Sponsored by Brilliant.
Just one short-haul flight a year produces 10% of our individual carbon emissions.
We could go back to trains for our traveling, which produce about half the CO2 of a plane,
but you don't always have the time. What if we could get the speed of air travel with the lower
emissions of ground-travel? Enter the airship. I'm Matt Ferrell ... welcome to Undecided. When it comes to our individual carbon footprint,
air travel is the emission-spewing Dumbo in the room. Flying less is the most impactful action
you can take to bring down your CO2 quota. Although aviation currently accounts for
only 2% of the global carbon footprint, its impact is taking off pretty fast. With the GHG
emissions of the hydrocarbons-guzzling aircraft engines expected to increase more than 4 times
by 2045, flying could reach 25% of the global carbon budget by 2050. So, what do we do? A UK
company, Hybrid Air Vehicles (HAV), is launching a short-range airship service that will water
down the carbon emissions of flight by 90%. By 2025, you may be able to hop onboard
their Airlander 10 and get dropped off a couple of hundred miles away. Because of its
shape, the Airlander 10 has been nicknamed “the flying buttocks” ... thankfully
the only gas inside this bad boy is helium ... but airships could do more than just
make us feel less guilty about a return flight on the weekend. One big benefit is that airships
don't require special infrastructure since flying boats don’t need a runaway for taking
off and landing. This could translate into smaller sites located closer to cities,
saving people from long commutes to airports, but the airship flexibility would be extremely
beneficial for delivering food and humanitarian aid to isolated areas. Sounds uplifting ...
but before delving into the tech feasibility, let’s jump onboard our DeLorean balloon to
fly back in time to where airships came from. Lighter-than-air (LTA) vehicles fly through the
sky like hot-air balloons, using LTA gases such as helium or hydrogen. While something like a
hot-air balloon goes with the wind, airships have engines to ensure maneuverability. These
vehicles can be rigid, semi-rigid or non-rigid. The last category, which includes blimps, rely
on the pressure of the gas filling the balloon to keep their shape, while the other two types of
machines are supported by an internal framework. But when did airships take off? Count
Ferdinand von Zeppelin was the pioneer who led the way to rigid airships as we know it.
He designed the first rigid motorized dirigible at the end of the 19th century, giving his
name to the ancestor of modern airships. Zeppelins became very popular for
their travel comfort. It was like having a cruise in the sky. Much more relaxing
than jolting up and down in a cramped plane. But a storm was brewing on the horizon, like
the one Zeppelin LZ 14 flew into in 1913. The dirigible lost control and dove into the
North Sea before splitting in two, killing 14 people. As bad as that was, airships fate was
sealed in 1937, when the Hindenburg went down like a lead balloon. With its 804-foot length,
the German zeppelin was the largest dirigible ever constructed at that time. Because of the US
export restrictions imposed on the Nazi regime, German designers used hydrogen instead of helium
as the filling gas. But given the flammability of hydrogen, that wasn't the best choice. At
the end of one of its transatlantic cruises, the Hindenburg caught fire while landing in New
Jersey and killed 36 people. But safety wasn’t the only reason why airships floated away as a from of
travel. In addition to being in the wrong place at the wrong time on the Hindenburg, you would've
also spent a fortune on the trip. While it would shave 2 days off your Atlantic crossing, the trip
would have cost you 5.5 times more than a third class ticket on an ocean liner. In today’s
money, that would translate to around $8,200. So, how come airships are rising back into the
sky again after that bumpy ride? Some scientists are suggesting hydrogen-filled balloons as a more
sustainable alternative for transporting the gas compared to maritime cargo shipping. Researchers
said the airships would require less energy and time to deliver the fuel than oceangoing
cargo ships. How would that be possible? Their idea is to fly in the less turbulent
stratosphere and make the most out of the jet stream, which is an air current that circles the
globe from west to east reaching up to 140 mph. You might be asking yourself the same question I
did: isn't this just going to be history repeating itself? The study considered using unmanned
airships, which removes any risk for a human crew. Also, they argued some compelling points
on the hydrogen controversy. While helium is safer, it’s more difficult to source and its
availability is much more limited than hydrogen. Which makes its price higher. Another perk of
using hydrogen would be generating power and water through on-board fuel cells. But the fire risk
is not the only challenge. At the stratosphere altitudes, the air pressure is lower. This
means ultra-flexible materials need to be used for designing the airship gasbag. The trouble
is these materials are not quite ready yet. In the meantime, someone is already working
on this setup. The Buoyant Aircraft Systems International (BASI) is looking into
hydrogen-filled airships to bring produce, construction equipment, and modular housing to
the many off-the-grid communities in Canada. Designed to suit the Arctic climate
conditions, BASI’s airships will be initially hybrid and then converted
to a hydrogen fuel cell-power system. While using helium rather than hydrogen, Lockheed
Martin already offers an airship cargo service. Their LMH-1 hybrid model stays aloft using 80%
helium buoyancy topped by an aerodynamic lift. By minimizing the use of fossil fuels-driven
direct lift, Lockheed Martin hybrid models consume less than 10% of a helicopter's fuel.
