First Vertical Forest In Asia Turns CO2 Into 132 Pounds Of Oxygen Per Day

Ray1990 and Inthelight thanks fer your support and replies…that's all I got because I agree with you guys

originally posted by: waftist
Ray1990 and Inthelight thanks fer your support and replies…that's all I got because I agree with you guys

Thanks to you too and that is all you need.

a reply to: InTheLight

Honestly, the vertical green units wouldn't contribute much to 02 levels. 80%, I think, of the oxygen supply comes from algae in the oceans. Plants on the land share a minor role, and buildings occupy even less space, which would be a negligible amount. I'm sure there would be some benefits for the local areas, but the question is how much would it really offset the net gain of c02?

a reply to: waftist

It's all good, I'm happy to participate

It's a good topic, I'd volunteer on such a project if I could.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: InTheLight

Honestly, the vertical green units wouldn't contribute much to 02 levels. 80%, I think, of the oxygen supply comes from algae in the oceans. Plants on the land share a minor role, and buildings occupy even less space, which would be a negligible amount. I'm sure there would be some benefits for the local areas, but the question is how much would it really offset the net gain of c02?

But, the plants could be food plants which could change everyone's economic outlook.

originally posted by: tikbalang
a reply to: waftist

I love the idea, cant see this working with residential neighborhood, but you could force it commercially. There is never a lack of ideas, problem is implementing them

I'd rather see it incentivized than forced, but it is China in this case and their pollution is an epic problem. The implementation could be tricky, but in this day of innovation and necessity being the mother of invention, my hopes are high on this. It may take time but I feel it is a step in the right direction.

a reply to: InTheLight

That is a more complex issue than this topic will allow.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: InTheLight

Sure, just watch out for giant ticks and mosquitoes.

And 2 foot long killer land scorpions.

All protein and edible, except for the scorpions tail.

They make cool little toothpicks.

a reply to: InTheLight

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

Those buildings are probably owned by someone, that food would not be free, and if it were widespread enough it would have a negative impact on people who work in that certain business field.

In terms of changing the economic outlook of people, consider this. NAFTA allowed for the US to flood the Mexican markets with cheap corn, this did change the economic outlook of Mexican families who grew and sold corn to make a living; they could not compete and essentially lost everything.

a reply to: waftist

It's a cool idea. But honestly, how much water is needed?
And what about mold and bacterial growth?
I've seen mold prosper through entire cinder blocks before.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: waftist

There is a danger to it.

Over doing it will increase 02 levels, and increase fire damage.

Just because I'm not a fan really doesn't mean anything.

You do know that in reality forests do not produce a large surplus of oxygen. The ants, termites, bacteria, and all the other organisms that live in that forest consume that oxygen. What a wonderful balance of the world.

If you burnt all the trees in the world at one time it wouldn't even put a dent into earths oxegen levels. A couple of green buildings will NEVER relate to ANY rise in the worlds oxegen percentage levels.

This is so stupid, I mean its fine if you do this for the visual appeal, but don't pretend like its producing any meaningful amount of oxygen. Algae produces aver a Billion tons of O2 per day, that's over a trillion pounds. There are lots of ways to use algae to make more O2 if that's your goal, that would use less space and recourses.

a reply to: waftist

First they chopped it all down, then they grew it all back... vertically of course.

Words to be spoken in class in the near future.

Seriously, it's great to be doing this as the wildlife has disappeared from the Cities, it will be great to let the birds know that yes we do care about you.... come on back.

As for the actual design... and plants... aren't they just sitting o balconies? Couldn't they just use actual plant pots to stop the rot of concrete? I don't think you would need actual grass as well.

As long as the taxpayer was not on the hook for this. A cool concept.
But It would have been multiples of times cheaper to plant trees in a rural area.

I also worry about the roots destroying the building over time.

a reply to: waftist

They are Beautiful but extremely high maintenance with the associated cost's.

The problem as I see it is that these are not dedicated but a compromise between two application's and so as the old saying goes good at all but master of none.

For me the concept is 50/50 and a building designed for habitation should be just that while a building designed for plant's is a fantastic concept that could increase growing space and even make city's self sustaining.

Vertical farm's - well not exactly vertical but huge A frame pyramid like sky scrapers, lower floor's more widely spaced in order to maximize natural light into the core of the structure while artificial light supplement's it, irrigation system's and wind break's providing environmental stability in order to maximise crop yield's and limit the impact of bad weather and even to allow growing crops' out of season just like a greenhouse but a very large greenhouse, as the floor's get higher the space between them is reduced keeping the natural light saturation as constant as possible while of course smaller floors' would require less electronic lighting to supplement them but being higher would require more power to the irrigation system, since water moves downward nutrient's such as water born fertilizers would only really have to be introduced in the upper floor's and recirculating the nutrient rich water by pumping it back up would actually make such fertilization cheaper than a traditional farm were the ground water is wasted and the majority of the fertilizer is washed away so retaining that water at the base would be economical and indeed essential.

If people have to live in the same building then they should occupy dedicated floor's and not one's mixed with the crop's or forest's.

Why this is important.

Using this technique though this particular design is not appropriate in any way and would I suggest be mainly for aesthetics does offer the potential to both create more living space for nature (forest's and nature reserves built in these structure's would be perfectly fine and the animal's would thrive, not just field's and forests as fish farm's and water environment's can also be stacked though the weight is of course far, far greater and would require massively more solid structures.

It is important because it make's more intelligent use of the space, provides breathing room for both human's and nature and also provides the undeniable potential to solve the world's food crisis to an extent where using this technique we could feed probably a population of a hundred billion human's on the planet or indeed perhaps even more and I love it because it is a sharp and pointy finger in the eye of the fascist whom wrote the Florida Guide stone's.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Hey LABTECH, I wonder if the costs will be offset some by the food provided, shade and recycled water potentially. Also the value of reducing pollution could be factored in.

I like the idea of maybe instead of all buildings being designed like this, particularly if it proves ineffective(efficient), including , as you suggest, a pyramid type vertical farm on every block maybe. The neighborhood could be responsible and benefit from it not only in product but work involving community and kids. Yes the recycling aspect is a big factor for sure and a smart way to manage resources required. Dedicated floors? I like that too. Include some Aquaponics and that could provide much, as far as ratio goes for space.

Indeed the idea imo is a step forward and I think it is important to shape city designs with these ideas incorporated to some degree. The balance and maintenance are obvious issues but let's try at least and modify it as we go, ultimately setting example of how it could be done, this eco-blancing with building construction. I think greener cities is a good thing and more trees and vegetation are more harmonious than just concrete and parking lots.

Thx for your input

If O2 levels get too high, we could have apartments infested with foot-long cockroaches.

That would be awesome.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Nice post Labtech, I enjoyed reading it.

I fully agree, I've felt for years that chasing this angle will provide food security for billions, potentially as many as you mention or more. Invigorates dreams of colonising Mars too.