Comment on Anon wants to ride a zeppelin
ZMoney@lemmy.world 5 weeks agoAirships only make sense in a world in which the economy takes into account ecodestruction. Kind of like wind-powered ships. If we didn’t know what GHGs do environmentally, which offset any short-term efficiency gains provided by burning hydrocarons, nobody would ever dream of abandoning these miracle fuels. So you can only examine the efficiency of airships with hydrocarbons off the table entirely.
frezik@midwest.social 5 weeks ago
They do plenty of ecodestruction. If we had them now, they’d be fueled by hydrocarbons. That could hypothetically be batteries in the future, but batteries good enough for that could do equally well in airplanes.
The material used in making them rigid also has a carbon cost.
B0rax@feddit.de 5 weeks ago
Don’t forget that they are huge, you could fit a lot of solar power on them, given that it would be light enough
frezik@midwest.social 5 weeks ago
It wouldn’t be light enough. Panels weight about 19kg each for a 1x1.7m panel. This can probably be slimmed down for the application, but probably not by enough. Perovskite promises a lighter weight panel, but they still have longevity issues that are being worked out in the lab.
bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 5 weeks ago
"Thin film solar is light weight at 7-10 ounces per square foot. "
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-film_solar_cell
Your 1 panel at less than 2 sqm weighs as much as more than 6 square meters of thin film. The 40 or 50% better relative efficiency doesn’t make up for the increased square footage. What kind of wattage would we even need?
ZMoney@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
I think they’d be solar powered with some kind of thin film photovoltaic. You don’t need much battery in that case. While some carbon cost is inevitable, the point is they wouldn’t ever compete with something that burns kerosene.
frezik@midwest.social 5 weeks ago
There are plenty of other options that don’t burn kerosene.