Not to mention the water pollution…from Springer Select:
To curb China’s haze and air pollution, use water
New geoengineering research suggests pollution-control measures inspired by watering a garden
A new idea to cut back on air pollution: spray water into the atmosphere from sprinklers atop tall buildings and towers, similar to watering a garden. This suggestion comes from Shaocai Yu of Zhejiang University in China, and North Carolina State University in the US. In an article published in Springer’s journal Environmental Chemistry Letters, Yu suggests this course of action as a novel approach to help curb the severe air pollution and heavy haze that is experienced in many Chinese cities, as well as others around the world. Over the past 30 years the megacities of China have suffered from air pollution because of the nation’s decades-long burst of economic and industrial growth.
Moreover, air pollution of this nature is not easy to manage, because the pollution typically comes from a variety of sources such as coal-based energy, traffic and heating in the megacities themselves.But in a new article, Yu proposes spraying water into the atmosphere to simulate natural types of precipitation that are able to most effectively scavenge or collect and remove aerosol and gaseous pollutants. And while chemical agents can be added to the water sprayed for other purposes, Yu recommends forgoing the addition of these chemicals to keep the process as natural as possible to avoid side effects that might cause harm to the environment. Finally, because water that is used for these purposes could be collected and reused, adopting this kind of plan would not exacerbate existing water shortages.
Yu predicts that this geoengineering scheme could help to reduce the fine particle load in the atmosphere efficiently to a safer level of 35 micrograms per cubic meter. And it could be done in a short time, depending how the water is sprayed. This geoengineering technique needs to be implemented daily to avoid the accumulation of air pollution in the atmosphere and the occurrence of haze. According to Yu, this option is very natural, technologically feasible, efficient and low cost.
All the necessary technologies and materials required to make it work are already available, from high buildings, towers and aircraft, to weather modification technology and automatic sprinkler heads. “With careful and considered evaluation beforehand for each area in the cities, this geoengineering approach can be environmentally safe without significant side effects. It can also be deployed easily within communities and on a massive scale at low cost,”
Yu writes. “If you can spend half an hour watering your garden, you can also spend 30 minutes watering your ambient atmosphere to keep the air clean with this technique.”Research and experiments are currently underway to design a suitable water-delivery system to successfully implement this geoengineering option.
Reference:Yu, S. (2013). Water spray geoengineering to clean air pollution for mitigating haze in China’s cities, Environmental Chemistry Letters. DOI 10.1007/s10311-013-0444-0.
=================================
Note: as demonstrated by Dr. John Christy, increased irrigation leads to increased temperatures, particularly overnight temperatures, due to the increased local water vapor content. See this story:
Irrigation most likely to blame for Central California warming
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You will see the effect of the min temps going up immediately…
When I was in Tianjin and Beijing a year ago October the haze was significant. After a rain storm it cleared right up for 24-36 hours, and then formed again. I looked up the causes, and found another not mentioned in this story. West of Beijing there is a huge area of bare ground, not desert so-to-speak but denuded ground, no grass, no trees, nothing. There is a tremendous amount of Dust in the Chinese haze, as well as sulfuric and nitric acid particulate from burning brown coal both in powerplants and in homes. Diesel vehicles with no catalytic converter to burn the soot complete the picture.
It would take an awful lot of gigantic sprinklers to do this, and re-using the water would only be possible after extensive filtration, as the streets of these cities are no cleaner than any others.
Graphs are not coming through for this 2007 link. I’m using Chrome.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/02/13/irrigation-most-likely-to-blame-for-central-california-warming/
Urban Chinese population decimated by mutant legionaires disease pandemic.
followed by
Urban Chinese population decimated by anaphylactic reactions to airborne biocides
To make this feasible they will need to do the watering at the source of the pollutant, the industrial smoke stacks.
Every particulate producing source would require a type of collection pond surround where the “rain” could be captured, scrubbed, and recycled to capture more particulates.
If not, then the particulate pollution will eventually contaminate the ground water supplies with heavy metals.
Article is paywalled, but questions arise.
China has painfully limited water resources. Spraying water from tall structures is an excellent way to evaporate it. While this eliminates the recovery issue, it raises the question of where this water will come from. Beijing is far from any ocean, so desalination is implausible. Maybe Russia can be cajoled into leasing some of their water resources?
