Doesn't this just make the smog somebody else's problem? Unless I'm missing something - which is quite possible - it appears to be perhaps the purest expression yet of the "not in <i>my</i> backyard" concept.
So according to google a 747 can through 36,000 gallons of fuel in a 10 hour trip. Being conservative and you only need half as much for 2 engines at full throttle, that means that you would need ~40K gallons of fuel a day?<p>Google tells me that jet fuel ranges from $4-$8 a gallon, therefore the operating costs for a single truck is around a quarter million dollars a day ($250,000)? Even if the operating cost is only 1/5 of this ($50,000 a day), that's 20 million dollars a year in fuel costs.<p>If India has 20 million a year to spend on fuel for this contraption, why wouldn't they just spend that money to clean up the power plants instead?<p>My guess is that the operating costs of this terrible idea are so large, they would hardly ever turn it on. I agree that this seems like a PR stunt rather than a real idea.
I'm Indian. I'' concerned about the air quality for my fellow citizens in Delhi, but an idea like this should never be allowed without proper scientific research of impact. What if blasting pollution to the upper atmosphere causes an even bigger problem?
India being a developing economy wouldn't have the money to fix that as well :-( and the coal plants would continue to run up Jet engines until it becomes another crisis because it makes business sense for them.<p>I can't see this idea ending well. Because a thorough scientific evaluation of impact isnt going to be cheap.. India might as well make deals for Nuclear plants for that money, or keep extending the already good use of solar and wind power setups.
Make Delhi air tolerable but make climate change on Earth worse. This masks the bigger problem, fossil fuels and the changes they cause to the entire planet. Pushing smog from one place to another sounds like a terrible red herring.
Jet engines seem like they have good potential if applied effectively. They could use the engines as an intake into a maze of water walls[0]. They could also use them near passive air cleaners during slow winds[1]. What else?<p>0: <a href="http://www.kineticfountains.com/blog/do-water-fountains-clean-indoor-air/" rel="nofollow">http://www.kineticfountains.com/blog/do-water-fountains-clea...</a><p>1: <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5992764/this-giant-mesh-wall-acts-like-an-air-filter-for-mexico-city" rel="nofollow">http://gizmodo.com/5992764/this-giant-mesh-wall-acts-like-an...</a>
When you ignore problems until they reach a crisis level, all solutions are short-term.<p>This is just another symptom of our global situation that's similarly being collectively ignored.<p>But hey, mars!
I'm conflicted: On one hand this sounds like an absolutely terrible idea. Why would you try to make coal less smoggy, rather than focusing 100% on replacing the plant? On the other hand, if it works, it will probably improve the health of a lot of people living in the city.<p>Is it ethical to make people suffer, if it's for the sake of giving the people and the government more motivation to phase out coal power plants?
By sending all those soot particles high into the atmosphere, will they create an effect similar to that of a volcano where the soot reflects sunlight?
Wouldn't replacing the power plants be cheaper (and better) in the run rather than running jet engines to get rid of the pollution? Why isn't that an option in this case?
Power plants are not the only source of pollution in Delhi or India.They burn garbage as well as manure for fuel. And the land-fill also caught fire. On my last visit, I saw this up close: <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/delhi-pollution-panel-sends-notice-to-civic-body-over-fire-at-garbage-dumping-ground-1397971" rel="nofollow">http://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/delhi-pollution-panel-sends-n...</a><p>My dad and I have allergic asthma and this just makes it worse for us.
I wonder how they plan to keep the engines maintained. Jet engines aren't exactly cheap, and maintenance, spare parts, and fuel aren't free, either.
Why not mount engines on the top of chimney itself? It looks more logical and effective than trailer on a ground. Though, I'm still skeptical as this is not a solution to a problem, but more a cover up of it. Coal in XXI century is not an acceptable power source.
There is no silver bullet, govt is probably trying a multi thronged approach to address the problem. A Solar power plant is being built in Rajastan, Western India[0], one more in neighbouring Gujarat [1] & one more just got completed in South India [2], and there are nuclear power plants being built or in the initial design phase. These things take time, but there needs to be some interim solutions as well. Don't you think?<p>[0] - <a href="http://www.rrecl.com/PDF/Solar%20Park%20Bhadla%20Presentation%203.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.rrecl.com/PDF/Solar%20Park%20Bhadla%20Presentatio...</a><p>[1] - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarat_Solar_Park" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarat_Solar_Park</a><p>[2] - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamuthi_Solar_Power_Project" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamuthi_Solar_Power_Project</a>
So I see that alternative energy sources are talked about a lot when discussing climate change. Why isn't there just as much R&D and discussion going on about the other half of the equation - reversing climate change or reducing the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere or making megacities smog-free?
I don't know if this is a good idea (really, I know very little about this, save having read about the concept a long time ago), but everyone jumping to the conclusion that this must be a bad idea should look up thermal inversions: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_(meteorology)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_(meteorology)</a>. As I understand them, they prevent the dispersion of smog, and create much denser pockets of pollution than would exist in a city that didn't have a thermal inversion.<p>So it seems like one reading of the situation is that most cities "make the pollution someone else's problem" in the sense that their pollutants disperse in a way that pollutants from cities like Delhi don't.
Why not just ban the usage of fireworks for various festivities such as Diwali or enforce stricter vehicle inspection code during annual registration? I am sure there will be "some" folks jumping through/going-around the enforced laws but it can make a significant difference when a good majority starts following them and such following gradually increases every year. In this way more and more cities start implementing similar routines.<p>Sometimes we get so much caught up in "cool" or "fun" projects that it becomes easy to ignore simple yet basic implementations that lies in front of our eyes all-along :)
We're going to reduce fossil fuel waste by...burning more fossil fuels(jet engines don't run on water)?<p>I hope this works, but within my small knowledge sphere, don't think that it will. Please prove me wrong India :)
I was expecting a story about changing a coal fired plant for a gas turbine plant to reduce CO2 and particulate emissions. I was not expecting using old jet engines to blow away the coal exhaust!<p>Guess this is a opex vs capex thing?
Will it not simply create a blue colored hole in the sky for the duration the jet engine is turning and then when the engine is turned off the hole will soon turn grey again ?<p>Assuming they fire the engine during daytime. I hope they do it in the day time as that will be simply awesome and better due to the possibility of sonic boom (from the gaseous fluid in the jet exhaust going near supersonic) or the noise otherwise will prevent people from sleeping within a couple mile radius.
Stupid question - could jet engines be used by rich middle-east states as floating platforms on the sea/s to create clouds/rain on dry/desert?
At least they're trying something badass. This seems one step above "We're going to have Todd do a gnarly Tornado kick at the smog."