Slashdot Mirror


Self-Cleaning Buildings to Fight Smog

bryan8m writes "Using technology already available for self-cleaning windows and bathroom tiles, scientists hope to paint up cities with materials that dissolve and wash away pollutants when exposed to sun and rain. The idea: UV rays hitting the titanium dioxide coated cement and concrete trigger a catalytic reaction that destroys the molecules of pollutants, including nitrogen oxides."

41 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. Solar? by 2bitcomputers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be smarter to cover the buildings with solar panels, use that to power half the building and cut down of the amount of smog created by the power plants instead? Your car puts out NOTHING compared to a 250Mw coal plant.

    --
    -- Please insert another quarter
    1. Re:Solar? by myukew · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's much too expensive. Compare the costs of TiO2 and a solar panel and you'll see for yourself.
      But of course it would be much better for the environment.

    2. Re:Solar? by OzRoy · · Score: 2, Informative
      True, solar panels do not create polutants when being used. But the manufacture of them does create huge amount of polution due to the mining and refining processes of the materials used.

      They are not a magical answer to all our polution, and energy needs.

    3. Re:Solar? by jacksonj04 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      OMGS you suggested nuclear die die planet killing scum!
      [/sarcasm]

      Seriously though, whilst I'm all in favour of nuclear it lacks a lot of public support.

      A better idea would be to plant rooftop gardens, and hang cylindrical turbines off the sides of buildings. Cities act like big wind tunnels between tall buildings, cylindrical turbines could be used to turn this air into power for the building whilst the garden on the top helps buffer some of the pollution and generally make a nicer place.

      Alternatively, make the centre of large cities pedestrian only.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    4. Re:Solar? by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are water-based plants that work like batteries, when usage is below production they pump water into a higher basin, when the city needs more power than the normal plants can supply it starts running the water from the top through generators (it's not 100% efficient, sure but it's better than not using the surplus power at all). That's meant to allow for saving up energy when it's not needed for the peaks. If you can produce more power in the evening but you need it in the afternoon, you let those plants "charge" during the evening and discharge during afternoon.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    5. Re:Solar? by wooley-one · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're wrong. Many utilities maintain so called "Peak Load" plants (often diesel generators). These plants are switched on to accommodate heavy load, then turned off once they are no longer required (diesel is expensive).

    6. Re:Solar? by mysticgoat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nuclear power lacks public support because of an accounting problem.

      The nuclear industry is the first we've developed where the greatest costs occur in the post-production period (with waste and byproduct management). The Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) that guide economic modelling (and accounting in general) don't address this kind of post production cost very well. Waste management and recycling efforts have usually been regarded as refinements of the basic spreadsheet models, not as core aspects of the problem space. This has been very much the case in the nuclear power industry.

      So we've got an entire industry that has been basing its investment and production decisions on revenue and cost projections that in turn are based on flawed models which relegate the greatest costs and liabilities to footnotes, if they are addressed at all. And we've got a lot of intelligent people who recognize that something is wrong with this picture, but who are necessarily inarticulate in their criticisms. Since current accounting practice doesn't provide a way to articulate the present day cost of a future expense that increases over time and extends beyond the service life of the facility (and the probable lifespan of the entire industry).

      Nuclear power needs to develop an accounting system that will do for its waste management what Newton's calculus did for orbital mechanics. I'm confident that we've got the engineering know-how to handle nuclear power problems. What we don't have is a trustworthy accounting model to manage the implementation and production phases.

    7. Re:Solar? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The average 2004 passenger vehicle sold in the US produces 227HP, 169.274KW. So 1477 cars, or a quarter-mile of every rushhour freeway, produces as much power as a 250MW coal plant. Find the relative "smog efficiency", and you've got the miles of freeway - probably not more than a mile or two - that is actually worse pollution than a plant. Most cities have dozens or hundreds of miles of traffic, compared to 2000 250MW coal plants (5E12W total US coal-> electricity / 250MW).

      Coal plants might still put out more smog than do cars, but they're clearly in the same league. And cars, especially the SUV fraction of that raises the 2004 HP average so much, have much less emissions scrubbing than do centralized coal plants. So the car smog cycle needs extra special attention.

      Also remember that these scrubbing building surfaces scrub smog from both cars and smokestacks. So the fact that both cars and coal need cleanup, and that these surfaces do both, makes the false choice you propose no problem: rather, it points at the promise of this tech as a combined solution.

