Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China Builds 'World's Biggest Air Purifier' That Actually Works (scmp.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the unconventional-methods dept.

The South China Morning Post shares an update on the status of an experimental tower in northern China, dubbed the world's biggest air purifier by its operators. According to the scientist leading the project, the tower -- which stands over 328 feet (100 meters) tall -- has brought a noticeable improvement in air quality. From the report: The head of the research, Cao Junji, said improvements in air quality had been observed over an area of 10 square kilometers (3.86 square miles) in the city over the past few months and the tower has managed to produce more than 10 million cubic meters (353 million cubic feet) of clean air a day since its launch. Cao added that on severely polluted days the tower was able to reduce smog close to moderate levels. The system works through greenhouses covering about half the size of a soccer field around the base of the tower. Polluted air is sucked into the glasshouses and heated up by solar energy. The hot air then rises through the tower and passes through multiple layers of cleaning filters. The average reduction in PM2.5 -- the fine particles in smog deemed most harmful to health -- fell 15 per cent during heavy pollution. Cao said the results were preliminary because the experiment is still ongoing. The team plans to release more detailed data in March with a full scientific assessment of the facility's overall performance.

79 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Grrr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Something seems wrong about this.
    We shouldn't be purifying air, we should not be polluting in the first place.
    This'll just allow people to continue polluting with natural gas to generate electricity (fastest growing fossil fuel electricity producer)

    1. Re: Grrr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How much of a tree hugger do you have to be to complain about a solar powered pollution reducer?

    2. Re:Grrr. by bobbied · · Score: 2

      How so? This device is designed to filter out small particles not CO2.

      Natural gas actually is "clean" emissions wise, with very little other than CO2 and water being released. Small participates are not produced when burning Natural Gas, unlike fuels like coal and oil. So this "filter" doesn't help. Also "clean coal" involves scrubbers that filter out very small particles from the combustion emissions, then treat the rest to remove the bulk of the remaining pollutants other than CO2.

      Here in the USA, we don't need this kind of thing, for the most part anyway. We have greatly cleaned up our automobiles and other emission sources to the point that this device would be nearly pointless. In China, they still openly burn coal and don't have the strong emissions controls on all the various emitters, so they are apparently left with the idea of trying this. I whish them luck, but it's not the solution, just a mediation strategy.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Grrr. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      A lot of the pollution in Beijing comes from the Gobi Desert. It is a fairly regular thing for fine desert dust to be an appreciable amount of the pollution. That seems worthwhile in terms of filtering - and it's a 100% natural source of "pollution" (which is more than just man-made stuff).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:Grrr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Devices like this would be largely unnecessary if there were scrubbers attached directly to the plants and devices that are emitting the particles in the first place.

      Once the particles are emitted it becomes much more challenging to recapture them.This is at best a half measure before the central government can properly crack down on businesses that are breaking the pollution regulations.

    5. Re:Grrr. by runningduck · · Score: 1

      "Natural gas actually is "clean" emissions wise, with very little other than CO2 and water being released."

      You are forgetting about the, albeit small amounts of, sulfur, mercury, and particulates with moderate amounts of nitrogen oxides. Certainly much cleaner than burning gas, but not completely clean either and should not be used as a benchmark as such.

      --
      -rd
    6. Re:Grrr. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You've never been to Beijing, have you? The dome of smog surrounding the city is visible from 100 km away, and it's not caused by a big pile of dirt from the Gobi just deciding it wants to live there.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    7. Re:Grrr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A lot of the pollution in Beijing comes from the Gobi Desert. It is a fairly regular thing for fine desert dust to be an appreciable amount of the pollution. That seems worthwhile in terms of filtering - and it's a 100% natural source of "pollution" (which is more than just man-made stuff).

