by Thijs Westerbeek van Eerten
15-11-2007
Airships or Zeppelins are a sustainable form of aviation. At least according to Senator Wolfgang von Zeppelin, grandson of the famous German airship pioneer Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin.
The Senator - a German term for a high ranking executive - is a firm believer in the environmental benefits of airship transport and has just rounded off a European tour, on which he has been presenting the latest version of his airship to the public. The new model goes by the name of Zeppelin NT, which stands for 'new technology'.
"At present it is not possible for airships to replace airline passenger planes. Far too expensive! But Zeppelins could well have a part to play on holiday flights to destinations such as Majorca, where speed is not as important."Of course, Von Zeppelin is quick to point out that tourists should see the flight itself as part of the holiday.
"During the flight, passengers can enjoy space, peace and quiet, and good cuisine, to say nothing of the fantastic view. When you look at it that way, who cares if a flight to a holiday island takes a day and a half?"Cleaner?
The vision of the future sketched by Senator Von Zeppelin certainly sounds idyllic, but what about his claim that Zeppelins are fundamentally better for the environment than traditional aircraft? After all, they still have to cover the same distance, while the journey may take up to eight times as long. Surely on balance the level of air pollution must be more or less the same?
"A Zeppelin doesn't use any fuel at all to stay airborne. The gas that makes the whole craft lighter than air takes care of that. This reduces fuel consumption by half, thereby reducing emissions of greenhouse gas CO2 to the same extent.
Secondly, the new generation Zeppelin NT runs on ordinary diesel engines with soot filters, and they cause far less pollution than jet engines that burn kerosene."
Devil's advocate
But this claim is disputed by Dr Alexander de Haan, a researcher in sustainable technology at Delft University of Technology. In his opinion, airships are not so clean after all.
Dr De Haan put forward this argument at the same symposium on the sustainability of airships at Rotterdam Airport. He was invited to attend as a kind of devil's advocate, the man who was supposed to ensure the requisite level of scientific objectivity.
But in Dr De Haan, Senator Von Zeppelin and the other airship advocates probably got more than they bargained for. Especially when he went on to dismiss the argument that the diesel Zeppelins fly on is relatively clean.
Quieter
But Wolfgang von Zeppelin is not one to admit defeat so easily. He points out that airships produce much less noise than traditional aircraft and that this too is a form of environmental pollution. And then there is the fact that the airship takes up far less space on the ground. No need for a runway: a humble meadow is enough to facilitate take-off and landing.
'Soft' tourism
In addition, there is also the possibility of enabling people to visit vulnerable areas of natural beauty without the risk of causing any damage. Sightseers can hover above tropical rainforests or glacial lakes without causing any disturbance to the ecosystem.
There is not even the danger of a discarded Coke can falling to the ground, since the cabin is completely closed at all times. For these reasons, Senator Von Zeppelin and his backers believe they are justified in promoting their airships in the name of 'soft' or ecologically sound tourism.
Tags:
aircraft,
airship,
Alexander de Haan,
Delft University of Technology,
Rotterdam Airport,
tourism,
Wolfgang von Zeppelin,
Zeppelin,
Zeppelin NT
george,
06-12-2007
- USA
Another blimp is about to become world-famous. Ron Paul for President is getting a blimp for the campaign. It will be 600 feet long.
John Lynch,
24-11-2007
-
I think a better comparison would be with cruise liners rather than airplanes. Getting there should be half the fun, and think of a leisurely trip across the world with windows larger than car mirrors.
Ed Nutter,
24-11-2007
- USA
Hmmm. Zeppelin...rigid. Thin film PV cells on the skin running an electric motor powering one of the props. Put H2 in one of the lift cells and use it in a fuel cell to replace the solar power at night. Use that to replace one of the diesel motors. I wonder how that would affect the environmental equation.
Don't forget, the Hindenburg disaster seems to have been the result of something lighting off the flammable/inflammable exterior coating of the airship. The hydrogen fuel wasn't the problem. One or two cells of H2 in a modern design airship isn't going to be a problem
Roger Godby,
24-11-2007
- Japan
Some time in the late '90s I read about this same man's attempt to revive the zeppelin in "Wired" magazine. The dot.com boom was on, and he had an IPO to raise capital; I don't know what happened, but since I've seen few zeps since, I expect nothing. His come-on then was that zeps would be great for cargo: much faster than transoceanic freighters, despite smaller capacities.
I wish him luck, but that his come-on today is green is telling.
Orion,
23-11-2007
-
Future generations of dirigibles will probably have electric motors powered either by solar cells on the upper surface of the air frame or beamed microwave power. They'll use highly efficient (and quite lightweight) ultra capacitors to store whatever energy is provided.
That being said, the one drawback that will probably never be overcome will be the speed factor. Transatlantic cean liners didn't go out of fashion because they were too expensive or too polluting. They went belly-up because commercial jets take only a few hours to cross the ocean. To businessmen time is money so they switched almost immediately; tourists switched because they didn't see the point of spending up to 10 days of a 2-week vacation to Europe getting there and returning.
Think of airships more as a houseboat vacation. You fly/drive/rail to wherever you want to vacation, board a local airship, and spend the vast majority of your time off floating in the clouds above the Grand Canyon or other national park you're vacationg at, in a manner similar to how people rent houseboats today.
Brian Macker,
23-11-2007
-
Actually inflammable and flammable mean the same thing.
Zepplins are not, in fact more fuel efficient since they must overcome dense lower atmosphere wind resistance. The obvious metric in this case is cost. If it costs more in terms of fuel for the same result then it is polluting more. Construction costs include fuel costs. So when I read that it's not economical then I interpret that as it's more polluting.
Korky Day,
korkyday@yahoo.com,
18-11-2007
- Canada
You incorrectly used the word "inflammable" to mean not flammable. It means the opposite, the same as flammable. Because of possible fatal confusion, safety advocates are trying to extinguish the word "inflammable" from the English language altogether.
Edward Bush,
17-11-2007
- USA
Great story about "green" Zeppelins. I listened to it on 11805 KHZ at about 1930 UTC on an Ten-Tec RX-320D. Good signal from R. Netherlands, the thinking person's Public Radio to the world.
I e-mailed the link for your web story to Glenn Reynolds's Instapundit weblog. If he publishes it on his site, prepare for a lot of traffic!
All best,
Ed Bush
Chris William Harmon,
16-11-2007
- United States
I just heard this story on 6165 khz. I hope that the Zepplin NT works out. It would be great for eco-tourism, either over the Amazon or Alaska. Also I would justl like to see one in flight. Reception is great for both broadcast. I use a small Chinese made analog set (Radio Shack DX-350). You don't have to QSL. Just wanted you to know I always listen to he best English service in the world.
