China Constructs 100-Meter High Air Purifier to Combat Smog in Xi’an

Reminds me of the plan to add fans to Los Angeles to move the smog over the mountains.

I assume actually fixing the source problem for the smog is too big a deal.

DAB

I read about some of the smog ideas for LA... fans to move the pollution to the desert. It almost seems like a joke.

I like the smog absorbing vegetation idea. Combine that with huge stipends to buy electric vehicles...the problem would be solved, I bet.

Unfortunately, the electric vehicles might make the situation worse.  You have to remember that China is mostly coal based electric power, so increasing the electric demand will make much more pollution.

If they can keep the vegetation clean, it will indeed clean up some of the air, but they really need to cut the emissions to solve the problem.

DAB

>Unfortunately, the electric vehicles might make the situation worse.

I hear that argument a lot, and I tend to disagree.

Keep in mind that moving and concentrating the pollution to one (hopefully distant) location also makes it easier to capture and reduce the pollution at that one location, allowing for more efficient cleanup as opposed to trying to keep millions of vehicles tuned up.

Electric cars also tend to be more efficient in general. Plus the distribution system is clean - you don't need big trucks moving fuel all across the country. Yes I've heard the excuse of electrical grid distribution losses, but I wonder what percentage of fuel is used up in trucking it to the gas stations. The grid could be tuned up to compensate too.

Even the added manufacturing pollution of the batteries can't be all that bad compared to all the environmental costs associated with oil changes, muffler replacements, and other ICE maintenance. Overall it kinda looks like the effort that goes into the usual engine and required bits around it (fuel tanks etc) would be similar or more than an electric power setup.

That said, real life can be deceiving, especially when powerful people and their money are involved.

If the source of the pollution is indeed the coal power plants, and not related to vehicles, then yes the problem might get worse. And the solution would be to force the industries to clean up their act. If they're much like our North American companies, then good luck trying to get the corporate giants to do anything about it.

>353 cubic feet of clean air a day

That number sounds low. I'm guessing add a few zeroes?

-Nico

Hi Nico,

The supposed efficiency of electric vehicles is valid only when you ignore all of the loss elements in the entire chain of delivering power from the generator to the electric motor.

In truth, electric cars are very poor return on investment, both in operation, energy saving and pollution reduction.

Now if they made an electric vehicle that was powered solely by solar cells, then I would concede that they are better, but otherwise, it only requires a little effort to trace the energy losses to realize the truth.

The other big problem will be all of the Lithium ending up in dumps from the batteries.  We already know they are a fire hazard and I have heard no credible plan to recycle them.  So yes you get the illusion of a better environment by use one as long as you ignore the future environmental hazards resulting from the discarded battery waste.

I agree, we need to stop air pollution at the source, but you cannot do that and provide inexpensive energy to a demanding populace.  The out of sight out of mind issue plays a big role.  It took chocking smog before LA wised up and put in emission controls.  China needs to do so much more to cut off pollution at the sources, but they will not do so until their economic and global goals are achieved.

DAB

Hi DAB,

I agree re the economic issues- I don't have an EV because it doesn't make economic sense yet. A small efficient car has the same or more luxuries at half the price of an EV, and that price difference buys a lot of fuel!

And yes, if they're not recycling the batteries, that's a whole new problem.

I'm still confused about the electrical losses due to delivery to vehicle being a factor - Are there not a whole lot of losses in the oil supply chain, from pumping oil out of the ground, shipping it, refining it, then shipping it again to the pumps? Lots of environmental disasters are constantly happening there too, from oil sands to pipeline and tanker spills.

And then the cars themselves are more efficient, doesn't that also outweigh some losses?

Of course, now that I think about it, a coal fired electrical plant would incur much of that too (I think even BC was recently still shipping coal to China).

And nuclear has scary issues, although I hear there's safe no-meltdown type nuclear plants now. But there's politics and dangers due to weapons and terrorist side-effects.

Locally here in BC we have lots of hydroelectric dams, which are nice and have the side effect of creating water supplies but there's all that land that gets flooded when a dam is built.

I do hope the solar roofs are going to work out too.

To me it currently sounds more like it's a case of the devil we know vs the one we don't.