      Of course your suggestion about using the surface entirely for zero-emissions solar collection is probably right, if perhaps for the wrong reasons :). The energy for the decomposition reaction is the critical limiting factor. So the way to go is a solar surface, with pits for absorbing gas. Beneath the surface, their nanotech TiO deposition should create vast fractal surface areas within a milimeters layer, backed by exhaust/drip channels. The solar power drives UV LEDs from the rest of the incident spectrum, and perhaps some transport (nanofans?) to augment the diffusion flow across the enclosed active catalyst surface. Then these tiles get maximum efficiency from every factor in the process.

      The missing factors which decide everything about these tiles are the pollution numbers on their manufacture/installation/recycling, and their productivity during their lifetime: both the ones in the article and the SF version I just proposed. If the passive "real thing" is actually better than its pollution cost of use, instead of the alternative "dirty" tiles, then my "active" version will likely be even better. But will it still be a better pollution cost:benefit than a centralized scrubber, running off a high-efficiency (energy) gas-fired plant? Or is all this tile tech talk just hype, making more pollution to use the tiles than they clean in their lifetimes? Even more interesting, how do any of these technologies compare to just planting a lot of trees, maybe all across the surface of the buildings, and around the grounds?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:Solar? by falconwolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wouldn't it be smarter to cover the buildings with solar panels, use that to power half the building and cut down of the amount of smog created by the power plants instead? Your car puts out NOTHING compared to a 250Mw coal plant.

      Actually from what I read, I think one place might of been in HomePower mag and/or Solar Today mag , was that vehicles are the single biggest contributers to manmade greenhouse gases. A simple remedy for this though is Biodiesel . Without modification diesel engines can run on biodiesel. Actually Rudolph Diesel the designer of the diesel engine designed it to run on most any vegetable oil. And because the plants used to make the oil soak up carbon dioxide they are carbon neutral. It's not so much how much one vehicle puts out as it is the total of all vehicles.

      However more building should include solar power in their design, active and passive. One way as you've stated is pv panels. Another way is a thin film that's being developed that can be applied to windows and the sides of building to generate solar power. Another method of power generation are wind genies, wind generators.

      Falcon
  2. titanium dioxide? by John+Seminal · · Score: 3, Insightful
    this sounds like a right wing conservative BS smog & smoke screen. what is next, the republican plan to protect forrests- you can cut down 300 year old trees as long as you stick a seed back in the ground?

    the way to fight polution is at the source. stop corporations from producing polution. if that is done, then the people won't have to spend tax dollars cleaning up the mess.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:titanium dioxide? by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Corporations will stop polution when you stop buying their shit. And this advice goes for everyone on slashdot. Untill then, your just advocating the government to step in and push a free ecconomy to the ground. Let me be the first to say...bad idea.

      Reduce, reuse, and recycle is the key to solving our polution issue. Educate please. Don't prohibit a free ecconomy! And finally, stop your finger-pointing at the "right wing" as though only they are responsible for our mess.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:titanium dioxide? by a+whoabot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How's it a free economy when corporations are given power by the state to take from public property with no recourse for others who have a stake in this public property?

      How is it a free economy when corporations are given power by the state to pollute the property of third persons with limited liability? When a corporations puts pollutants into the air and they enter my property and they hurt me when I breath them, I have no avenue of fair recourse because the government forces me through violence, and the threat of, to accept the damage without proper or any compensation.

      How is it a free economy when people are forced by the state to accept corporate pollution of their properties? State interference is not part of a free market. If it was a free market, I would be able to find recompense from all of these polluters for their harm of my person and destruction of my properties.

      I agree with you that "right wing" does not apply to this situation very well.

    3. Re:titanium dioxide? by rthille · · Score: 2

      I advocate that the government step in and make the government pay the full cost of doing business. If corporations can't get away with pushing the cost of their polluting off onto the public (or their children) that would really be a 'free economy'.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  3. Yes, but how about my lungs? by pioni · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sounds great. At least now we can die in good-looking houses. How about reducing the damned pollution?!

  4. Now, can we put DC on the transmission lines? by anubi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Now, that high power solid-state switches ( hence, power converters ) are becoming do-able, is there any way we can start putting high-voltage DC on our power grids?