      Natural in the sense of a result of actual physics? Sure. As a result independent of human behavior? Nope, not 100%, in fact, as various ill-advised land management usages in the Gobi Desert have had severe results on the stability of the soil surface, much the way the Dust Bowl did back in the 1930s or the poor cultivation techniques in Africa(some also fostered by China). Hence the need for a long-standing program to reverse the problem created by human acts, though of course, said program may not be entirely effectual or beneficial.

      You can quibble and say that the soil particulates that become dust are "natural" Perhaps, but nonetheless, you can't argue it's not a man-contributed problem. But to give you benefit of the doubt beyond what you merit, you should revise your statements to specify what you mean.

    8. Re:Grrr. by bobbied · · Score: 3, Informative

      Properly pre-processed, such pollutants are extremely limited compared to coal or liquid fuels.

      For example... Sulfur dioxide from coal is 2.591 lbs/MMBtu where natural gas emits 0.001, Nitrogen oxides are reduced from 0.457 to 0.092, and where coal emits 0.000016 of mercury, natural gas emits none. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Natural Gas also emits less CO2 than coal. So all around it's a winning choice until other sources of energy come on line.

      Personally, I would advocate that we use it instead of diesel and gasoline as a motor fuel because of this reduction in emissions as it is able to be used in *existing* internal combustion engines with little modification and we in the USA have a bunch of Natural Gas...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:Grrr. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I lived in Shanghai for 6 years, and have been traveling to China (and living, at least 3 months each year) for 20. I've been to Beijing countless times. Yes, a lot of it is smog - but when the wind blows out of the West, a lot of the brown you see is actually dust from the Gobi. Much like we get sand in Hollywood Beach, CA and you get dust in your house around harvest time near any wheat farm.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re:Grrr. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We have a bunch of natgas from fracking, that's no solution.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Grrr. by dwillden · · Score: 1

      We have? Many areas struggle at various times of year to meet EPA 2.5 particle standards. If actually as effective as this claims the Wasatch front area of Utah, which is in a bowl that traps pollutants via inversions between storms every winter, would greatly benefit from this, as would the LA area with it's smog issues. We have cleaned up many of the pollution problems but 2.5 particulate pollution is still a very substantial problem.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    12. Re:Grrr. by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Attach a scrubber to every car, truck, semi, train and plane, attach one to every home, and building heating system as well as every industrial plant and refinery? This is not just a dirty coal plant problem.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    13. Re:Grrr. by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      In the UK, when the wind is "right" we occasionally get covered in sahara sand

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    14. Re:Grrr. by nasch · · Score: 1

      Attach a scrubber to every car, truck, semi, train and plane, attach one to every home, and building heating system as well as every industrial plant and refinery?

      It's a difference of degree. All those things emit some particulates (with the possible exception of "building heating system", I'm not sure what you're referring to there) just not nearly in the quantities of a dirty coal plant. The difference is obvious if you look at recent photos of cities such as London or LA compared to Beijing or Shanghai. Also compare English cities of today with 30 or 40 years ago when they burned a lot of coal.

    15. Re:Grrr. by nasch · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting about the, albeit small amounts of, sulfur, mercury, and particulates with moderate amounts of nitrogen oxides.

      Or you're forgetting he said "very little" not "nothing".

    16. Re:Grrr. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You should learn the difference between smog and dust storms. Both are things. One of them is a thing that smells horrible and causes cancer.

    17. Re:Grrr. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Yeah dust. As a general clue if your pollutant is big enough to settle in your house and natural enough that it doesn't cause cancer then it shouldn't be compared to smog.

      Dust storms and the cloud that rises from the city centre are two very different things.

    18. Re: Grrr. by BKX · · Score: 2

      No they don't. Natural gas doesn't produce particulates. Natural gas is methane and hydrogen. Methane, when burnt, produces carbon monoxide and water. Carbon monoxide, when burnt, produces carbon dioxide. There's a bit of a small hydrocarbon produced as well but it's a gas and, when burnt, produces carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and water. Natural gas also contains small amounts of ethane, but that also burns to gases. There are no carbon chains produced, like there would be with larger hydrocarbons, which means no particulates, since particulates are carbon chains with little to no hydrogen on them. The only particles that are produced are a small amount of single and dual atom carbon, which is gaseous and highly reactive, which means they're not really particles and they don't last long anyway.

