Comments on: One interesting use case for hydrogen airships is to move green hydrogen itself

By: Altitude Zero

Altitude Zero — Wed, 29 Jun 2022 12:44:34 +0000

And of course, there’s nothing more spectacular than a hydrogen airship explosion. When the Hindenburg exploded, airship travel was actually safer than travel by plane, and probably would have remained so until the advent of more advanced aircraft after 1940, but the Hindenburg disaster was awesome and terrifying in a way that most airplane crashes were not, so it pretty much destroyed the airship industry. I’m not holding my breath on the return of hydrogen airships.

By: Goober

Goober — Tue, 28 Jun 2022 23:40:37 +0000

It didn’t say in the article, and I’m not watching the video, so it’s possible that they plan to use fuel cell tech and electric motors, and if that’s the case, then ignore what I’m about to say…

…but the constant claims that burning hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is “emission free” is just pure propaganda. In an atmosphere with no nitrogen in it, that’s technically true, but creating combustion temperatures that high in an atmosphere with high levels of nitrogen like ours will result in NOx emissions, which is the type of pollution that creates smog.

The only way to solve that is to reduce combustion chamber temps, usually through exhaust gas recirculation. It can be reduced, but not eliminated.

Sorry, it’s a pet peeve of mine.

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Mon, 27 Jun 2022 17:52:08 +0000

As the article notes, a cargo airship is slower and less expensive than conventional air freight, but faster and more expensive than rail — and doesn’t need a runway or rails.

By: David Foster

David Foster — Mon, 27 Jun 2022 02:25:42 +0000

340000 pounds is 170 tons. That is less than the capacity of two standard railcars. A single train can include more than 100 cars.

Dirigible are intriguing, but I don’t see how they can possibly beat rail or water for heavy freight.

By: Gavin Longmuir

Gavin Longmuir — Sun, 26 Jun 2022 19:30:01 +0000

Hmmm! Does the name “Hindenburg” ring a bell?

Large quantities of highly combustible hydrogen with fire-prone lithium batteries driving sparking electric motors — good luck getting insurance!

Remember the Good Old Days when every investment idea included the word “Nano-”? Now, the scammers use terms like “Green Hydrogen”.

Presumably, “Green Hydrogen” is hydrogen generated by electrolyzing scarce water (see Lake Powell) using unreliable electric power from solar cells manufactured by Uyghurs in China using fossil fuels or wind turbines manufactured in China using fossil fuels and minerals mined by child labor in Africa.

How “Green” is “Green Hydrogen” when the full manufacturing cycle is included?

By: Jim

Jim — Sun, 26 Jun 2022 17:03:19 +0000

“At this stage, the company plans to get a prototype built by 2025, and to have a full-sized hydrogen airship flying in 2028.”

For those not familiar with aviation, this means that if they’re bought by an established player once they run out of money they could have a prototype by 2028 and a full-sized hydrogen airship flying in 2034.

Expect certification no sooner than 2042.

[This is not a joke post.]

By: Borepatch

Borepatch — Sun, 26 Jun 2022 15:33:02 +0000

I wonder what the weather-related accident rate will be. It was weather caused crashes that killed airships in the 1930s.