5 ms·

> a radial ventilation system at the top of the tower (powered by wind energy) draws in dirty air > “We’ve gotten a lot of requests from property developers wh

> a radial ventilation system at the top of the tower (powered by wind energy) draws in dirty air > “We’ve gotten a lot of requests from property developers who want to place it in a few filthy rich neighborhoods of course, and I tend to say no to these right now,” he says. “I think that it should be in a public space.” So there's enough wind available to power this device, but not enough to make cleaning the air a public benefit unless the device is located in a public square or park. That seems like a contradiction. Then there are the other benefits of getting a new product into the hands of early adopters: getting feedback, process and volume improvements that cut costs (and price), market awareness, and that little thing called staying in business long enough to matter. This guy's cutting off his pollution-cutting nose to spite his oh-so-socially-conscious face. Not too bright.

ars 11y ago
It's quite shortsighted to refuse to work with the developers. Take their money and use it to build more for the public.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  But, if rich people are seen using these, nobody else will want one. ;)
- molmalo 11y ago
  At first, I thought that. Why wouldn't they just take their money and use it to subsidize more for the public? But then, I thought that maybe, they are thinking something like this: If smog is not a problem anymore for the rich, because of these devices, there would be less incentive to stop producing it, and go green. I thinks that it's something similar to public school or public health. If the rich have access to private alternatives, their concerns about the quality of the public offering is reduced. In this case, if they are not the ones breathing smoggy air, their concern about air pollution (in poorer zones) is significantly reduced.
  - Pyxl101 11y ago
    Or the increased demand will make them cheaper to produce and the consumption will justify further investment into making them better. No, seems pretty shortsighted to me not to work with developers. That kind of attitude tends to be reflective of being dogmatic (screw the rich), rather than taking a rational approach designed to maximize public value (willing to admit that it could be the case that the rich will be early adopters whose consumption benefits everyone).
  - MichaelGG 11y ago
    You can buy something with equivalent throughput and functionality for $5000 off Amazon (16 * 1000CFM filters). There's no way these will make smog not a problem for the rich outside of closed, indoor environments.
MichaelGG 11y ago
I find it highly unlikely they'd make much impact outdoors. 1 million cubic feet/hour is 16,666CFM. Wikipedia says a Manhattan city block is 264 by 900 feet. So even if we assume 10' ceiling (so 2.3M CuFt) and little airflow, we'd still need several of these towers to clean it. Except outdoors are higher than 10 feet, and even light wind (avg in NY is 9MPH) will replace the air several times an hour. More realistic are small filters like this one[1] where you have a relatively limited semi-enclosed space the air flows around. So perhaps in, say, small pavilions and seating areas in a park or something, it might be slightly useful if the surrounding area is rather polluted. But sticking a few in a "filthy rich neighborhood" isn't gonna accomplish much (apart from making money or making people feel smug). Maybe on a city-scale, using real industrial-strength devices all over would work. But one would assume that cities with smog issues must have already looked at filtering systems and there must be some serious limitation or they'd be deployed already. 1: https://www.techinasia.com/outdoor-air-purifier-wait-bus-40-smoggy/ https://www.techinasia.com/outdoor-air-purifier-wait-bus-40-...
- zo1 11y ago
  But if we're moving on to "industrial-strength devices" on a "city-scale", then we might as well mandate their installation near the producers of the unclean air that we're trying to clean. I.e. Make an industrial-strength version of this, and stick it on say a coal power plant's cooling tower. I'd imagine you'd get far more bang for your buck due to the efficiency gains of not having to "clean" almost-clean air.
  - akiselev 11y ago
    I don't think there exists a coal plant in the developed world that isn't already using this technology. Without these particulate filters, a wide swath of area around each coal plant would be entirely uninhabitable by modern standards.

ars 11y ago

It's quite shortsighted to refuse to work with the developers. Take their money and use it to build more for the public.

thaumasiotes 11y ago
But, if rich people are seen using these, nobody else will want one. ;)
molmalo 11y ago
At first, I thought that. Why wouldn't they just take their money and use it to subsidize more for the public? But then, I thought that maybe, they are thinking something like this: If smog is not a problem anymore for the rich, because of these devices, there would be less incentive to stop producing it, and go green. I thinks that it's something similar to public school or public health. If the rich have access to private alternatives, their concerns about the quality of the public offering is reduced. In this case, if they are not the ones breathing smoggy air, their concern about air pollution (in poorer zones) is significantly reduced.
- Pyxl101 11y ago
  Or the increased demand will make them cheaper to produce and the consumption will justify further investment into making them better. No, seems pretty shortsighted to me not to work with developers. That kind of attitude tends to be reflective of being dogmatic (screw the rich), rather than taking a rational approach designed to maximize public value (willing to admit that it could be the case that the rich will be early adopters whose consumption benefits everyone).
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  You can buy something with equivalent throughput and functionality for $5000 off Amazon (16 * 1000CFM filters). There's no way these will make smog not a problem for the rich outside of closed, indoor environments.

MichaelGG 11y ago

I find it highly unlikely they'd make much impact outdoors. 1 million cubic feet/hour is 16,666CFM. Wikipedia says a Manhattan city block is 264 by 900 feet. So even if we assume 10' ceiling (so 2.3M CuFt) and little airflow, we'd still need several of these towers to clean it. Except outdoors are higher than 10 feet, and even light wind (avg in NY is 9MPH) will replace the air several times an hour. More realistic are small filters like this one[1] where you have a relatively limited semi-enclosed space the air flows around. So perhaps in, say, small pavilions and seating areas in a park or something, it might be slightly useful if the surrounding area is rather polluted. But sticking a few in a "filthy rich neighborhood" isn't gonna accomplish much (apart from making money or making people feel smug). Maybe on a city-scale, using real industrial-strength devices all over would work. But one would assume that cities with smog issues must have already looked at filtering systems and there must be some serious limitation or they'd be deployed already. 1: https://www.techinasia.com/outdoor-air-purifier-wait-bus-40-smoggy/ https://www.techinasia.com/outdoor-air-purifier-wait-bus-40-...

zo1 11y ago
But if we're moving on to "industrial-strength devices" on a "city-scale", then we might as well mandate their installation near the producers of the unclean air that we're trying to clean. I.e. Make an industrial-strength version of this, and stick it on say a coal power plant's cooling tower. I'd imagine you'd get far more bang for your buck due to the efficiency gains of not having to "clean" almost-clean air.
- akiselev 11y ago
  I don't think there exists a coal plant in the developed world that isn't already using this technology. Without these particulate filters, a wide swath of area around each coal plant would be entirely uninhabitable by modern standards.