    The rationale here being the DC will ionize the air, charging the impurities, thereby encouraging them to head for and adhere to these pollution-destroying buildings.

    Incidentally, ionizing the air is NOT a new concept. Its been happening in nature since Earth began... especially during thunderstorms when the air is so charged it breaks down - we call it lightning.

    I have often wondered if dirgibles, charged from being moored to the business end of a large vandergraff generator ( several stories tall ) would do the trick.

    If a small electrostatic generator drops the crap out of the air in a room, would a bigger one clear stagnant air over an entire city... such as the Los Angeles basin?

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    1. Re:Now, can we put DC on the transmission lines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Now, that high power solid-state switches ( hence, power converters ) are becoming do-able, is there any way we can start putting high-voltage DC on our power grids?

      DC is horribly inefficient at delivering power. Besides, high voltage is high voltage. Power lines run just under the voltage needed to ionize the air. Once you ionize the air, then you set up currents, and those currents are sucking power, power that isn't being delivered, and could have been charged for.

    2. Re:Now, can we put DC on the transmission lines? by anubi · · Score: 2, Informative
      I was of the understanding that DC was actually more efficient to transfer, but was very difficult to transform its voltage by conventional means until the advent of modern high-speed high-voltage solid state switches ( SCR, IGBT , and similar ).

      I admit for constant-speed rotating machinery, its damn hard to beat 3-phase AC.

      I have noted several companies are now investigating DC again as new devices are becoming available which will make high-power DC-DC converters economically do-able. Here's an example of Toshiba's work in this arena.

      They are trying to get around various things, AC losses, Power factor corrections, and a few other quirks of AC transmission.

      I am noting too that if the high voltage DC is exposed to air, yes it will set up a small current. So does AC. We call it "corona discharge", but in the case of AC, this leakage consists of roughly equal amounts of positive and negative ions and they cancel without doing anything useful. If we are going to lose the energy anyway, might as well have it do some useful work and clean the air.

      I am hoping by posting this onto Slashdot, maybe another power engineer out there will see it post back some comments. I don't deal with power engineering at this level, but I have seen some of the big guys reports detailing advances in solid state switches driving megawatt-scale power conversion for use in DC transmission lines and superconductor transmission lines.

      If there is a cute little trick we can pull off to build a big air purifier for Los Angeles, I would sure like to see it started.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  5. Re:Effective? by Graymalkin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Keyword here is catalytic reaction. A catalyst is a substance that initiates a chemical reaction but is not consumed itself in the reaction. The catalyst in the paint would stay in existence, it would simply break down pollutants when they came in contact with the material when UV radiation was hitting it. As long as the pollutants were reduced to innocuous materials there wouldn't be an issue with toxic waste disposal.

    --
    I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  6. Consider the source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seems to make more sense to cut off the sources of the polution than to remove them from the environment. Improving engine efficency and adding proper safty equipment to power plants will do far more than coating everything in sight with titanium oxide. The self cleaning properties may be enough of a reason to use the coatings so the polution fighting is simply a side benefit. Why aren't the offenders held accountable for the polution in the first place? If power companies and auto companies were required to clean up their own messes their profits would disappear overnight. Nuclear power is generally referred to as the cheapiest cleaniest source but that's mostly because the US government generally picks up the clean up bill. The nuclear clean up programs are running billions of dollars a year with no end in sight. Oil companies are releasing massive amounts of hydrocarbons a year with no accountability. Alternative sources will start looking cheap when the government stops picking up the bill for cleaning up coal, oil and nuclear messes. Secondary costs of health care, global warming and clean up aren't ever factored into costs of energy. If sea levels rise five feet due to global warming the world will loose trillions of dollars in coastal property. Depreciate that cost into your gallon of gas.

    1. Re:Consider the source by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seems to make more sense to cut off the sources of the polution than to remove them from the environment.

      Ok, then: you go convince everyone to stop driving cars and stuff, and get back to us when you've got some progress to report. In the meantime, we'll go ahead and implement self-cleaning buildings.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  7. Tarffic is the primary cause of pollution by October_30th · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Your car puts out NOTHING compared to a 250Mw coal plant.

    Traffic is the primary cause of pollution in inhabited areas and car emissions are harder to control than those of a single 250 MW coal plant.