Also, their vehicles can be parked on any type of terrain thanks to an air cushion landing
system (ACLS). Put simply, the ACLS is a massive inflatable doughnut underneath the blimp
that makes airship touchdown a piece of cake. It also doubles as a really great hemorrhoid pillow.
After 20 years of development, their versatile hovercrafts are now accomplishing a number of
cargo missions. From delivering heavy equipment to hard-to-access areas hemmed in by icy roads
in Alaska, to picking up workers and rare earth metals off isolated mines in Quebec, to serving
as a flying clinic for getting aid and tons of supplies into -- and injured or refugees out
of -- accidents and natural disaster locations. Varialift is working on a different
hybrid model, combining solar-powered and conventional engines.<sup>,</sup>
According to the UK company’s CEO, their floating ship would use only 8% of the
fuel of a conventional jet over a transatlantic flight between the UK and the US. For the
same payload, the firm also claims their machine and operational costs would be
up to 90% less than a standard aircraft. Yet, airships are not just about shipping goods.
Since 2001, the German company Zeppelin NT has risen from the Hindenburg ashes. Their
gondola bags have a semi-rigid design, relying both on helium pressure and
on a solid frame to support itself. Carrying up to 12 passengers,
gasoline-powered Zeppelin NT airships have been used both for aerial
sight-seeing and traveling purposes. And going back to the eco-friendly Airlander 10 --
the 'flying buttocks' -- that I mentioned earlier, last May, HAV announced a number of routes that
will be explored by their green flying machines in 2025. But you might be able to ride on one
of HAV’s Airlander 10 even earlier. If you fancy an “experiential journey” to the North Pole,
you can book your slot with OceanSky Cruises as soon as 2023. But it will cost you a bit of
money. Remember the Hindenburg golden ticket? Peanuts in comparison to this. The price tag for
a two-person cabin on the Airlander 10 is $79,000. As for lower-cost travel, HAV is currently
trying to strike a deal with some other airlines. HAV’s CEO said the company aims at covering 47% of
regional flights with a distance up to 230 miles. HAV touts the airship market will reach a value
of $50bn over the next 20 years. However, by 2026, when they'll start selling their vehicles, the
estimated value might be only around $165 million. With a capacity of 100 passengers, the company
claims their hybrid-electric dirigibles will take as long as conventional flights yet
have a tenth of their carbon footprint. That applies whether traveling from Liverpool to
Belfast or from Seattle to Vancouver. At least, based on company calculations. Although flying
at a top speed of only 130 mph, the airship doesn't need a runway and could take off from
and land in pretty much any flat open area, including water. This city center-to-city center
traveling mode makes these vehicles flexible and independent from airports...or ports... if you
like? That means you'd save time on commuting. But how safe are HAV’s airships? Fire risk is
extinguished by filling the balloon with helium. Yet, one of their prototype tests
crashed while landing in 2016. However, HAV machines will be certified
by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which means it will have to conform to the
same safety standards as other aircraft. So, how green is the Airlander 10 technology?
Combining the helium buoyant effect, an aerodynamic lift and a helicopter-like thrust, HAV’s hybrid design is more efficient than
comparable aircrafts. Leveraging the helium lift, the vehicle reduces the consumption of the
fossil fuel-burning engine and could carry a higher payload. Also, the UK Aerospace Research
and Technology Programme awarded the company with a £1M grant to develop a prototype fully
powered by a 500 kW electric motor. And they aren't stopping there because the Airlander 10
could feature battery and solar cell technology. More cargo, less carbon emissions, no
infrastructure required. Sounds like airships are on the rise, right? But is there anything that
could hold them down? or on the water? Cost might be one thing. One factor that could inflate the
airships operational cost is the gasbag filling. And I'm not talking about myself. Helium is a
non-renewable source and we may experience a shortage in the future. While hydrogen could work
as an alternative for unmanned cargo missions, it would probably be too risky to use with passengers
on board. According to Julian Hunt, a researcher at the International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis (IIASA), using a cargo airship would currently cost up to 50 times more than standard
ships. He also said we should invest up to $100 billion over the next 20 years in technological
improvements to make airshipping compete with conventional shipping. Sir David King, the former
UK Chief scientist and climate change specialist is more optimistic than Hunt, saying that
the cost of a Varialift airship would be comparable to a jumbo jet. Also, according to the
International Air Transport Association (IATA), airships would be more cost-effective
than jetliners for freight transport. That’s because of the lower fuel consumed during
take off and landing as well as the higher payload carried by the flying boats. The UK Advanced
Technologies Group Ltd. (ATG) estimated the freight cost per ton kilometer for three
hybrid cargo airships of different capacity. At the lowest payload, the airship would
cost slightly more than a standard aircraft. However, for the medium and top capacities, ATG
model simulations predicted airships to compete with trucking and maritime shipping respectively.