    19. Re:Grrr. by dwillden · · Score: 1

      A Building heating system is just that, the Heating or HVAC system in every home, business, government and other building designed to keep the interior at temperatures comfortable for the human occupants. Except for purely electric systems (which aren't that common) they burn something, most burn NG, a few propane, fuel oil or wood. These all emit PM2.5 particulate emissions, some are better than others but they still each add a small amount. Add in all the vehicles, even with the clean modern exhaust systems and it adds up there as well. Google LA smog or Utah Inversion for examples. It's not industrial pollution (or wide spread coal burning which was definitely worse) alone that causes the pollution to build up in the air.

      This is a significant problem in Utah every winter. http://www.ci.slc.ut.us/winter-inversions-what-are-they-and-what-we-can-all-do-help

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    20. Re:Grrr. by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 1

      Man made de forestation played a great part in the expansion of the Gobi Desert to the point where it has become an environmental hazard.

      --
      sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
    21. Re: Grrr. by HumanWiki · · Score: 1

      Those are called catalytic convertors. They function well enough, like the tower does and not 100% removal.

    22. Re: Grrr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I thought the same as you did then I did a Google search on "PM 2.5 natural gas" and found out differently.

      Natural gas is still pretty clean but it still produces a measurable concentration of PM 2.5 particulate.

      Hint: natural gas is not 100% methane + hydrogen. It's 99.9% methane + hydrogen + sulfates + nitrates.

    23. Re: Grrr. by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      Cats convert incomplete oxides to more complete, eg carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide. They don't do anything for particulates.

    24. Re: Grrr. by jbengt · · Score: 1

      "Natural" gas at your home is almost 100% methane, with a trace amount of sulfur-containing compounds added to give it that smell. It is refined to get that way. Natural gas at the wellhead is anywhere from 70% methane or less to 99% methane, depending on the field and extraction methods. Natural gas often also contains significant amounts of ethane, propane, butane, and even heavier hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur compounds, and helium. It rarely contains significant amounts of hydrogen not combined with carbon or other elements. Fracking extracts oils as well as gas, especially when the well is young, and has many of the contaminants you would to find in shale oil.

    25. Re: Grrr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait, doesn't that description fit trees themselves?

    26. Re:Grrr. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      We have? Many areas struggle at various times of year to meet EPA 2.5 particle standards. If actually as effective as this claims the Wasatch front area of Utah, which is in a bowl that traps pollutants via inversions between storms every winter, would greatly benefit from this, as would the LA area with it's smog issues. We have cleaned up many of the pollution problems but 2.5 particulate pollution is still a very substantial problem.

      As you point out, we are not perfect.. However, as you indicate, things are MUCH better than the 70's because we have made huge strides. My point here is that China isn't reducing the problem at it's source, where it is the most effective and cheapest to fix.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    27. Re:Grrr. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Why not?

      Actually, Natural Gas is only a temporary solution, no matter how you slice it. I'm just suggesting that it might be a good sort term solution as a viable motor fuel that would give us better emissions for the same work with a minimum of fuss and trouble.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    28. Re:Grrr. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm just suggesting that it might be a good sort term solution as a viable motor fuel that would give us better emissions for the same work with a minimum of fuss and trouble.

      Existing refineries can be jiggered to make green diesel out of algal lipids, butanol can be made fairly cheaply to replace gasoline, and we should simply proceed with electrification if we want to improve emissions. (In the short term, we can also add heated catalysts, which drastically improve cold-start emissions; these go hand in hand with hybrid systems, which provide the power to heat the catalyst.) Fracking is bad for water supplies, and increasing natgas production means doing more fracking, so it's not a good plan on any time scale.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re:Grrr. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Environmental stupidity on display...

