Electrostatic precipitators are widely used. The equipment is expensive and expensive to operate. Industry won't use them unless they are required to.

Electrostatic precipitators are widely used. The equipment is expensive and expensive to operate. Industry won't use them unless they are required to. — T Clark

It's clear that my next objective is to examine the cost and range of use of electrostatic precipitators, objectively; so that we can define "widely used", "expensive" and or "cost & energy efficient". As well as the production cost in comparison to the "asking price". Basically I'm now only concerned with whether or not they are practical in of themselves, without considering monetary economic factors.

If they are indeed practical purely on an environmental and resourceful level, my next question will be; why is this technology not government sponsored?

It really is a rather small issue compared to something like industrial scale animal agriculture regarding global warming and pollution. World Watch Institute Insists the animal agriculture is responsible for ~50+% of global GHG emissions. However I like to examine scenarios like this as; if nothing else, a form of personal social exercise.


http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08940630.1988.10466413

https://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf

If they are indeed practical purely on an environmental and resourceful level, my next question will be; why is this technology not government sponsored? — XanderTheGrey

Speaking as an ignoramus when it comes to the details, maybe it’s because over 6% of the global GDP is spent instead on subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. Go figure. (btw, “subsidizing” is newspeak that translates into “providing welfare for” … not exactly the invisible hand of laissez faire capitalism [not that I’m against welfare for homeless kids and the like: that whole starting out with equal opportunity thing])

A new study finds 6.5% of global GDP goes to subsidizing dirty fossil fuels

It's clear that my next objective is to examine the cost and range of use of electrostatic precipitators, objectively; so that we can define "widely used", "expensive" and or "cost & energy efficient". As well as the production cost in comparison to the "asking price". Basically I'm now only concerned with whether or not they are practical in of themselves, without considering monetary economic factors. — XanderTheGrey

Are you in the United States? If so, I suggest you spend some time looking into the federal Clean Air Act and it's requirements for air discharges from industrial sources and permitting. That should set the context by which you can understand the use of this type of equipment. This is not my area of expertise.

If you are not in the US, I'm guessing other countries have similar requirements.