I understand the difference, but perhaps I misunderstood the article. What it says (and you're correctly referring to) is:
> We will be conservative and say that our algal beds fix 2.5 kg of C per square meter per year and 2.5 kg of C works out to 9.167 kg of CO2.
But then a couple of paragraphs later:
> the maximum CO2 assimilation rate of algal beds which we will say is 9.167 kg of C per square meter per year.
I.e. they first mention a conservative "2.5 kg of C" in the context of the ocean, followed by a "maximum rate". 9 kg of carbon is around 33 kg of CO^2.
Maybe they meant "kg of CO2" in that second paragraph, it's certainly suspicious that it repeats the same 9.167 number, but why would they call that number both "conservative" and "maximum assimilation rate", hrm...
Re:Is Conference Room Air Making Us Dumber?
by dredmorbius on Wednesday May 08, 2019 @09:31PM
(#19864573)
That looks sloppy on their part. Point for my OP was just to note that a couple of potted plants wouldn't keep your apartment breathable.
The 4.4 kg I gave was carbon, the 16.3 kg CO2. Your 9.16 kg refers to CO2, fixed per square meter per year, which is less than the CO2 fixation value I'd used. That is, http://carbon.ycombinator.com are making a more conservative estimate of about 56% the maximum observed rate. That increases rather than decreases the required area.
At 9.63 kg/(m^2yr) you'd need 39.8 m^2, or 429 ft^2, of algae to offset one person's CO2 exhalation.
Using GNU units:
Apologies for typos in GP post. Android soft-keyboard stinks.