4 ms·

Why not simply put a lot more stuff on trains and accept that it takes a little more time to Amazon to deliver your new gadget? I'm always baffled by the lack o

• 0xy 4y ago
  Why would we deliberately cripple the economy? Who would want worse service?
  • popol12 4y ago
    Ever heard about ecology ?
  • wiz21c 4y ago
    I don't want worse services. I want services that don't break the environment. I want services that respect a proper balance. If it means that it's a bit worse to my "customer experience", then so be it.
    • 0xy 4y ago
      You can already make the choice to accept slower shipping and choose to avoid air travel. Dragging everyone else down to a more primitive society to satiate ideological climate goals doesn't seem politically palatable nor expedient.
• macintux 4y ago
  The primary emphasis of the analysis is transoceanic.
  • ciphol 4y ago
    The capacity of airships is miniscule compared to transatlantic shipping. The article suggests a 450m long airship carrying approximately 800 tons. For contrast, a single container ship is about the same size as that airship, but can carry 230,000 tons. Why would you replace your current system with a new system having 300 times less capacity? A brief estimate suggests that the container ship only uses 100 times as much fuel, so it's roughly 3 times as efficient as airships to boot.
    • cormacrelf 4y ago
      For your a mere 10x the price of a container ship, you can get a container across the Atlantic in 3 days instead of a week. At the level of demand for fast transatlantic shipping we see at the moment, I think you could do better than the airship on both speed and price using fixed-wing aircraft. I didn't see in the piece any argument that what people really want is slightly slower than a plane and slightly faster than a ship. If there's a sleeping giant of demand out there, I'm not seeing it.