      So, you somehow think we can just cut over to "green" and the resulting cost and economic impacts be dammed? Don't be stupid. Take what you can easily get. Once you have that, THEN make your case for the next incremental step. Avoid the adverse economic impacts happening all at once and you are more likely to actually make progress.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    30. Re:Grrr. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Environmental stupidity on display...

      Thanks for the warning, sport.

      So, you somehow think we can just cut over to "green" and the resulting cost and economic impacts be dammed?

      Name the cost and economic impacts of the move I described.

      Take what you can easily get.

      That's what this is. It's actually easier than natgas conversion, because you don't have to do anything to the vehicles. Green diesel is a 1:1 replacement for petro diesel (it doesn't cause any of the problems that biodiesel causes) and butanol is a 1:1 replacement for gasoline which only causes the same problems that supplementing fuel with ethanol causes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:Grrr. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Environmental stupidity on display...

      Thanks for the warning, sport.

      So, you somehow think we can just cut over to "green" and the resulting cost and economic impacts be dammed?

      Name the cost and economic impacts of the move I described.

      There isn't enough capacity for diesel fuel production from things like algae like you suggested and it is more expensive by multiple times. If we suddenly have $8.00/gal diesel fuel costs, it's going to be a HUGE shock to the economy which pretty much depends on diesel fuel to transport goods. Yes, biodiesel isn't $8/gal now, but if you just yank fossil fuels off the market, it will be every bit of that and more overnight.

      There is also the farce that moving to electric cars is somehow better for the environment. Where do you think the power comes from to charge all those batteries? (Can we say fossil fuels supply the majority of this?) The fastest growing portion of the USA's electrical production is from Natural Gas...

      Get the picture yet?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    32. Re:Grrr. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      The person who modded my post as a troll need only look out the window as he's flying into Beijing International. Best time is about an hour prior to landing.

      I absolutely guarantee that he will see the GIANT FUCKING DOME OF SMOG lying atop the city. It looks for all the world like a big Jello salad made with used mop water.

      He will then be welcome to come back and apologise.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  2. How long would the filters last? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

    How long would the filters last?

    Essentially they have build a big fan to force the air through filters.

    1. Re:How long would the filters last? by Thelasko · · Score: 2

      How long would the filters last?

      There are ceramic filters that can be baked to burn the soot collected. If I were to build this, it's what I would use. No point cleaning up pollution by creating even more pollution.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  3. Re:Sci-Fi future by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    The fools in western nations put scrubbers on the coal plant stacks. Not being a supergenius, like whoever thought this up in China.

    I shouldn't have to, but... /sarc

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  4. Re:Sci-Fi future by aliquis · · Score: 1

    This level of both technology and organization of it is beyond the capability of probably all Western nations now.

    Here in Sweden we're 10+ million people now but more like 6 million actual Swedes and more like 8 million at our peak.

    Anyway China got a population of 1379 million. Sure you'd have to share natural resources (but also the cost of infrastructure), but at say 1379/8 = 172 times as many at an area 21.45 times as large and with a population density of 8 times as many would what post-communist China do really had been impossible here?

    Because I guess this was a comment about politics? Maybe it was economics. If so I guess a western world could also do it, though we don't really need to because we aren't polluting our own areas as much currently. London has already done it but with the technology of its time.

  5. I know bashing everything is customary here ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... but I, for one, am happy, whenever there probably seems to be a piece of good news out there.

    It's certainly better news then most other things we hear, even with all the things wrong I'm sure everyone will soon have come up with.
    (And I'm saying that as the official godking of calling the world shit. I was born in that mood, molded by it. We played "end of the world in four steps" as children. I didn't see good times until I was already a man.)

