Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Are solar-powered airships the future of cargo delivery?
New technology offers us a look at the green future of aviation and cargo shipping.
Photo courtesy of Flying Whales.
- A solar-powered airship built by a U.K.-based company could be a groundbreaking way to freight cargo internationally with lower emissions, and a big step towards a 100 percent renewable world.
- Varialift's airship will use helium gas to lift off, which is a great deal safer than the hydrogen that airships of the past used.
- It's been estimated that the cost of the Varialift aircraft would be comparable to a jumbo jet.
When it comes to cutting carbon discharges, air travel and shipping have been a couple of enormous, emission-spewing elephants in the room. Enter a new groundbreaking way to freight cargo internationally with lower emissions.
Recently, it was announced that a solar-powered airship is in the works, built by Varialift Airships, a firm based in the U.K. New Scientist reports that, according to Varialift CEO Alan Handley, on a flight between the U.K. and the U.S., this greener airship would use only 8 percent of the fuel a conventional jet airplane uses.
New and Improved Airships
The aluminum framed airship will be powered by a pair of solar-powered engines and two conventional jet engines. Because airships rely on jet stream winds to propel them toward their destinations, they offer an advantage over cargo ships in efficiency and carbon emissions.
Unlike the airships of the past, such as the infamous Hindenberg, which crashed in a disastrous burst of flames, Varialift's airship will not be filled with hydrogen. It will use helium gas to lift off, which is a great deal safer. The airship takes off and lands vertically, more like a hot-air balloon than an airplane, which means that it doesn't really require a special airway or crew. Thus, it could be a valuable vehicle to deliver cargo to places with subpar infrastructure. It's website claims that it will be able to carry loads that range from 50 to 250 tons, and larger models with larger payloads of up to 3,000 tons could be a possibility.
Because no energy is required for the airship to rise above the clouds, and speed can be varied according to solar power availability, a zero-carbon, zero fuel cost service is feasible according to the creators. On the downside, no onboard battery means that travel will be limited to daylight hours only and it will fly at a snail's pace, with speeds ranging from 250 to 350 kilometers per hour.
Clearly, solar powered aircraft is an exciting, futuristic idea, but what about cost?
According to Varialift's website, the aircraft is tremendously cost-effective to build, operate, and maintain. The company claims it would actually cost 80 to 90 percent less than equivalent payload aircraft to purchase and operate, rivaling in cost with truck or trail cargo transportation. Additionally, because the aircraft can operate virtually anywhere, it does not need expensive runways for landing and loading.
Bust cost estimates are mixed. According to IEEE Spectrum, IIASA researcher Julian Hunt said that the estimated cost of using airships for cargo right now would be 10 to 50 times more expensive than ships. He pointed out that for airships to compete with conventional shipping, the cargo industry would need to invest $50 to $100 billion over the next 10 to 20 years in the technological development required to make these airships safe and efficient.
However, Sir David King, the former U.K. Chief scientist and climate change specialist, told Renew Economy in 2016 that the cost of the Varialift aircraft would be comparable to a jumbo jet. Similar to other renewable energy technologies, once the initial capital costs are paid, the running costs are relatively low.
The future of shipping
Photo Credit: Terry Atwell via 127th Wing
In the midst of the current climate catastrophe, engineers have been working to decarbonize air travel and shipping. Aviation emits 2.4 percent, of greenhouse emissions globally, and maritime shipping contributes to 3 percent. It's likely that this may auger a fleet of solar airships to come.
If the world is going to stick to its Paris Climate vow, energy systems need to rapidly slice their carbon emissions to nearly zero within the next 50 years. Furthermore, scientists are saying that to limit warming this century to 1.5 degrees Celsius we must cut global emissions in half by 2030. It's looking like we need some green aviation and shipping innovations as soon as possible.
Already, other solar-powered airships are in the works. For example, the French company Flying Whales, which produces another solar-powered airship that uses helium gas, is aiming to deliver cargo to remote areas in 2023. And the American aviation group Lockheed Martin has been building hybrid airships for Straightline Aviation.
Lofty as it may sound, solar-powered airships are looking to be an attainable future. And, as Hunt pointed out to IEEE Spectrum, they could ultimately be the next big step in the feasibility of a perfectly, 100 percent renewable world.
- The age of airships: The rise, fall, and necessary comeback - Big Think ›
- From flying circus to aerial maps - Big Think ›
The finding is remarkably similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetent people tend to overestimate their own competency.
- Recent studies asked participants to rate the attractiveness of themselves and other participants, who were strangers.
- The studies kept yielding the same finding: unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness, while attractive people underrate their looks.
- Why this happens is unclear, but it doesn't seem to be due to a general inability to judge attractiveness.
There's no shortage of disparities between attractive and unattractive people. Studies show that the best-looking among us tend to have an easier time making money, receiving help, avoiding punishment, and being perceived as competent. (Sure, research also suggests beautiful people have shorter relationships, but they also have more sexual partners, and more options for romantic relationships. So call it a wash.)
Now, new research reveals another disparity: Unattractive people seem less able to accurately judge their own attractiveness, and they tend to overestimate their looks. In contrast, beautiful people tend to rate themselves more accurately. If anything, they underestimate their attractiveness.
The research, published in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, involved six studies that asked participants to rate the attractiveness of themselves and other participants, who were strangers. The studies also asked participants to predict how others might rate them.
In the first study, lead author Tobias Greitemeyer found that the participants who were most likely to overestimate their attractiveness were among the least attractive people in the study, based on average ratings.
