Airship News
I was just about to go out, but before I do I wanted to return to a perennial theme of mine--airships. Ecogeek, which is an excellent site, put up a post last December completely independently of mine and all the others I learned from, which limned the future of these beautiful aircraft. You can be absolutely sure that ecogeek was independent of me, by the way, since his or her head would probably explode if they read some of my pieces on global cooling, carbon dioxide skepticism, or plastic bags.
I recommend ecogeek as a site strongly to you. It isn't the case that I agree with everything on it so much, simply that it is stimulating and seems decent. People of goodwill and, more importantly, reason, may come to the same conclusion from different angles.
It may be that you think that our present use of oil and its derived products is wasteful and silly. It may be that you are becoming increasingly convinced by the peak oil theory. It may be that you think that we should move away from oil-dependent modernity simply because the effects are politically, environmentally, and personally corrupting.
In any event, the future that will present itself to you if you do think that we should move away from oil usually contains an element of antagonism towards commercial air flight and the airline business. This is understandable. Flying these days has become ubiquitous, unpleasant, and damaging.
A pleasant and sophisticated way to fly is however possible. Airships, as I and others whose number increases by the day keep saying, are on their way back. The technology is now safe. Instead of a day spent hanging around aircraft terminals and being short-changed by the experience that is modern flight and then a day in a cramped steel box or some oil-dependent European juggernaut, you could be spending a day or two on a civilised cruise through the air.
Have a look at the video below from the aeros corporation. It is of course a promotional video, but the technology is tried and tested, it is now safe, and it is, if not fired up (thankfully), ready to go.
The future of low to no oil need not be as unpleasant as it could be. All we have to do is embrace our reason and get a grip. I hope we do, I fear we won't. The redevelopment of Airships would be one small step forward.
Comments
It takes 27 barrels of ail to produce a car; I wonder how much for an airship?
The modern ships use very little though, and if they replaced passenger air transport or even shared freight with cleaner, non-carbon ships, the helium could be made to last for a very long time, unlike the oil we are burning through.
Thank you for a very informed, if dispiriting comment. I love airships. Here is a link to a story about helium shortage
http://www.photonics.com/content/news/2007/October/19/89406.aspx
and here is another
http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cinnov/31/i06/html/06chem.html
Is a car the right comparison? Surely several hundred cars or an airplane of like size would be the comparator? I pretend to no special knowledge, by the way, which you may have
As we enter this age of limits, the most difficult aspect of 'looking forward projections', airships or otherwise, is coming to grips with our interdependency with oil. It is near impossible to comprehend just how ingrained it is in all we do and produce, and how hoped-for solutions will not be possible without it.
I am not speaking so much about the physical availability of oil, although a reduction is a given, but the requirement that it be cheap. The ever increasing costs of extraction, transport, and refining oil will either negate or suppress many alternative modes of transportation, as well as our general comfort and convenience.
The cultural psychology is equally if not more so problematic. Now is the time to contract our horizons and judiciously allocate the resources we have remaining. I fear we will not see the danger, and continue squandering our precious assets.
"60 Minutes" ran a piece this past Sunday on the USA’s ramped up program to return to the moon and then head for Mars. In a time of earthly depletion, this venture reminds me that we are reactive, not proactive thinkers, and as such, may not be able to respond to the challenges of the near future.
I saw an airline analyst on ABC World New who was commenting on the demise (bankruptcy) of three airlines in one week. I sent him an email inquiring if he ascribed the default in any way to Peak Oil. He responded, “What’s peak oil?” I was dumbfounded that an individual who provides financial and logistic guidance to such a fundamental industry had no understanding of the constraints present in the marketplace. His lack of awareness is emblematic of most industry leaders, and a core reason why any hoped for transition will be difficult to impossible to implement.
Thanks again for your time.
I remember years ago reading Christopher Lasch's then deeply unfashionable critique of progress and his call for a doctrine of limits, 'The True and Only Heaven'. I think he urged things that now seem wise but that once seemed reactionary.
Your comment gives rise to a very interesting line of thought. If we could merge being proactive with a doctrine of limits, how would we go about it? Obviously, we should start from the understanding of how immanent with oil our lives and purposes have become, and ask ourselves how we can protect ourselves, and those we love, if peak oil is true.
I'm becoming more and more convinced by the evidence on a daily basis. It is shocking that more people don't know of this idea, and I certainly try to get people interested in it.
Good luck with everything. I'm thinking of using a website that I bought, but haven't activated, histopolarity.com, as a platform to try and stimulate debate and ideas.
Please keep an eye on this blog and, if you don't mind, when histopolarity is up and running, maybe you could do a guest post? In the meantime, I will unless you object put your excellent comment up here as a post in its own right.