  6. Re:Sci-Fi future by zlives · · Score: 1

    hehe, so is the level of pollution

  7. Re: Whither the waste? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Baby food.

  8. Lovely Idea by SmaryJerry · · Score: 1

    I'm already convinced. Put this up everywhere.

  9. Simcity by ghoul · · Score: 1

    Seems like the Air scrubbers out of the SimCity future technology pack

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
  10. Re:NOx by tepples · · Score: 1

    The featured article doesn't mention nitrogen oxides. But not all research projects can target all noxious pollutants. This one happened to target particulates, ending up with a successful particulate filter with solar thermal powered circulation.

  11. Re:Sci-Fi future by bobbied · · Score: 2

    This level of both technology and organization of it is beyond the capability of probably all Western nations now.

    Right... Actually we in the western industrialized world do this at the actual emission point instead of dumping it into the air and then filtering it out... We've got scrubbers on our Coal burning plants, emissions controls on our cars and trucks and strict controls on all sorts of things that cause air pollution. We've done a really good job of this actually, and our air quality has vastly improved since we got really serious about it in the 70's..

    You remember that VW emissions issue? What do you think this was all about? We've got laws for this, and we enforce them.

    This isn't some technological marvel.. It's a desperate attempt at putting a Band-Aid on a huge emissions problem that they really cannot afford to fix the right way....

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  12. How big? by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 1

    The system works through greenhouses covering about half the size of a soccer field around the base of the tower.

    How many football fields is that?

    1. Re:How big? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Soccer (football) is 7140 m^2. Football (American football) is 5351.2 m^2. Half of Soccer (football) is 3570 m^2, that makes 3570 / 5351.2 or 2 / 3 of a Football (American football) field.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  13. The next question would be... by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 1

    What do they do with the used filters?

    1. Re:The next question would be... by p0p0 · · Score: 1

      Burn'em.

  14. Other Options by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

    China Builds 'World's Biggest Air Purifier' That Actually Works

    Whenever I see stuff like this, I always have questions:

    • Is there a bigger air purifier that doesn't work?
    • Where is the second biggest air purifier?
  15. So by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 3, Funny

    No firing 10mm explosive tip caseless under the primary heat exchangers, right?

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:So by grub · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's great. That's just fucking great! Now what the fuck are we supposed to do?

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re: So by Mirvnillith · · Score: 1

      Harsh language!

    3. Re:So by nasch · · Score: 2

      Flame units only.

  16. Math by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    improvements in air quality had been observed over an area of 10 square kilometers (3.86 square miles) in the city over the past few months and the tower has managed to produce more than 10 million cubic meters (353 million cubic feet) of clean air a day since its launch.

    10 million cubic meters spread over 10 square kilometers is (10 million m^3) / (10 km^2) = 1 meter. So over such a wide area, this thing is only cleaning a 1 meter thick layer of air.

    1. Re:Math by denzacar · · Score: 1

      It's one meter of cleaned air - but it is "raining" from above. It's not being stacked in bricks of air, from the ground up.

      You know how rainfall is measured in millimeters per square meter?
      Well, imagine how much rain would have to fall for 1000 millimeters of it to accumulate on the ground.
      Now imagine instead of it all falling down, all that rain just kinda hanging in the air.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    2. Re:Math by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That sounds about right for the results they are getting - an average 15% reduction in PM2.5 over the area at ground level. Considering they managed to do that with just one of these things they should be able to get pretty good results with a few of them spread around a city.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Math by jbengt · · Score: 1

      353 million cubic feet of air per day seems like an awfully small number for a city. I've been involved in projects (for building HVAC) with the capacity to handle well over 500 million cubic feet of air per day, and that's just for one building, not a city. Granted, those systems might not 'purify' the air, but many of them have had high efficiency particulate arrestance filters and/or activated carbon filters. To put it the way Solandri did, HVAC systems can typically turn over the air in occupied spaces 6 times per hour, which would be equivalent to a layer of air 18 meters thick per hour.