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
    1. Re:Tarffic is the primary cause of pollution by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Informative

      I know that they have at least three running into Detroit.

      The trick was that they replaced nine undereground power lines, that were already oil-cooled. Basically, the continuing cost for the LN2 is less than the pumps needed to circulate the oil.

      The three new cables contain only 250 pounds of superconductor, yet they will be able to carry just as much current as the 18,000 pounds of copper in the nine cables they replace.

      The trick is, you don't need to pump the LN2, as it just boils off, you just have to keep it 'topped off'. The cables are heavily insulated, so the boil off rate is actually low, as the cables don't produce any heat, whereas the copper lines did.

      I remember reading that they actually made money on the replacement, as 18,000 pounds of copper is quite a chunck of change.

      A source, the rest I'm working off of remembered articles that aren't easily found on the internet today.

      I'll admit, it's going to be a while before they bother running a superconducting line to your neighborhood, but for the main trunks out of power stations, into cities, or other major distibution centers, it makes sense.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  8. That's the point by myukew · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not about cleaner houses, it's about cleaner air!
    They try to make a house work like a tree to actively reduce the amount of pollution in the air. That the house stays clean is just a nice side-effect

  9. Why not just fight the root of the problem by smidget2k4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and reduce the pollution? Technologies like this just make it seem like pollution is alright. Out of sight, out of mind.

    How about buildings with living roofs or use solar panels and wind turbines to reduce reliance on the local smog producing powerplant.

    Or move on over to and build a community to reuse energies wasted by other nearby businesses (like the heat that would otherwise be lost through restaurant ovens can be used to help heat the floor above, etc).

    Or, you know... we can just pretend it is not there. Either way...

    1. Re:Why not just fight the root of the problem by ocelotbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      y'know, you can do both things. Yes, cutting back the sources is a good thing, but cleaning up your mess is also quite important too; people have different specialties, having everyone work on the One True Solution rarely is beneficial in the long run.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  10. of course by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 2, Funny

    A factory that cleans like a cat, acts like a cat, so don't expect it to produce anything for 18 hours a day.

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  11. Carbon? by moderators_are_w*nke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Outside of certain cities, such as Athens and Tehran, motor pollution is not such an issue anymore, as we all have catalytic convertors fitted to our cars (at least we do in the EU). Unfortunately, its still pumping out CO2. What is required is a catalyst which turns CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen. Unfortunately outside of plants and trees we don't have one. I suspect the worlds largest polluter will have to do better than this.

    --
    "XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
  12. Re:Fight the problem at its core by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Funny

    You see, that's where you went wrong. You got modded as a troll because your advocating using toilet paper, period!. The correct thing you should have said was...

    "Save a tree, use your hand to wipe your ass."

    See how much better that is?

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  13. Re:dependance on gasoline by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 2, Informative

    Where do you keep your car? Most likely in a garage or car port. Either way, it's not a place with much in the way of ambient light. You'll not be doing much charging at home. In urban areas, most parking is in large, multi-level (and often underground) structures, where there is a similar absence of sunlight. So your car won't be doing any charging while you're at the office.

    You're thus limited to the charging your solar cells could do while actually in the process of your commute. The hours most people drive are morning and evening, when the shallow angle of the sun produce sub-optimal light reception for solar cells.

    In other words, for the way commuting works now, solar cells are a waste - at least in urban areas, where there is the most need for clean energy.

    -

    By the way, "kinetic" watches have been around for a long time. They use a ratcheted weight system that winds the spring whenever the tilt of the watch is changed, which happens a lot during the day for an average wearer.

    --
    ± 29 dB
  14. Pollution is a big deal by haggar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Pollution causes decreased life span and quality of life. Whether you (or even your parents) lived in a clean environment or a polluted one, can determine whether you'll have all sorts of allergies, cancer, respiratory tract diseases etc. Even if you regularly check for cancer and catch each one in time, try to prolg your lifespan with antioxidants and reduced intake of calories, pollution will still get you: you may attain longer life, but with much reduced mental capacity or even dementia.

    So, if you're a geek and you value your grey matter, you'll take pollution seriously.

    In my view, one of the best ways around pollution is greater use of public transportation (expecially trains and such) - this is a problem in the US, where the existing public transportation companies have been bought and dismantled shortly after WWII - and greater utilization of nuclear, hydro, solar and wind power plants for production of electrical energy.

