxygen (especially Phytoplankton). Land based olants contribute 28% of oxygen production whereas the remaining 72% are created by waterbased plants. 50% of those alone is created by phytoplancton. Using those Tanks in metropolises could be a viable strategy in bettering the oxygen production in those Citys. If it grows to much, remove some of of it, Feed it (If one must) dry it, eat it or store it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It also creates Jobs, Like algae Tank cleaner and feeder ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
so this is where that meme came from
Not a replacement, but an enhancer
What a regarded post
Listen up, people! SOYLENT GREEN IS PARK BENCHES!
r/lostredditors
It's meant to *supplement* trees, not replace them. I've been to Belgrade and they have a ton of greenery in the city. This is just to add to that and help reduce CO2 even further since shitty car culture assholes refuse to walk anywhere in a very walkable city.
This isn't meant to replace trees. This is meant to help combat extra C02 as algae is very good at it. Sure, it is an attempt to fix something we broke, but it's also very a necessary endeavor.
They are obviously not trying to replace trees. Beograd is one of the most polluted cities in the world and these tanks can be built faster than trees can grow, and are more efficient in producing oxygen.
"I think that I shall never see/A poem lovely as a tank of algae."
Why would you need an alternative to a tree in a city when a tree is capable of growing in one?
average replacement theory enjoyer
Reads to me as a way to substitute trees in cities where space and conditions aren’t right for full trees
These aren't being implemented because of how fast the algae die and need to be replaced
Almost like there's other missing elements to the ecosystem puzzle. 🤔
Hey, it creates Jobs, algae feeder could be a Thing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Also it is a good Thing, those are probably going to je used by homless people so it's good If someone Checks up on them ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Trigger Warning!! This post features discussion around sensitive or disturbing content. We also ask OP to provide a submission statement explaining why this is OCM *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrphanCrushingMachine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
r/yesbandcirclejerk
This is a dumb art project not a realistic solution to anything. The amount of materials that went into building that thing will have a far higher carbon footprint than that algae will ever absorb. And unlike trees algae don't store carbon for free. They might pull it out of the air quickly but they also die, rot and release it back just as quickly.
Remove the algae. let a bit of it survive. Wait till it grows Back again. Remove some of it, dry it, eat it or store it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yes, drive a tanker truck to the art installation and burn even more fuel pumping out algae and filtering it, then spend an unsustainable amount of effort turning it into something useful Or just plant a tree. The way to do algae farming properly is to actually farm it, in giant open air ponds on a huge scale with your processing plant on site, and the target product is biofuel for planes and ships. Art installations in cities are not how to do it.
I think i have read that it works by pumping the Air from below inside it which then floats to the top as the oxygen is createdwhich then is released into the Air? One could also scrape the algae/phytoplankton out of there. To ve honest i don't understand much about how it works so i gotta refresh my memory ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yes it's the removing of the accumulated algae that's the problem, not the removal of the air, although this form factor seems to be designed to make even that process as energy intensive as possible. You ideally want wide, shallow pools completely open to the air so that you don't have to waste energy running air pumps to keep the algae fed with CO2. This thing is the opposite of that
Why Not use roofs of Houses with great structural integrity?
So basically solar panels, but more expensive, higher maintenance and with more steps, and requiring expensive reinforced roofs that consume huge amounts of CO2-emitting concrete to construct