14 ms·

If we get serious about reducing emissions - airtravel has to go in its current form. So there could be an opening for lighter than air approach.

pintxo 2y ago
This would be such a big dent in humanity learning that the people on the other side of the world are just that: people. I sincerely hope we will be able to maintain current air-travel by switching to efuels and similar means. Humanity having to ditch air-travel at todays levels would be a massive social negative.
- elictronic 2y ago
  We won’t. We still haven’t even started touching geo-engineering at scale yet. Getting humanity to give up anything without either killing or enslaving a large swath is not happening or realistic. We can’t even get rid of nuclear weapon stockpiling which has a much lower positive vibe from nearly everyone.
calmbonsai 2y ago
Nah. The most likely scenarios are a switch to pure ammonia combustion and/or sourcing "all green" methane to make carbon-neutral or near-zero emissions flight. Unfortunately, ammonia combustion is inefficient and synthetic hydrocarbon fuel is far too expensive atm. We'll never get away from the brutal physics: 1. Long flights require planes to get lighter (burn fuel) as they go further so battery power doesn't work. 2. Wings are just too damn efficient at producing lift. 3. Putting enough on-board safe-station-keeping power (weight) on an airship makes it a very poor airship. 4. A very good airship is least safe to fly precisely where is has the most potential to cause damage and loss of life.
- ReptileMan 2y ago
  >1. Long flights require planes to get lighter (burn fuel) as they go further so battery power doesn't work. Up to a critical density/weight/kwh, afterwards it doesn't matter.
cogman10 2y ago
I just don't see how it's a better idea than high-speed rail. Probably cheaper to deploy, but the capacity will always be low and speed slow. I'm not one for an "either or" generally, but I really have a hard time seeing the benefit of blimps beyond "this is neat and kinda fun".
- VyseofArcadia 2y ago
  Intra-continental I don't think anything beats high-speed rail. Inter-continental I don't think high speed rail is viable, unless you have a transatlantic locomotive in your pocket that you aren't telling anyone about.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    I don't think this is an issue. It's a 1% problem. Most of the population of the world lives on 2 contiguous land masses. Flights to bridge the masses is fine but would represent a small fraction of the transport needed. Rail doesn't have to solve all problems. It's a good solution to most problems. But back to the blimp proposals, I can't see how a blimp would be a better option vs a boat. (Traditional flight is probably better than either).
  - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submerged_floating_tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submerged_floating_tunnel Imagine a hexagonal grid of these between continents, with aqua-farms, data-centers, resorts, casinos, floating cities/solar/wind sprinkled in between. Err... Aqua-Loop? Maybe 'grow' them 'in-situ' like corals, funghi, sponges, seaweed, algae, bamboo, whatever, by means of genetic manipulation. edit: Not to forget, conduits for HVDC, ZBLAN, and all sorts of pipelinable stuff for the global super smart grid. FUCK YEAH! edding: Icebergs, yes, yes, Gridguards no less!
- Avicebron 2y ago
  "I don't see how it's a better idea than high-speed rail" is pretty much my follow up to almost any proposal for transportation improvements in the states, which critically are never rail, what wild is almost everyone I've ever spoken with agree and yet..crickets
bombcar 2y ago
It's 2-4% at worst. While it might be nice to reduce, it's not pressing.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  The transition is well under way for the big 3 carbon emission sources -- electricity generation, ground transportation and heating. After agriculture, air travel is one of the biggest remaining obstacles to net zero.

pintxo 2y ago

This would be such a big dent in humanity learning that the people on the other side of the world are just that: people. I sincerely hope we will be able to maintain current air-travel by switching to efuels and similar means. Humanity having to ditch air-travel at todays levels would be a massive social negative.

elictronic 2y ago
We won’t. We still haven’t even started touching geo-engineering at scale yet. Getting humanity to give up anything without either killing or enslaving a large swath is not happening or realistic. We can’t even get rid of nuclear weapon stockpiling which has a much lower positive vibe from nearly everyone.

calmbonsai 2y ago

Nah. The most likely scenarios are a switch to pure ammonia combustion and/or sourcing "all green" methane to make carbon-neutral or near-zero emissions flight. Unfortunately, ammonia combustion is inefficient and synthetic hydrocarbon fuel is far too expensive atm. We'll never get away from the brutal physics: 1. Long flights require planes to get lighter (burn fuel) as they go further so battery power doesn't work. 2. Wings are just too damn efficient at producing lift. 3. Putting enough on-board safe-station-keeping power (weight) on an airship makes it a very poor airship. 4. A very good airship is least safe to fly precisely where is has the most potential to cause damage and loss of life.

ReptileMan 2y ago
>1. Long flights require planes to get lighter (burn fuel) as they go further so battery power doesn't work. Up to a critical density/weight/kwh, afterwards it doesn't matter.

cogman10 2y ago

I just don't see how it's a better idea than high-speed rail. Probably cheaper to deploy, but the capacity will always be low and speed slow. I'm not one for an "either or" generally, but I really have a hard time seeing the benefit of blimps beyond "this is neat and kinda fun".

VyseofArcadia 2y ago
Intra-continental I don't think anything beats high-speed rail. Inter-continental I don't think high speed rail is viable, unless you have a transatlantic locomotive in your pocket that you aren't telling anyone about.
- cogman10 2y ago
  I don't think this is an issue. It's a 1% problem. Most of the population of the world lives on 2 contiguous land masses. Flights to bridge the masses is fine but would represent a small fraction of the transport needed. Rail doesn't have to solve all problems. It's a good solution to most problems. But back to the blimp proposals, I can't see how a blimp would be a better option vs a boat. (Traditional flight is probably better than either).
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submerged_floating_tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submerged_floating_tunnel Imagine a hexagonal grid of these between continents, with aqua-farms, data-centers, resorts, casinos, floating cities/solar/wind sprinkled in between. Err... Aqua-Loop? Maybe 'grow' them 'in-situ' like corals, funghi, sponges, seaweed, algae, bamboo, whatever, by means of genetic manipulation. edit: Not to forget, conduits for HVDC, ZBLAN, and all sorts of pipelinable stuff for the global super smart grid. FUCK YEAH! edding: Icebergs, yes, yes, Gridguards no less!
Avicebron 2y ago
"I don't see how it's a better idea than high-speed rail" is pretty much my follow up to almost any proposal for transportation improvements in the states, which critically are never rail, what wild is almost everyone I've ever spoken with agree and yet..crickets

bombcar 2y ago

It's 2-4% at worst. While it might be nice to reduce, it's not pressing.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
The transition is well under way for the big 3 carbon emission sources -- electricity generation, ground transportation and heating. After agriculture, air travel is one of the biggest remaining obstacles to net zero.