Simulating the gutation and transpiration of a natural or primordial forest? They need to reforest the barren land to achieve beneficial climate restoration.
Perhaps they have been making regular night time flights capturing Arctic Ice Bergs and transporting them to the 3 Gorges Dam. That would explain the Arctic Ice Loss 🙂
Just eliminate the older autos, especially the ones with little to no pollution control. The pollution is in the big cities and not in the countryside.
Here is a page that might help https://www.google.com/#q=industrial+water+mist+nozzle
Sorry OT but Tips and Notes jammed as usual. You appear to have lost your links/blogroll.
Kindest Regards
Apparently, there are nutty professors in China, as well.
After The Great Smog of ’52 Londoners how long it took to get rid of this combination. Do the Chinese want it?
Here’s a novel approach to solving the air pollution problem … don’t put it in the air in the first place.
They need to build cloud chambers instead of smokestacks (presipitators) at the plant
China has plenty of shale gas. What about purchasing the technology? I mean actually paying for it, instead of simply stealing, as they used to. It still makes a clean &. inexpensive fuel for residential heating, much better than brow coal.
Who is gonna lend the west money if China spends it’s cash on a hair brained scheme like this?
Oh, I know – we trade: money for soothing skin creme!
Scrubbing the toxic gases and particles from exhaust stacks is decades old. Every semiconductor wafer fabrication facility the world over uses it to remove extremely hazardous compounds safely.
As others have pointed out, it is cheaper to remove the pollution at the origin, before it is dispersed.
But wait, what about the commissions and the graft?
I don’t think it’s the coal-fired generating stations. The ones we saw (maybe 4-5) were located in the country and didn’t seem to be emitting a huge stench as we drove by. Stinky diesels in the cities.
Assuming that you are going to do this, there is probably an optimal way.
“And while chemical agents can be added to the water sprayed for other purposes, Yu recommends forgoing the addition of these chemicals to keep the process as natural as possible to avoid side effects that might cause harm to the environment.”
I’m sure some pretty expensive chemical engineering went into that recommendation.
Many Chinese heat their homes & cook using lumps of locally mined coal. So do many power stations. Most of the coal in China is low quality, with a high Sulphur content, which results in much of the smog in cities.
Note that the construction of modern coal fire power stations is a great step forward in reducing air pollution in China.
In my travels over the past 15 years I have noted that in some areas every business, every hotel, every factory, every intensive animal farm, has its own coal fired boiler, of dubious efficiency, invariably fueled by low quality coal which is often stored outside in the weather. For example, a pharmaceutical company we dealt with there had incorporated coal testing procedures into its laboratory to ensure the coal they purchased was of sufficient quality.
I rather like the idea.
Let’s get back to that “Wicked Problem” that isn’t.
Spraying water from the tops of tall buildings is one of those, non-exclusive, flexible, low risk, low cost solutions to a local problem. Is it optimal? Probably not over the long term, but as a short term remediation is it so bad?
Will it work? Sure, it will reduce particulates in the air. The question is by how much. Try it and find out! As for putting these at the primary sources, sure — if they stay in one place. So doing it from the tops of buildings is the next best solution for auto and truck pollution until you clean them up.
What will be the harm / side-effects?
– Depending upon the amount of water/min used, the height of the buildings, microclimates could develope in the cities. Downdrafts, up drafts, urban canyon winds will be increased.
– Evaporation will increase, probably lowering urban temperatures. humidity goes up.
Maybe more rainfall down wind. Unlikely to be less rainfall.
– Ground water contamination? If you don’t take out the pollution in the downtown core, it will fall on the countryside anyway.
– Are the current buildings build to do it? You probably want a separate water system that is non-potable primary filtered from street runoff. So what will it take to retrofit an 800 foot building with a 6 inch 500 psi water head main?
– And you want some urban park lakes to serve as setling ponds for the runoff. The water might not be blue, unless it is a two story cement pond, upper level for birds and people, lower cell is streen run off settling pond and the first stage in recycling.
Nothing harmful is permanent. You can try it rather than study it. That’s what I like about it. Try it rather than study it. A low cost social experiment that is bound to help, but by an unknown degree. It is a practical, not wicked, incremental solution that may (or may not) be worth it in the short run.
Heck, even pictures of the runoff sludge alone might kickstart better demands for better pollution controls.
I’m surprised no one has made the connection to acid rain