They have been planned for a long time, these zeppelins need much less energy, since the propulsion can even be through electric motors and solar energy in the enormous surface of these devices. They do not require long take-off or landing strips. They can carry many passengers or large loads, apart from being very safe. The disadvantage is that their speed is not greater than a maximum of 200 km/h and they are more sensitive to strong winds that can divert them from their course. https://youtu.be/_phicOPoQT8
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2022
28 points (96.7% liked)
Technology
34530 readers
580 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
solar energy in the enormous surface of these devices
I know, in these devices, if they put electric motors it is only a logical consequence of taking advantage of this large surface that these monsters have. They can perfectly have the size of an oil tanker or even more, the Nazi Zeppelin already had 245 m
What gas do they use for the lift?
Helio. I know, it's expensive, but only one time+ among of the substitutes. Paparte even because of this, it's only a fraction of the cost of a normal plane andthe fuel it use in every flight.
Couldn't we somehow engineer a more modern airship that uses the much more available hydrogen instead, but with proper measures against the outbreak of fires?
Too dangerous, I wouldn't want to travel in a hydrogen-filled contraption through a lighning storm. Hydrogen is an excellent fuel and for this reason it is used as such, precisely because of its explosive flammability, which must be stored in thick-walled tanks due to its high volatility, which escapes through normal thin-walled tanks. With helium there are no problems of this type, although it is not as light as Hydrogen, it offers enough buoyancy for projects of this type, which is why it is used in current weather balloons and in these famous GoodYear airships and others. Helium is completely inert and non-flammable.
which is why it is used in current weather balloons
Actually I think people use both hydrogen balloons and helium balloons for that.
The problem with helium is that it's already very scarce, despite having very important uses across many fields and once it's gone it's gone (unless maybe if somewhere in the future we begin using nuclear fusion, I guess)
Helium is by no means a scarce element, it's after Hidrogen the second most abundant in the universe, 24% of the total element mass. It is not as abundant on Earth and has to be obtained from natural gas, where it appears in different combinations. It can not be obtained with other methods, such as Hydrogen, it's not renevable, so its price is higher.
Helium is by no means a scarce element, it’s after Hidrogen the second most abundant in the universe, 24% of the total element mass. It is not as abundant on Earth and has to be obtained from natural gas
Scarce for us terrestrians that don't live in a futuristic sci-fi world where we go around harvesting resources from planets.
Rare does not mean that it is difficult to obtain, or that there is little on Earth. It is not a fuel that is spent when you use it, like oil or coal. It is an inert, clean element, it is not toxic or polluting, it can be stored well and it is only used to give buoyancy to balloons and airships. For this use there is more than enough, without having to enter the Sci Fi. Is it more expensive and difficult to obtain than Hydrogen? Yes, but this with the savings in energy and fuel using it for airships instead of Keosene for so many airplanes and private jets, this is irrelevant. The energy expenditure of a blimp does not even reach 10% of that of a small plane, despite the high price of Helium. Compared to the big ships, which can also be replaced by airships for transport, the difference is even greater, in these cases the airships are even faster
Aren't airships very slow?
Compared to what? Around 200 km/h was the top speed of the old ones in the 1930ties.
Now compare that to an airplane that can easily go x4 that.
Sure, but compare that to a cruise ship (which is the fairer comparison) which goes 4x less fast.
People don't use cruise ships to travel. They use them for vacationing.(like a floating hotel)
An airship would be something in between. They can be spacious enough for moving around inside while traveling and you can easily make stops at sightseeing destinations (airplanes use most fuel for starting, while that is essentially free with airships).
Time critical business travel would be probably not possible to replace, but as the pandemic has shown, those can be mostly replaced with online meetings anyways.
No way, the maximum was around 100 kmh for most of them.
Source? They usually had a cruising speed around 125km/h.
Honestly, 125km/h sounds like plenty. This monsters can travel in a straight line, so combined with good rail networks they should be more than enough for common travelling
Really interesting. We need also to obliterare planes when you can accomplish the same with a train.
why not have both? something need to be moved fast. Like organs for transplanting.
I use trains locally, for work and such, but insofar as going anywhere outside PR, what will a train do for me? I live on an island!
I said "when you can accomplish the same thing", obviusly there's going to be cases in which a plane is required. And for those situations those new airships seem interesting.
I don't know enough, and I'm sure that there are drawbacks. But if something is clear is that planes cannot be commonplace, but just an exception. If they are replaced by airships, great, but if not, we need to just get used to not travelling this much.
There are exceptions, of course, but they should be that: exceptions. And the same goes for cars
I am very sceptical that these ever are going to be a cost effective setup. I don't think I will ever fly in one during my lifetime.
It might seem good on paper, but this is squarely in "I'll believe it when I see it" territory.
Why not just build biofuel powered jet engines?
Sure, that is also being done. However, the economics of that are very questionable. Also, personally I rather have a comfortable train or airship ride over being cramped into an airplane, especially if it ends up costing ten times as much.
Aren't biofuels just another variant touching the same grand issue? From what I've gathered the growing, harvesting and refining biofuels differ wildly but all have in common an rather sizable amount of destructive land use - be it through deforestation, palm oli cultivation or the monoculture aspect of growing crops for fuel. Most of the biofuels are from palm, rapeseed oil or corn and it's some gosh darn dirty business. The old saying *"can't eat the cake and keep it" rings true for the climate crisis - going backwards towards some type of neo-classical future, keeping modern knowledge on how to fuck things up while mixing in tried and true concepts like no-til gardening, food conservation, sailing, coppicing and what not would probably be a more sane and doable route for humanity.
https://www.dw.com/en/biofuels-good-or-bad-for-the-environment/a-44354834
I'm 110% certain that the ultimate source of infinite energy, fusion, would be the absolute quickest way to destroy all the remaining living ecosystems on earth.