And baby steps - going 100% electric right now wouldn't work, but over time there is time to work out the supply as we go.

It does appear that the deciding factors may well depend on cheap local production of electricity.

Sad that it ultimately seems to all come down to money.

-Nico

Hi DAB,

I agree re the economic issues- I don't have an EV because it doesn't make economic sense yet. A small efficient car has the same or more luxuries at half the price of an EV, and that price difference buys a lot of fuel!

And yes, if they're not recycling the batteries, that's a whole new problem.

I'm still confused about the electrical losses due to delivery to vehicle being a factor - Are there not a whole lot of losses in the oil supply chain, from pumping oil out of the ground, shipping it, refining it, then shipping it again to the pumps? Lots of environmental disasters are constantly happening there too, from oil sands to pipeline and tanker spills.

And then the cars themselves are more efficient, doesn't that also outweigh some losses?

Of course, now that I think about it, a coal fired electrical plant would incur much of that too (I think even BC was recently still shipping coal to China).

And nuclear has scary issues, although I hear there's safe no-meltdown type nuclear plants now. But there's politics and dangers due to weapons and terrorist side-effects.

Locally here in BC we have lots of hydroelectric dams, which are nice and have the side effect of creating water supplies but there's all that land that gets flooded when a dam is built.

I do hope the solar roofs are going to work out too.

To me it currently sounds more like it's a case of the devil we know vs the one we don't.

And baby steps - going 100% electric right now wouldn't work, but over time there is time to work out the supply as we go.

It does appear that the deciding factors may well depend on cheap local production of electricity.

Sad that it ultimately seems to all come down to money.

-Nico

Hi Nico,

It is not just money, it has to do with infrastructure and understanding the whole system.

The car itself is a very small part of the system.

Producing and distributing the electricity is the real problem.  It is expensive and time consuming, which I why I do not favor electric vehicles.  The added demand on the system will quickly cause problems because most of the distribution system is in great need to repair and upgrade.  Adding demand will over tax the system and cause blackouts. I do not see anyone willing to volunteer to be without electricity so that those who can afford the electric vehicles can charge their batteries.

Everything is a system, funds are limited, always, and each community has to choose what they want most.  Everyone wants cheap power!  That means using abundant coal, which results in air pollution.

The Billions of dollars spent each year on fusion power generation is dead money.  The results are clear, on nuclear fission will ever generate power. Given the poor efficiencies we currently have built into the system, 99% of the fission energy is being wasted. So the more demand you have for electricity, the more pollution you are going to have.

DAB

So it really does all come down to time and money again - upgrading the infrastructure would make it possible.

That reminds me of our old copper telephone wires, now (hopefully) mostly replaced with fibre optics.

For the safer nuclear I wasn't thinking fission, just safer current technology in terms of melt-down issues, such at this one: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600757/china-could-have-a-meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor-next-year/

I think there's a Ted Talk on the subject too.

We can't look at the problem based on the limitations of our current infrastructure - when the first internal combustion cars came out there was no way the infrastructure could have handled everyone trading in their horse and carriage all at once.

In that sense, it's a good thing that EVs are on the pricey side right now, making the switch a slower process.

You do bring up a very interesting point though - making cars electric (eventually) removes an element of redundancy: if the grid fails, all cars fail too. Although in a sense we can add personal backup systems in terms of solar roofs and power walls. Which equals more money.

-Nico

Yep, you can have whatever solution you can afford.

DAB

Yeah I think my dreams of Utopian air quality are still far off

Very interesting chat though, thanks for making me think, DAB.

I just looked up what Wikipedia says about smog, and it's interesting to see that London has been battling it since the 1300s, starting with coal-fired home heating. Turns out that's still happening in Chinese cities today.

Makes me appreciate living in a smaller town even more.

-Nico

Hi Nico,

My systems engineering experience has adapted my thinking to looking very deep into the real issues, not just the marketing hype.  I quickly see when a political decision is being made without supporting technical justification.

After forty years of advance engineering, I am seldom impressed with some of the "visionary" solutions being offered by people who want to ignore the real problem and just put lip stick on the pig.

DAB