Ratings of subjective attractiveness as a function of the participant's objective attractiveness (Study 1)
"Overall, unattractive participants judged themselves to be of about average attractiveness and they showed very little awareness that strangers do not share this view. In contrast, attractive participants had more insights into how attractive they actually are. [...] It thus appears that unattractive people maintain illusory self‐perceptions of their attractiveness, whereas attractive people's self‐views are more grounded in reality."
Why do unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness? Could it be because they want to maintain a positive self-image, so they delude themselves? After all, previous research has shown that people tend to discredit or "forget" negative social feedback, which seems to help protect a sense of self-worth.
To find out, Greitemeyer conducted a study that aimed to put participants in a positive, non-defensive mindset before rating attractiveness. He did that by asking participants questions that affirmed parts of their personality that had nothing to do with physical appearance, such as: "Have you ever been generous and selfless to another person?" Yet, this didn't change how participants rated themselves, suggesting that unattractive people aren't overestimating their looks out of defensiveness.
The studies kept yielding the same finding: unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness. Does that bias sound familiar? If so, you might be thinking of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetent people tend to overestimate their own competency. Why? Because they lack the metacognitive skills needed to discern their own shortcomings.
Greitemeyer found that unattractive people were worse at differentiating between attractive and unattractive people. But the finding that unattractive people may have different beauty ideals (or, more plainly, weaker ability to judge attractiveness) did "not have an impact on how they perceive themselves."
In short, it remains a mystery exactly why unattractive people overestimate their looks. Greitemeyer concluded that, while most people are decent at judging the attractiveness of others, "it appears that those who are unattractive do not know that they are unattractive."
Unattractive people aren't completely unaware
The results of one study suggested that unattractive people aren't completely in the dark about their looks. In the study, unattractive people were shown a set of photos of highly attractive and unattractive people, and they were asked to select photos of people with comparable attractiveness. Most unattractive people chose to compare themselves with similarly unattractive people.
"The finding that unattractive participants selected unattractive stimulus persons with whom they would compare their attractiveness to suggests that they may have an inkling that they are less attractive than they want it to be," Greitemeyer wrote.
Every star we can see, including our sun, was born in one of these violent clouds.
This article was originally published on our sister site, Freethink.
An international team of astronomers has conducted the biggest survey of stellar nurseries to date, charting more than 100,000 star-birthing regions across our corner of the universe.
Stellar nurseries: Outer space is filled with clouds of dust and gas called nebulae. In some of these nebulae, gravity will pull the dust and gas into clumps that eventually get so big, they collapse on themselves — and a star is born.
These star-birthing nebulae are known as stellar nurseries.
The challenge: Stars are a key part of the universe — they lead to the formation of planets and produce the elements needed to create life as we know it. A better understanding of stars, then, means a better understanding of the universe — but there's still a lot we don't know about star formation.
This is partly because it's hard to see what's going on in stellar nurseries — the clouds of dust obscure optical telescopes' view — and also because there are just so many of them that it's hard to know what the average nursery is like.
The survey: The astronomers conducted their survey of stellar nurseries using the massive ALMA telescope array in Chile. Because ALMA is a radio telescope, it captures the radio waves emanating from celestial objects, rather than the light.
"The new thing ... is that we can use ALMA to take pictures of many galaxies, and these pictures are as sharp and detailed as those taken by optical telescopes," Jiayi Sun, an Ohio State University (OSU) researcher, said in a press release.
"This just hasn't been possible before."
Over the course of the five-year survey, the group was able to chart more than 100,000 stellar nurseries across more than 90 nearby galaxies, expanding the amount of available data on the celestial objects tenfold, according to OSU researcher Adam Leroy.
New insights: The survey is already yielding new insights into stellar nurseries, including the fact that they appear to be more diverse than previously thought.
"For a long time, conventional wisdom among astronomers was that all stellar nurseries looked more or less the same," Sun said. "But with this survey we can see that this is really not the case."
"While there are some similarities, the nature and appearance of these nurseries change within and among galaxies," he continued, "just like cities or trees may vary in important ways as you go from place to place across the world."
Astronomers have also learned from the survey that stellar nurseries aren't particularly efficient at producing stars and tend to live for only 10 to 30 million years, which isn't very long on a universal scale.
Looking ahead: Data from the survey is now publicly available, so expect to see other researchers using it to make their own observations about stellar nurseries in the future.
"We have an incredible dataset here that will continue to be useful," Leroy said. "This is really a new view of galaxies and we expect to be learning from it for years to come."
Tiny specks of space debris can move faster than bullets and cause way more damage. Cleaning it up is imperative.
- NASA estimates that more than 500,000 pieces of space trash larger than a marble are currently in orbit. Estimates exceed 128 million pieces when factoring in smaller pieces from collisions. At 17,500 MPH, even a paint chip can cause serious damage.
- To prevent this untrackable space debris from taking out satellites and putting astronauts in danger, scientists have been working on ways to retrieve large objects before they collide and create more problems.
- The team at Clearspace, in collaboration with the European Space Agency, is on a mission to capture one such object using an autonomous spacecraft with claw-like arms. It's an expensive and very tricky mission, but one that could have a major impact on the future of space exploration.
This is the first episode of Just Might Work, an original series by Freethink, focused on surprising solutions to our biggest problems.
Catch more Just Might Work episodes on their channel: https://www.freethink.com/shows/just-might-work