Would it be possible to clean up air pollution with giant outdoor filters?

[BrainGlutton]

I was reading Cecil’s recent column on what happens to the rubber that wears off tires. Apparently a lot of it winds up in our lungs! :eek:

Would it be possible to clean up particulate air pollution of this kind by erecting giant outdoor versions of the indoor air cleaners some of us have? (Of course that wouldn’t help any with gaseous pollution such as CO2, only particles.) Would that require too many such filters, and use too much power, to be practical?

If it were possible – what would be the environmental effect of filtering all that pollen out of the air together with the man-made pollutants? (I can think of no way to filter the one but not the other.)

[Whack-a-Mole]

Since the mass of the earth’s atmosphere is something around 5,000 trillion metric tons I am thinking any filtration system would be hugely impractical.

For CO[sub]2[/sub] filtration plant some forests.

[Der_Trihs]

Given the mass involved, you’d need something like filteration machines that are also solar powered Von Neumann machines ( machines that replicate ). We can’t build those yet.

[Lissa]

What about if they were installed in really polluted areas, like LA? If they were put along highways, powered by solar panels, it seems like it would have to help at least some.

[Cluricaun]

Let’s say you did get a giant particulate filtration system to work around some of the most polluted areas. What are you going to do with the used filters that are all clogged full of your collected nastiness? Launch them into outer space?

[Der_Trihs]

@Cluricaun

Let’s say you did get a giant particulate filtration system to work around some of the most polluted areas. What are you going to do with the used filters that are all clogged full of your collected nastiness? Launch them into outer space?

Bury them, or reclaim what’s in them for some industrial use ( if any ). If it’s out of the air, it’s far more controllable.

Of course, it would be better to not put the stuff in the air in the first place, but that’s another thread.

[Smeghead]

@Cluricaun

Let’s say you did get a giant particulate filtration system to work around some of the most polluted areas. What are you going to do with the used filters that are all clogged full of your collected nastiness? Launch them into outer space?

Easy! Just rinse them off, and transfer all the pollution into the water!

[kanicbird]

@BrainGlutton

Of course that wouldn’t help any with gaseous pollution such as CO2, only particles.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

[BrainGlutton]

@kanicbird

CO2 is not a pollutant.

:dubious: It wasn’t. It was simply a product of natural processes. But since humans started putting it into the atmosphere as a product of industrial and transportive activities, it is a pollutant, and we are all going to be paying sooner than you think.

[Der_Trihs]

@kanicbird

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Of course it is, if there’s too much of it. Too much CO2 raises the greenhouse effect, and really large concentrations are lethal. Not to mention invisible and odorless; a CO2 cloud can kill people without warning; drop them in their tracks.

[Der_Trihs]

@BrainGlutton

:dubious: It wasn’t. It was simply a product of natural processes. But since humans started putting it into the atmosphere as a product of industrial and transportive activities, it is a pollutant, and we are all going to be paying sooner than you think.

A natural product can be a pollutant; acid rain from a major meteorite impact is just as nasty or more so than anything humans have done. The difference is, if nature does it, the pollution sometimes lasts long enough for life to adapt, and then it’s not pollution any more; oxygen being the obvious example.

[minty_green]

There was an interesting article in Discover magazine about this very subject a couple years ago. Turns out there’s a guy who proposes taking CO2 out of the atmosphere with a whole bunch of giant filters. I have no idea whether it’s even remotely feasible, but it’s definitely been proposed:

**SOAKING UP CO2

Klaus Lackner is a geophysicist at the Earth Institute at Columbia University and codeveloper of the synthetic tree, a device designed to remove carbon dioxide from the air. By Lackner’s calculations, one synthetic tree could absorb 1,000 times more CO2 than a living tree. **

How would the synthetic tree remove carbon dioxide from the air?

L: The device itself would look something like goalposts with venetian blinds. It would be equipped to use liquid sodium hydroxide, which converts to sodium carbonate as it pulls CO2 from the wind stream.

How much could one tree remove?

L: The unit, which has a collection area of 50 meters by 60 meters, could gather 90,000 tons of CO2 a year. That means one synthetic tree could handle an amount equivalent to the annual emissions of 15,000 cars.

How many of these synthetic trees worldwide would be needed to soak up the 22 billion tons of CO2 produced annually from fossil fuels?

L: About 250,000.

http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-05/features/climate/

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

They are called scrubbers and fit on power companies smokestacks. They reduce asthma nd respiratory diseases. Oh wait they were going to be put on until Bush came in and halted it . Sorry.