3 ms·

I long for the return of airships. Slower, but probably they emit much less CO2 for the same weight transported. A good fit for people trying to avoid a climate

by Qem 3y ago

I long for the return of airships. Slower, but probably they emit much less CO2 for the same weight transported. A good fit for people trying to avoid a climate apocalypse. Also more legroom.

ghaff 3y ago
Given that they would carry fewer people and would be much slower, I'd have to see the actual energy use analysis. As for legroom, as I noted elsewhere, that's just a matter of how much money you're willing/able to spend for your seat.
- Qem 3y ago
  Passengers: http://fplgenerator.free.fr/Aero/Airship/VLLAirship%20AIAA.10.pdf http://fplgenerator.free.fr/Aero/Airship/VLLAirship%20AIAA.1... Cargo: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/nanna/record/319295/files/agecon-trf-1413.pdf?withWatermark=0&withMetadata=0&version=1&registerDownload=1 https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/nanna/record/319295/files/ageco...
  - ghaff 3y ago
    So, if I read that right, about a 50% per passenger predicted drop. Which, for a small fleet of slow travel airships, wouldn't even budge the needle on air traffic emissions overall.
    - raffraffraff 3y ago
      Spiraling doom won't get us to reduce emissions. Id give airships a chance. I've been flight free for almost a decade but I would take an airship somewhere if it was done to a luxurious standard. Although for a bipedal mammal being airborne is a luxury in itself.
- raffraffraff 3y ago
  I guess it's less about how much energy per passenger, but what the energy source is. A plane or jet have to fight hard against the atmosphere to defy gravity. That absolutely cannot be decarbonized for passenger flight. But an airship floats. If you're only energy requirement is pushing a floaty thing around you can absolutely decarbonize. Batteries? Probably. How about one of the nukes that powers a sub? No idea! Maybe!
whatever1 3y ago
Do we even have enough helium to support a huge fleet of airships?
- Qem 3y ago
  It's possible to use hydrogen to save helium, while keeping it safe. Even the designers of Hindenburg in the 1930s had in mind a design involving hydrogen enveloped by an outer helium layer to make it inert. But a total ban in US helium exports foiled their plans, leading to risky full hydrogen utilization. See <https://www.airships.net/hindenburg/hindenburg-design-technology/ https://www.airships.net/hindenburg/hindenburg-design-techno...>: "But Hindenburg’s potentially most innovative features were never actually implemented. Hindenburg was originally designed for helium, which was too difficult to obtain and too expensive to be vented to compensate for the weight of fuel burned during flight. To avoid the need to valve helium, several innovative solutions were proposed. One involved a set of inner hydrogen gas cells to be installed at center of 14 of the ship’s 16 helium cells. The flammable hydrogen would be protected inside the larger cell containing inert helium, and when it was necessary to valve lifting gas, hydrogen, rather than helium, could be released. When it became obvious that helium would not be made available by the Americans, and that the ship would be inflated with hydrogen, the inner cells were abandoned, but Hindenburg did retain the axial catwalk at the center of the ship that was installed to provide access to the valves for these inner cells."

by Qem 3y ago

I long for the return of airships. Slower, but probably they emit much less CO2 for the same weight transported. A good fit for people trying to avoid a climate apocalypse. Also more legroom.

ghaff 3y ago

Given that they would carry fewer people and would be much slower, I'd have to see the actual energy use analysis. As for legroom, as I noted elsewhere, that's just a matter of how much money you're willing/able to spend for your seat.

Qem 3y ago
Passengers: http://fplgenerator.free.fr/Aero/Airship/VLLAirship%20AIAA.10.pdf http://fplgenerator.free.fr/Aero/Airship/VLLAirship%20AIAA.1... Cargo: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/nanna/record/319295/files/agecon-trf-1413.pdf?withWatermark=0&withMetadata=0&version=1&registerDownload=1 https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/nanna/record/319295/files/ageco...
- ghaff 3y ago
  So, if I read that right, about a 50% per passenger predicted drop. Which, for a small fleet of slow travel airships, wouldn't even budge the needle on air traffic emissions overall.
  - raffraffraff 3y ago
    Spiraling doom won't get us to reduce emissions. Id give airships a chance. I've been flight free for almost a decade but I would take an airship somewhere if it was done to a luxurious standard. Although for a bipedal mammal being airborne is a luxury in itself.
raffraffraff 3y ago
I guess it's less about how much energy per passenger, but what the energy source is. A plane or jet have to fight hard against the atmosphere to defy gravity. That absolutely cannot be decarbonized for passenger flight. But an airship floats. If you're only energy requirement is pushing a floaty thing around you can absolutely decarbonize. Batteries? Probably. How about one of the nukes that powers a sub? No idea! Maybe!

whatever1 3y ago

Do we even have enough helium to support a huge fleet of airships?

Qem 3y ago
It's possible to use hydrogen to save helium, while keeping it safe. Even the designers of Hindenburg in the 1930s had in mind a design involving hydrogen enveloped by an outer helium layer to make it inert. But a total ban in US helium exports foiled their plans, leading to risky full hydrogen utilization. See <https://www.airships.net/hindenburg/hindenburg-design-technology/ https://www.airships.net/hindenburg/hindenburg-design-techno...>: "But Hindenburg’s potentially most innovative features were never actually implemented. Hindenburg was originally designed for helium, which was too difficult to obtain and too expensive to be vented to compensate for the weight of fuel burned during flight. To avoid the need to valve helium, several innovative solutions were proposed. One involved a set of inner hydrogen gas cells to be installed at center of 14 of the ship’s 16 helium cells. The flammable hydrogen would be protected inside the larger cell containing inert helium, and when it was necessary to valve lifting gas, hydrogen, rather than helium, could be released. When it became obvious that helium would not be made available by the Americans, and that the ship would be inflated with hydrogen, the inner cells were abandoned, but Hindenburg did retain the axial catwalk at the center of the ship that was installed to provide access to the valves for these inner cells."