When Alistair Darling was Secretary of State for Something or Other (transport or trade I can’t remember which) he came to an Environmental Audit select committee inquiry roundabout 2006 to answer questions about climate change and energy use. I suggested to him that the government ought to be looking at the use of dirigibles as an alternative form of air travel. He looked at me as if I was bonkers and replied that the government had no such plans. I suspect the crash of the Hindenburg in 1937 and the dramatic photographs of the event discouraged further airship development. Passengers sitting under a huge balloon of highly flammable hydrogen gas might be forgiven for being a bit nervous, after all. The Hindenburg was carrying 97 passengers and crew, and 62 survived. But contrast that with the Paris Concorde crash of 2000, in which all 109 on board died. Which was the safer?
Now a UK company called Hybrid Air Vehicles is launching a passenger-carrying dirigible called the Airlander, which will be kept aloft using helium. Since its propellers are powered by electricity and the aircraft doesn't need a runway it has obvious advantages. This is I suspect one of those ‘if only’ stories. If only as much dosh had been poured into airship development as had been spent on Concorde, air travel might now be far less carbon intensive, and there of course wouldn’t be a massive airport expansion taking place. But speed is of the essence, so there’s now talk of a new privately developed supersonic jet. Got to keep the top 1% flying! I’m sure one idea that would reduce the carbon footprint of dirigibles would be to make their skins out of some solar power material. Not much use for night flying though (before I get that Darling look of incredulity again).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
December 2024
|