140
'Windmill': China tests world’s first megawatt-level airship to capture high winds (interestingengineering.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

"High-altitude winds between 1,640 and 3,281 feet (500 and 10,000 meters) above the ground are stronger and steadier than surface winds. These winds are abundant, widely available, and carbon-free.

"The physics of wind power makes this resource extremely valuable. “When wind speed doubles, the energy it carries increases eightfold, triple the speed, and you have 27 times the energy,” explained Gong Zeqi "

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 1 year ago* (15 children)

Super cool!

...But helium, so not super scalable, right?

They could make it hydrogen, for extra fun when one fails around all that electricity...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    The fact that helium is such a rare, irreplaceable, and scientifically useful material makes it wild to me that we use it to fill kids' party balloons.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It's not even being collected at the source (natural gas deposits) because it's too cheap to be worth the extraction. This is because of the US liquidating its strategic reserve that it had been holding since the age of Zeppelins.

    Also for unmanned aircraft, using helium instead of hydrogen is just crazy

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Also for unmanned aircraft, using helium instead of hydrogen is just crazy

    Is it? Hydrogen is about half the mass of helium, but the trick is what you're displacing to generate lift.

    1 cubic meter of air is around 1.2 kilograms, depending on a variety of factors.

    1 cubic meter of helium is around 0.18 kilograms, displacing the atmosphere to generate about 1.02 kilograms of lift.

    1 cubic meter of hydrogen is around 0.08 kilograms, displacing the atmosphere to generate about 1.12 kilograms of lift, a shade under a 10% increase over helium.

    That can be significant, depending on other engineering constraints; but is it "crazy" different?

    (Numbers will vary with temperature and pressure, back of envelope calculations, etc. etc.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    H2 being 10% more lift while 500% cheaper still makes it the choice. A H2 economy is the path to 100% renewable energy, with a transportable fuel that in a fuel cell is also much more efficient than combustion engines/turbines. Lifting gas, chemicals, agriculture, rocket fuel, all of the existing uses for H2 is just icing on the cake.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    0.18 to 0.08 is a gigantic difference, less than half the weight per cubic meter of displacement !!

    Not only is cost an issue, but the larger the volume of displaced air, the bigger the dirigible, the harder it becomes to move through the atmosphere, more friction, more air resistance etc..

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Good news, it’s not that rare that that would make a difference. There’s plenty of it, just need different extraction techniques to further up the supply (unfortunately, that’s fracking lately iirc)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Hydrogen wouldn't burn inside the balloon, because there's no oxygen. If a fire started on the surface of the balloon, then it doesn't really matter if it's helium or hydrogen. Hindenburg would have happened no matter what it was filled with. IIRC, there's an argument out there that hydrogen actually saved people in that case, though I don't remember the physics of it all.

    There's some safety issues involving working with it on the ground, but you can mitigate that with procedures. Helium has an asphyxiation risk, especially when you're working with enough to fill a blimp, so it's not like it's totally safe there, either.

    Historically, the really bad thing with blimps/dirigibles is how the ground crew can get thrown into the air when they're holding it down with rope and a gust of wind suddenly picks up. Hard to find numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's more deaths involving ground crew operations of dirigibles than the 35 people who died on the Hindenburg.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    Late reply, but you... may not be wrong.

    However, I think this is a 'nuclear power' like situation.

    Even if the failure modes are generally technically safe, they're so spectacular that it's going to freak people (and authorities) out to the point of being problematic. Hence, dirigible development basically died from that one incident, heh.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I'm pretty sure Hindenburg would have been able to land somewhere instead of crashing out of the air if it used Helium. The surface catching fire wouldn't spread nearly as quickly as the cells exploding with hydrogen gas. I'm not sure what material the cells were made out of, but I doubt it burns like flash paper.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent