By P Gosselin on 2. April 2022
Green hydrogen powered dirigible could revolutionize long haul cargo transport worldwide.
More than 80 years ago, the Hindenburg Zeppelin LZ 129 exploded and crashed as it approached landing at Lakehurst New Jersey on May 6, 1937.
The behemoth 250-meter long vessel rigid airship had been in service for just under a year. At the time, numerous such vessels had been produced and employed with relative commercial success between the 1900s and the late 1930s. But the dramatic, fiery explosion of the Hindenburg spelled the end of dirigibles as a mode of transport.
Green resurrection
That may be about to change. In the latest video, Die kalte Sonne’s Energieschau features California start-up H2 Clipper, which wants to bring the dirigible back to life with “a 100% green 20th century version of the hydrogen dirigible”.
According to the company’s promotional video, the new vessel uses “green hydrogen” for propulsion and with it the company hopes to transform air freight and shipping worldwide.
Using liquid hydrogen and fuel cell technology, the H2 Clipper is claimed to “operate efficiently at service ranges from under 500 to well over 6,000 miles” and travel at 175 mph. It would be able to “deliver goods directly from a factory in China to a distribution center in the U.S. in less than 36 hours.”
The H2 Clipper also boasts a massive cargo volume capacity of over 265,000 cubic feet (7,500 cubic meters), which is “8 to 10 times more cargo space than any other air freighter”.
Air freight cost less than a quarter of traditional
The cargo transport cost: between $0.177 to $0.247 per ton, which is “less than one-quarter the cost of traditional air freighters”. Moreover, using today’s modern navigation technology, it could transport unmanned.
According to H2 Clipper’s site:
By using modern fuel cell technology, fresh water is the H2 Clipper’s only operating by-product. It is not only 7X to 10X faster than a ship and 4X less costly than an air freighter, but also the only climate pledge friendly alternative for long-haul transport.”
Sounds highly promising and thus may be a great example of an effective and even impressive way to put green energies to use.
I like the idea in theory but am a bit concerned about the security. Namely, if China decides they don’t like us anymore they can take these things down with pebbles. We should be very damn careful when pursuing automation just to lower costs. At the same time as we lower costs, we may end up greatly raising risks.
Wow, a 170-ton load!!! Almost as much as 2 railroad cars……
Any discussion of the technical or commercial details is moot if this thing can’t outrun or hide from a squall line. Convective weather is death for LTA (lighter than air) vehicles.
Being “green” does not make something a bad idea; what makes it a bad idea is economics. I don’t care if it’s “green” as long as it works and it’s less expensive than the alternative. Admittedly, “green” has not very often delivered on those things.
This is just a guess, but if someone asked me to design one of these things, it would have a heavier than air gas along to use as ballast to adjust the buoyancy (CO2 would be good). When you wanted to reduce lift you would release heavy gas into ballast chambers and pump the light gas into pressurized storage. Reverse to gain lift.
And the ballast and storage tanks, Tom.1 — what is their weight?
Oh man, I never thought of that.
This assumes a low or zero cost for hydrogen. Similar overly optimistic fuel and overhead costs are used to tout other forms of transportation. It is far from a promise and is at best irrational exuberance, but more commonly an outright confidence trick not far removed from net zero and other nonsense.
A low cost hydrogen economy requires hydrogen generation using low priced fossil fuels, and will do so for at least another century.
You’ll also note that the cost comparison is to other air freighters, not to cargo ships. Compared to heavier-than-air transport, you’d also have to account for the time difference — an airship might take five to fifty times longer to transport the same distance as a cargo aircraft, rendering the LTA ship unsuitable for some goods or locations. Dirigibles required much different support infrastructure than do modern airports, as well as different operational considerations — the differences adding up to much more costs hidden by the writer of the article and promoters of the technology.
They also say “cost per ton.” Note that “traditional air freight” is (or was, before the plandemic) at the lowest $2.50 per KILOGRAM. Or $2,500 per metric ton. Their press release claim is cockeyed.
Ah. Finally bothered to look at their website. The PR flack left off “-mile.”
So, at 6,000 miles, that is a lowball of $1,060 per ton, or $1.06 per kilogram. Which IS about a quarter of the (current) lowball for air freight at $4.00 per kilogram.
BUT – that is only the OPERATING cost. Dirigible port capital cost amortization. Port operating expense. Union wages for, at least, Western countries. Payoffs to union bosses, politicians, “green” activist organizations.
I’ll stick with my lowball of $3.00 from above.
Hmmm… I recall the cargo carrying dirigible or blimp idea showing up every 10 or 15 years going back to when I was in college in the 1970’s, during the first “energy crisis” caused by the Arab oil embargo. Airships were going to make cargo shipping dirt cheap. More recently I saw a design for one that would really work, this time for sure, because it had a double flotation chamber design, looking like two bananas glued together. It may have been the last time oil was up around $100/barrel.
All they’ve done this time is cook up a “green” angle to the same idea that has yet to, shall we say, float.
“All they’ve done this time is cook up a “green” angle” guaranteed to attract naïve investors and government subsidies.
When the program goes bust, the founders will walk away rich, the investors will suffer their loss, the citizens will be poorer (for having had their pockets picked), and a mess will be left for others to clean up.
The only way this ship can travel at 175 km/h is in the jet stream with a 160km/h tail wind.
It’s 175 mph, not km/h. One can’t get away such shenanigans! I did have a
160k (180 mph) headwind for awhile while flying against the jet stream, so
you did bring up a very good point
It will of course be another autonomous vehicle overhead to go with autonomous 18-wheeler trucks and cars on the road with you and battery fires in your neighborhood. Will we add autonomous dirigible chaser lawyers too?
No, the Hindenburg didn’t explode. And I’ll be very impressed if this thing can fly at 175 mph.
There is never any shortage of pessimists who are quick to dismiss every new idea that comes along. If this were an immutable characteristic of the human animal, flintknapping would still be our most advanced technology.
The word is “skeptic”, not pessimists.
And if more were more skeptical of all the the nonsense (costly nonsense) going on in the guise of “Going Green” we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now.
PS Commenters are asking good questions about the idea’s viability.
As long as there are no tax-payers dollars propping it up, I wish it all the luck in the world.
(But I won’t be investing until those good questions are answered.)
I’m an optimistic sceptic – I always hope for the best but frequently get disappointed.
Nor a shortage of suckers for snake oil.
There is never any shortage of ignorant people that think an old idea is new. The airship predated airplanes by 50 years. The rigid airship predates the Wright Flyer.
While new technology can make an old, discarded idea more attractive, the desire to develop a modern Zeppelin appears to come about mainly from (pseudo) green considerations – not from a reimagination of the concept using updated technology. That’s the kiss of death.
There is never any shortage of optimists who are quick to hare off after every new idea that comes along, without considering the costs. If this were an immutable characteristic of the human animal, we would long be extinct.
I’ve read through the numerous comments and have not seen one from an aerodynamicist or anyone in the industry.
LTA (lighter than air) vehicles are at a distinct disadvantage over than Lighter Than Water vehicles (boats) primarily because the density of water does not change that much due to climatic or diurnal atmospheric changes. The buoyancy of these vehicle and hence their ability to transport mass (cargo) through their respective fluid mediums is of paramount importance. LTAs suffer from needing to constantly adjust their densities. Those nonrigid types (Blimps) have very limited ranges as they must adjust pressure within parameters required to provide structural stability.
If the LTAs didn’t constantly adjust buoyancy they would be popping up in altitudes or dipping down below acceptable levels. This would cause all sorts of undesired weather issues and drastically effect ability to navigate. To allow for buoyancy adjustment all LTAs must carry pressurized gas to replace that which was vented when excess buoyancy conditions existed. This limits range as they have fixed adjustment capability.
An interesting side note as to the classifications of airships.
Type A was rigid and had internal frames to provide structure. They were the Zeppelins and such and suffered from the added structural mass.
Type B was limp and require inflation pressure to provide shape and structural stability.
Type B (limp) eventually became just Blimps
Oh, and BTW try to fly an LTA over a mountain range.
You can have price, performance and safety. But never all 3 at the same time.
Air pressure goes up as the square of the wind speed. You can certainly make a large balloon that can lift weight, but can you make it rigid enough that it wont flog itself to death once set in motion?
175 km/h is hurricane force winds. Dacron and kevlar main sails on a boat quickly flog themselves to death and they are not by any means light weight.
”Green hydrogen”??? I smell a rat. The term “green” can be translated into “we have hidden all the fossil fuel inputs, pollution outputs, natural lands destruction and harmless CO2 emissions in our business model so that all people see are our waving hands and blue skies. Let’s assume the H2 is sourced form reactions driven by electricity from wind and solar – well the rare earth minerals, steel, concrete, plastics, electronics and all of the energy work going into making the windmills and solar panels are almost entirely derived from traditional mining, and energy intensive industry run on fossil fuels. Not to mention all the unaccounted costs of decommissioning and “recycling” (i.e burying) the residual materials at their premature end of life.
If they get to use the term “green” with their implied meaning then they must prove that there is no net use of fossil fuels and no real damage to air, water or land quality in the whole life cycle of this proposal. If they can’t prove that then they can get in line with all the other snake oil salespeople.
This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t assess the idea of dirigibles as transport vehicles for their own merit, but let’s not pretend they will bring the long extinct rainbow farting unicorns back to life.
You’re right, Andy. They’re parasitic on the fossil fuel economy.
“green hydrogen”
Amazing. After 30+ years in chemistry, I had no idea (!) that H₂ had a spectroscopic signature in the visible wavelengths.
Let’s see, a green color indicates absorbance around 410 nm. Where’s my spectrophotometer?
I think ‘green hydrogen’ is located somewhere in the vicinity of ‘dilithium crystals’ within the Periodic Table. But I’ll defer to a real chemist.
Unobtainium comes to mind. 🙂
Post of the day for this article.
Well, dilithium (Li2) does exist. I’m not sure whether it is at all possible to form a crystalline lattice from it, even with the appropriate temperature/pressure.
I’m quite certain, though, that there will never be dilithium “miners.”
“Not miners, minors!”
Right now the minors in Africa are too busy mining lithium to go go after dilithium.
Thanks for the info. I’ll just have Scotty switch us over to the impulse drive…
Well, if tax-payer subsidies are involved, that would explain the absorbance of $Green$.
The sky’s the limit!
Hybrid Air Vehicles Airlander is well advanced. They have demonstrated numerous problems and are by no means assured of success, but their effort is entirely credible. If the dirigible can be revived I won’t be surprised if it’s them who do it. https://www.hybridairvehicles.com
Oh, another shareholder?
Nope, just a fan boy.
The Airlander is not just an artist’s impression or a prospectus. They have actually flown a prototype. It hit a number of serious problems. They’re doing real engineering to fix it and get certification. Who knows if they will be successful but it’s a real thing, hence my claim it is well advanced.
It’ll hit its stride as a luxury excursion vehicle for the very rich.
Flying versions of the oligarchs luxury yacht?
In principal, neither hydrogen, helium, nor anything else is needed for buoyancy. The trick would be to create a vessel that is both strong enough to withstand atmospheric pressure and still light enough to weigh significantly less than the air it displaces.
Green hydrogen burns explosively just as efficiently as any other type of hydrogen.
Those folks at H2 Clipper must have invented one hell of an efficient LH2 dewar for it to contain liquid hydrogen for 36 straight hours . . . either that, or they intend to take up most of the dirigible’s payload mass having an onboard, LH2-capable, cryogenic refrigeration plant.
H₂ melts at 14.3 K and boils at 20.4 K (PubChem). Why not store as solid hydrogen?
Fundamental reason for not storing as solid hydrogen is the fact that lower temperatures would be required for the typical range of tank pressure that would be used. See the attached simplified phase diagram for hydrogen.
For example, for a storage tank pressure of about 1 bar (~ sea-level atmospheric pressure), the temperature to maintain solid hydrogen would be about 5 K below the boiling point of liquid hydrogen. For a pressure of 10 bars (about 145 psia), the temperature to maintain solid hydrogen would be about 9 K below the boiling point of LH2 at this pressure.
Maintaining a liquid boiling point temperature is easy if one is willing to just let the hydrogen boiloff gas escape; maintaining a solid mass temperature will require active cooling given heat leaks into a less-than-perfect dewar container.
It is difficult and requires a lot of mass to build a refrigeration system capable of maintaining temperatures in the 10 to 20 K range for a relatively large mass (tens of kg , let’s say) of solid hydrogen.
I imagine that weather is the biggest obstacle this will face. I suppose with current forecasting you could avoid the worst of it.
Grant… you must have far more accurate forecasters in your area.
So where exactly do they plan to obtain sufficient Helium to provide lift? If they plan to use Hydrogen for lift, don’t think any pilots will be able to get health insurance. No matter how good the technology is, static electricity or other electric spark will be generated at some point and will be capable of setting off a conflagration.
It may be 1/4 the coat of regular air freight, but I’m willing to bet it doesn’t fly at 1/4 the speed.
Wow! Snap! Came up with a vaguely similar scheme with a few additional technology twists in the mid-90’s. An acquaintance of mine, who played cricket with Branson back then, offered to share the idea with him, but I was a little too paranoid to agree. If only…
I basically started with the question: What’s the “greenest” transportation system I can think of?” (other than a cargo sailboat of course). It was an LTA, with hydrogen fuel-cells, hydrogen lifting-gas, and a few other key “secret sauce” twists that may yet prove lucrative. 🙂
$0.177 to $0.247 per ton
I was looking at these figures earlier on a different forum. Apparently these are 1/4 current freight costs, so as a semi educated guess and assuming the same profit margins the sell price to the customers will be 1/4 as well.
Not an expert in this field, but if these are the prices per ton and you have 170 tons to play with I am not immediately seeing a very impressive profit.
How long do we think these aircraft will return the investment to their owners?
(disclaimer – I LOVE airships, I am just pragmatic about them)
Any device using hydrogen for its propulsion fuel will be greatly improved by using petroleum based fuel.
LTA vehicles may be viable in some applications. Ones propelled by hydrogen never.