Hacker News Reader

Comment by MichaelSalib | Hacker News Reader

I don't think the industrial revolution comparison is correct. Pretty much all coal pollutants can be easily dealt with using air pollution control technology (except CO2, but that won't make anyone sick in the short term). The problem is that Chinese energy producers aren't interested in using that technology. Chinese officials know exactly how much of a difference electrostatic precipitators or fabric filters could make for their air quality and they know exactly how much it would cost; they just don't want to spend the money.

My father designs those systems and travelled to China in the late 80s to early 90s; China bought a little but had no interest in outfitting all of its coal-fired plants.

View on HN

> I don't think the industrial revolution comparison is correct.

And then you go on to prove the point...

The industrial revolution was all about generating profits, the Chinese are doing just that, without much regard for the consequences. They won't be able to do that much longer by the looks of it. Extrapolating from the effects of the 1952 incident to Chinese scales is scary.

During the industrial revolution, people did not fully understand the health effects of air pollution. Nor did they have the technology needed to eliminate it without also eliminating the industrial revolution. Neither of those facts are true today.

I think that the fact that your father designs such systems means you're a bit more informed than the general public, in particular more informed than the general Chinese public.

As far as I can see this is just history repeating itself, until the problems are acute nobody will give a damn about the longer term consequences.

You're definitely right about that.

On the other hand, I don't think I'm any better informed than Chinese policy makers or technologists in the energy sector. I mean, the technology we're talking about really isn't rocket science: a precipitator is just a pair of plates charged to high voltage with dirty air forced through.

Moreover, Chinese elites certainly travel to the US and Europe and Hong Kong (indeed, many attend colleges abroad) and they get the differences in air quality very well. I would be very shocked if said elites never went back home and inquired as to the difference and what it would take to eliminate it.

My guess is that they could substantially reduce power plant emissions for an increased electrical cost of at most a few percent. On the other hand, I think China uses coal with a much higher sulphur content than is typically used in the US and they have substantial non-power-plant coal burning....

Just assume those Chinese elites you mentioned don't care other people's health (since it's costing them money). But how about _their_ (or their family's) health since they also share the same air?

They move _their_ own family out of china as much as possible. I assume that those elites (like the elites in other countries) would also not care about the wellbeing of others, especially if it costs them money and gains them no profit. It's just the way the world is.

They're not spending their own money, they're (ostensibly) allocating state funds like any other bureaucrats.

In China the trend is for wealthy people to buy home air purification systems. They breath the same air as everyone else when they go out, but at home it's top shelf.

A friend of mine sells building-scale air purification systems in Asia and this is definitely the case. The nicest new buildings in wealthier Chinese cities have seriously heavy duty air filtration systems and are built with heavy duty windown and door seals.

The urban middle class buys portable air filtration systems, it's a huge market.

My understanding is that for China the number one priority is more power, ASAP. So they opt for cheaper power plant designs because they want as much immediate generating capacity as they can get for their limited funds (a lot of capital yes, but spread across a very large population.) unfortunately this means skimping on investments like more efficient and lower-emitting technologies, which might save money in the long run, but cost more up front.

There may be an incompetence factor but it sounds on paper rational. Between freezing and coughing what would you pick?

Well It's time to try another sales pitch. If anything could cause a revolution you'd think this would be it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com