    --
    Sigged!
  15. Breaking down Organic Material by Konerak · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Organic compounds are broken down into carbon dioxide and water, while the nitrogen oxides yield nitrate salts."
    Better not lean against these babies then I guess...
  16. Deaths from air pollution and nuclear power by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Interesting factoid of the day:

    About 3 million people die every year from air pollution. That's about an order of magnitude greater than the number of people who have died in the entire history of nuclear power and nuclear weapons, including Chernobyl, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

    However, if you ask a random person which causes more deaths, what do you think they'll say?

    1. Re:Deaths from air pollution and nuclear power by GigsVT · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well you produce 3 million death certificates that say "air pollution" that are dated 2003 and I'll believe you.

      The main problem with BS statistics like yours is that these deaths can be recycled for whatever the cause du jure.

      Suppose someone dies of pneumonia. Due to poor health caused by a brain tumor. And they smoked cigarettes. And used to work as a asbestos remover.

      Died from pollution: Check
      Died from using a cell phone: Check
      Died from asbestos: Check
      Died from cigarettes: Check

      This person died 4 times for your statistics!

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  17. A 1%/year tax escalator by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Put a tax on carbon based fuel sources. Start at 1%. Then increase it by 1% each year.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:A 1%/year tax escalator by PrivateDonut · · Score: 2, Funny

      That would never work!
      Year 1 - 1% tax
      Year 2 - 1.01% tax
      Year 3 - 1.0201% tax ...
      Year 50 - 1.62834% tax ...
      Year 233 - 10.059% tax

      That doesn't look like a viable plan to me...

    2. Re:A 1%/year tax escalator by vidarh · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You mean almost like in the UK and most of the rest of the world.

      The US is almost alone in having fuel prices as low as they are. Adding significant fuel taxes won't change everything, but taxes on those levels for fuel does push people to consider fuel economy to a lot higher degree than what people in the US currently does. It also inevitably lead a lot of people to seriously consider public transport (with the US public transport system being what it is, for that effect to make a difference pushing any increases in fuel taxation straight into public transport investments would probably be almost neccessary)

      Additionally, high fuel taxes create a lot of room for using taxation to influence other product choices - like pushing people to consider cars and fuels that are less polluting in other ways by warying the tax.

      The UK is one of the highest taxing countries in the world for fuel, with 72.3% tax. This is actually down from around 85% in recent year, but the percentage drop is a result of rising oil prices - the total price of fuel including taxes has still increased above the rate of inflation.

  18. plants are more efficient by m0llusk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It would make more sense to advocate roof gardens, street trees, and vines. These would have similar effects, but function more efficiently. Plants have the added advantage of making environments desirable to humans.

  19. Re:Effective? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Informative

    Titanium dioxide has been used in paint for a long time, and is one of the two chemicals most used as a pigment in white paint. (The other is zinc oxide.) Producing a bit more than we already are is not likely to be a significant problem.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  20. Re:FTFA by greginnj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >> Organic compounds are broken down into carbon dioxide and water, while the nitrogen oxides yield nitrate salts.

    > Carbon dioxide and water are easy enough to take care of. Not sure what to do with the nitrate salts. Fertilizer?

    Ok, let me get this straight. We've now got a process that allows you to paint an urban building with a substance that automatically transforms the ambient pollution into nitrate fertilizer?

    Congratulations, you're only a step or two away from creating the world's first self-exploding skyscraper!

    --
    Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
  21. Titanium dioxide has other problems by domefreak · · Score: 4, Informative
    The article explains that the smog-busting coating for buildings will contain titanium dioxide. They note that this compound is already prevalent in paints, but presumably this process requires a higher concentration than that. I searched GreenSpec for any existing paints that use this effect, and instead found this interesting fact:
    The production of pigments can be a highly polluting process. When titanium dioxide is extracted from sand, large quantities of by-products are produced that have historically been disposed of by ocean dumping and/or deep-well injection. The process of refining titanium dioxide is also very energy intensive, with significant releases of carbon dioxide and sulfur oxides. The European Community considers these problems associated with titanium dioxide so serious that they have established limits on the amount of white pigment allowed, and limits on allowable emissions from pigment manufacture, for paints under consideration for the European Eco Label.
    (from Environmental Building News, February 1999)