  17. Re:10 square kilomethers by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 5, Funny

    the tower has managed to produce more than 10 million cubic meters (353 million cubic feet) of clean air a day since its launch

    They also forgot to mention that it's coal-fired.

  18. Bigger Picture by mutantSushi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So to have significant effect, such a system would need to be installed on many flat-topped buildings in urban areas, or open ground. If you're going to do that, why not install solar power generators in the same places, which reduce need for dirty power generation? The system is de facto using clean power generation potential for air filtering, albeit in efficient manner (due to direct utilization of solar thermal energy), but I question it's total utility value. China is already pushing electric cars etc heavily so that source is not a long term problem.

    I would supposition that plant based air cleaning systems, whethe normal plants like http://mashable.com/2017/02/09... or moss like https://futurism.com/4-citytre... can be installed even more places, even filling vertical walls, effect not dependent on large single areas to support 'chimney' etc, and actively clean the air in even more ways, as well as adding oxygen.

    Although on the other hand, the chimney filter system can very well be applied where heat chimneys already inherently serve climate control cooling function for buildings, and designing buildings with this approach in mind reduces need for air conditioning etc thus reducing electric consumption.

    1. Re:Bigger Picture by nasch · · Score: 1

      If you're going to do that, why not install solar power generators in the same places, which reduce need for dirty power generation?

      That would do nothing about the pollution already in the air. I have no idea how long particulates stick around though, maybe it would clear up quickly. The Chinese are going big on solar as well though.

    2. Re:Bigger Picture by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If you're going to do that, why not install solar power generators in the same places, which reduce need for dirty power generation?

      Because far away power plants aren't the cause of inner city smog, and solar panels aren't the solution them.

    3. Re:Bigger Picture by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      A lot of the pollution in China is from industry and construction.

      Stuff is being built everywhere, and I really do mean everywhere. It's hard to find somewhere that doesn't have some construction going on nearby. And they don't do it inside a giant tent or make much effort to keep it clean and tidy either, so it produces a lot of dust and soot.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  19. Why is filters? by oic0 · · Score: 1

    Why not use water or some other method that won't need constant filter replacement and create junk. The water could be reused until it evaporates away and leaves solid waste material. You could even use the water to cool something as it does it's job.

    1. Re:Why is filters? by billyswong · · Score: 1

      Because there are cities which water is precious resource

  20. Re:10 square kilomethers by alvinrod · · Score: 1

    Could just be a joke that fell flat..

  21. Re:10 square kilomethers by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

    Whoosh.

  22. 15 million people with handheld fans... by fatp · · Score: 2

    China has proposed to make 15 million people with handheld fans to blow smog away .
    While this may not be called 'build', it must world's biggest air purifier.
    http://shanghaiist.com/2017/11...

  23. Re: Sci-Fi future by Mirvnillith · · Score: 1

    Why the wholy unnecessary âactual Swedesâ? You didnâ(TM)t say âactual Chineseâ.

  24. Re: Sci-Fi future by aliquis · · Score: 1

    It's not unecessary.

    With the addition of shit-people to Sweden the standard of living and what can be produced per capita of course fall and we end up in a worse society than we'd have otherwise.

    For instance I assume the knowledge level and the freedom to be creative and put that to use into something useful and gain something from it to a very large extent decide what you get out and how much money that's worth. Now with IQ falling in our neightbor countries and it would make the most sense if it felt the most in Sweden and with a new wave of idiotic socialism spreading from the US were people demand equal pay for the idiotic life-decisions they want to make rather than earning what you're worth it would make sense for Sweden to become a more average shit-hole rather than the good nation it once was.

    You can't expect shit like that and expect the same results.

    Of course for those who come from other shit-countries maybe they can reach further here because we're less shit but that doesn't help the part where they are more shit than us.

  25. Re: Sci-Fi future by aliquis · · Score: 1

    ... as for China it's not trying to be a melting pot of trash destroying all peoples and cultures.