But airships may not be only competitive for cargo deliveries. A 1980 study suggested that a
420-ton airship would be a cost-effective way of ferrying both passengers and their
cars from the U.S. mainland to Hawaii. A more recent and comprehensive study compared
the economic feasibility of airships to that of airplanes and helicopters. Researchers found
airships to be the most profitable transport solution when considering long distances (up
to 5,000 km) and a high carrying capacity. Hybrid and fully electric airships may be a
greener alternative for fast travel over short distances. Plus, their greater flexibility
can play a key role for delivering cargo to hard-to-reach regions and for performing
rescue operations. Data on cost effectiveness seems to be lacking and controversial.
Also, airships’ technology may need further investments to catch up with competitors. But
eco-friendly flying boats could be a key part of a zero-carbon aviation strategy along with
electrical aircrafts and more sustainable fuels. It's also got the cool steampunk,
retro-futurist vibe to it. If you're interested in learning more
about the principles behind airships and want to dig a little deeper into the
physics for how things like this work, I'd strongly recommend checking out the
Scientific Thinking course and Brilliant. It's been recently updated with a host of
new features to help you learn science topics in a fun and interactive way. Everything from
buoyancy, which applies directly to airships, to time travel ... yep, time travel.
It's a fun one that I really enjoyed. But even if science doesn't float your boat,
they have over 60 courses including topics in computer science, quantum mechanics, and
mathematics. They've got something for everybody. !All of the concepts are taught through fun and
interactive challenges to help you understand the "why" of something ... not just the
"how." It helps to develop your intuition, which is my favorite part about Brilliant and taps
into the way I learn ... and just makes it fun. Go to www.brilliant.org/Undecided to sign up for
free. The first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium membership. Thanks to Brilliant
and to all of you for supporting the channel. So what do think? Do you think we’re going
to be seeing more airships filling the skies in the future? Jump into the comments
and let me know. Be sure to subscribe and hit the notification bell if you
think I’ve earned it. And as always, thanks to all of my patrons and a big welcome
to new Supporter+ member Mireille-Marie Bragelogne-Beauvoir. Your support helps to make
these videos possible. If you join you'll get early access to ad free versions of the videos
on Patreon and I hold monthly Zoom calls for higher level supporters and producers. Check out
the link in the description for more details. If you liked this video be sure to check out
one of the ones I have linked right here. And of course thanks to all of you for
watching. I’ll see you in the next one.
Hi and welcome to r/solarpunk! We appreciate your submission, though we'd like to first bring up a topic that you may not know about: GREENWASHING. It is used to describe the practice of companies launching adverts, campaigns, products, etc under the pretense that they are environmentally beneficial/friendly, often in contradiction to their environmental and sustainability record in general. On our subreddit, it usually presents itself as eco-aesthetic buildings because they are quite simply the best passive PR.
These articles from ethicalconsumer.org and greenandthistle.com give both examples of greenwashing and ways to identify it on your own.
This book excerpt published on scientificamerican.com explains how alternative technologies like hydrogen cars can also be insidious examples of greenwashing.
If you've realized your submission was an example of greenwashing--don't fret! We are all here to learn, and while there will inevitably be comments pointing out how and why your submission is greenwashing, we hope the discussion stays productive. Solarpunk ideals include identifying and rejecting capitalism's greenwashing of consumer goods.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I was obsessed with these a while back, 2015ish to the point where if they ever became viable I would have quit my job and retrained. There were a few companies (Skycat, Hybrid Air Vehicles) that were looking into the possibility of an "airship rebirth" at that time. A few newspapers picked up the story and did some interviews with some of the companies but I struggle to find them again.
I love the idea of them but there were three issues that needed to be resolved before it became a viable way to travel:
- the envelope - Helium is a very small element, so having a material that would contain it but still be light enough to fly with using lighter than air technology is problematic.
- landing - to land you would have to release some of the gas or condense it. This is either a huge waste of money or very energy intensive.
- air resistance - with the huge cigar shape, they are very susceptible to inclement weather which would blow them off course and could cause damage.
https://www.aerotime.aero/27455-What-happened-to-airship-renaissance
http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2008/PAPERS/507.PDF
I still think they look much better than aeroplanes. They are like the whales of the sky. Like some mythical creatures.
People will go to such crazy technocratic leaps to avoid a train and light rail
Before COVID, I took a lot of flights from LAX to SFO. I'd 100% take a blimp for more leg room and free wifi.
but trains don't waste helium
Ah yes, the hyperloop of the sky. I’ll totally take one if they ever work out though! It seems like an aesthetically pleasing experience.
I don’t see how this will ever be a thing. They are far too slow. Give me trains.
ideally high speed trains would connect the whole world, i can't see blimps ever catching on
Some broad gets on there with a static-y sweater and boom! It's “Oh, the humanity!”