    It's China. They want to be China. They don't even like those who don't act Chinese who has been there for generations.

    China doesn't have the same issues as Sweden do.

  26. Desert - Industry by stooo · · Score: 1

    Yeah. China is annihilating efficiently the desert dust by removing the desert and replacing it with Industry.

    --
    aaaaaaa
  27. Re:NOx by fubarrr · · Score: 1

    Ammonia solution showers

  28. Re: Sci-Fi future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Your fucking condescending "but I'm not racist!" attitude is what's wrong with a lot of Swedes and is a prime factor in why my wife and I intend to leave the country within a year or so after living here for over a decade.

    The reason that the racism that is prevalent in Sweden is masked so well to most outsiders is precisely because it extends to anyone or anything that didn't come from Sweden. You don't have to be black, Arab, Asian, or whatever. If you don't look, talk, and act exactly the way they do, then you're "not really Swedish", no matter how many years you've lived in the country (10+), no matter your skin colour (I'm white), no matter whether you hold a Swedish passport (I do), no matter how many millions of crowns you've paid in taxes (several millions of them in my case), no matter how well you read, write, or speak the language (well enough).

    In Sweden, no-one must ever think that anything that isn't Swedish is as good as what Sweden has. You all train your kids to believe that Sweden is the best country in the world for everything, that all other countries are somehow more primitive than Sweden, and that nothing is ever really the fault of a Swedish person. It's a recipe for disaster.

    It's unfortunate, really--your little country has much to offer, but its people are hell-bent on throwing it all away via the narrow-mindedness of people like you.

    I give you guys ten years, fifteen at the outside. It would make me quite sad to see it happen, so I'll be glad not to be here when it does.

  29. Re:10 square kilomethers by Calydor · · Score: 1

    What's the range of a single cell phone tower? Maybe, just MAYBE, they're going to build MORE THAN ONE once the experiment is done and shown to work?

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  30. Re:10 square kilomethers by Barsteward · · Score: 2

    indeed, flat as a pancake.. i guess now he'll be falling back onto that as an excuse

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  31. Re:Sci-Fi future by nasch · · Score: 1

    This isn't some technological marvel.. It's a desperate attempt at putting a Band-Aid on a huge emissions problem that they really cannot afford to fix the right way....

    Could be both.

  32. Re:Sci-Fi future by Quirkz · · Score: 1

    Dissipation and dilution would take care of that, mostly. If you do it right in the first place, scrubbers go on before the factory even starts to pollute. Obviously that doesn't apply to retrofitting China, but if they put that policy in place today, air pollution would clear up pretty quickly, without the need for detached scrubbers.

    That said, big cities pollute enough in a lot of different ways, that I can see the case for both on-site scrubbers to get the worst of the big stuff, and also conditionally-activated standalone scrubbers, which only turn on when the conditions get bad, just to give the air quality a little extra boost when there's an inversion layer trapping too much junk, say, or a fire breaks out.

    --
    The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
  33. Interesting experiment but stop it at the sources by chatoitaly · · Score: 1

    Scientists do all kinds of different experiments and I'm glad they did this and it's operational. However, I think it obvious that since the government has such tight control, they are swiftly implementing actions to go after the sources in the manner that won't kill the economy. What I don't get is that just creating the jobs to put the additional filters on coal plants is beneficial so things like that should be happening as intermediate steps. I was shocked the other day when I saw the article how they already have an entire fleet of electric buses for a city. The rate at which they can change far exceeds our own. We barely think about things and debate them for years with great struggle while they just make things happen. Another thing I can't wrap my head around is what the house prices in Beijing are going to be 20 years from now when it's a completely clean air city.

  34. So they knock down old chimneyâ(TM)s by bleugh · · Score: 1

    So, we invest millions on tearing down old smog producing chimneys to spend millions putting up new smog reducing chimneys....