from the world's big
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.
Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti get stuck in an infinite wedding time loop.
- Two wedding guests discover they're trapped in an infinite time loop, waking up in Palm Springs over and over and over.
- As the reality of their situation sets in, Nyles and Sarah decide to enjoy the repetitive awakenings.
- The film is perfectly timed for a world sheltering at home during a pandemic.
Richard Feynman once asked a silly question. Two MIT students just answered it.
Here's a fun experiment to try. Go to your pantry and see if you have a box of spaghetti. If you do, take out a noodle. Grab both ends of it and bend it until it breaks in half. How many pieces did it break into? If you got two large pieces and at least one small piece you're not alone.
But science loves a good challenge<p>The mystery remained unsolved until 2005, when French scientists <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~audoly/" target="_blank">Basile Audoly</a> and <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~neukirch/" target="_blank">Sebastien Neukirch </a>won an <a href="https://www.improbable.com/ig/" target="_blank">Ig Nobel Prize</a>, an award given to scientists for real work which is of a less serious nature than the discoveries that win Nobel prizes, for finally determining why this happens. <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/spaghetti/audoly_neukirch_fragmentation.pdf" target="_blank">Their paper describing the effect is wonderfully funny to read</a>, as it takes such a banal issue so seriously. </p><p>They demonstrated that when a rod is bent past a certain point, such as when spaghetti is snapped in half by bending it at the ends, a "snapback effect" is created. This causes energy to reverberate from the initial break to other parts of the rod, often leading to a second break elsewhere.</p><p>While this settled the issue of <em>why </em>spaghetti noodles break into three or more pieces, it didn't establish if they always had to break this way. The question of if the snapback could be regulated remained unsettled.</p>
Physicists, being themselves, immediately wanted to try and break pasta into two pieces using this info<p><a href="https://roheiss.wordpress.com/fun/" target="_blank">Ronald Heisser</a> and <a href="https://math.mit.edu/directory/profile.php?pid=1787" target="_blank">Vishal Patil</a>, two graduate students currently at Cornell and MIT respectively, read about Feynman's night of noodle snapping in class and were inspired to try and find what could be done to make sure the pasta always broke in two.</p><p><a href="http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-mathematicians-solve-age-old-spaghetti-mystery-0813" target="_blank">By placing the noodles in a special machine</a> built for the task and recording the bending with a high-powered camera, the young scientists were able to observe in extreme detail exactly what each change in their snapping method did to the pasta. After breaking more than 500 noodles, they found the solution.</p>
The apparatus the MIT researchers built specifically for the task of snapping hundreds of spaghetti sticks.
(Courtesy of the researchers)
What possible application could this have?<p>The snapback effect is not limited to uncooked pasta noodles and can be applied to rods of all sorts. The discovery of how to cleanly break them in two could be applied to future engineering projects.</p><p>Likewise, knowing how things fragment and fail is always handy to know when you're trying to build things. Carbon Nanotubes, <a href="https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/carbon-nanotube-space-elevator" target="_self">super strong cylinders often hailed as the building material of the future</a>, are also rods which can be better understood thanks to this odd experiment.</p><p>Sometimes big discoveries can be inspired by silly questions. If it hadn't been for Richard Feynman bending noodles seventy years ago, we wouldn't know what we know now about how energy is dispersed through rods and how to control their fracturing. While not all silly questions will lead to such a significant discovery, they can all help us learn.</p>
What happens if we consider welfare programs as investments?
- A recently published study suggests that some welfare programs more than pay for themselves.
- It is one of the first major reviews of welfare programs to measure so many by a single metric.
- The findings will likely inform future welfare reform and encourage debate on how to grade success.
Welfare as an investment<p>The <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/welfare_vnber.pdf" target="_blank">study</a>, carried out by Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser of Harvard University, reviews 133 welfare programs through a single lens. The authors measured these programs' "Marginal Value of Public Funds" (MVPF), which is defined as the ratio of the recipients' willingness to pay for a program over its cost.</p><p>A program with an MVPF of one provides precisely as much in net benefits as it costs to deliver those benefits. For an illustration, imagine a program that hands someone a dollar. If getting that dollar doesn't alter their behavior, then the MVPF of that program is one. If it discourages them from working, then the program's cost goes up, as the program causes government tax revenues to fall in addition to costing money upfront. The MVPF goes below one in this case. <br> <br> Lastly, it is possible that getting the dollar causes the recipient to further their education and get a job that pays more taxes in the future, lowering the cost of the program in the long run and raising the MVPF. The value ratio can even hit infinity when a program fully "pays for itself."</p><p> While these are only a few examples, many others exist, and they do work to show you that a high MVPF means that a program "pays for itself," a value of one indicates a program "breaks even," and a value below one shows a program costs more money than the direct cost of the benefits would suggest.</p> After determining the programs' costs using existing literature and the willingness to pay through statistical analysis, 133 programs focusing on social insurance, education and job training, tax and cash transfers, and in-kind transfers were analyzed. The results show that some programs turn a "profit" for the government, mainly when they are focused on children:
This figure shows the MVPF for a variety of polices alongside the typical age of the beneficiaries. Clearly, programs targeted at children have a higher payoff.
Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser<p>Programs like child health services and K-12 education spending have infinite MVPF values. The authors argue this is because the programs allow children to live healthier, more productive lives and earn more money, which enables them to pay more taxes later. Programs like the preschool initiatives examined don't manage to do this as well and have a lower "profit" rate despite having decent MVPF ratios.</p><p>On the other hand, things like tuition deductions for older adults don't make back the money they cost. This is likely for several reasons, not the least of which is that there is less time for the benefactor to pay the government back in taxes. Disability insurance was likewise "unprofitable," as those collecting it have a reduced need to work and pay less back in taxes. </p>
What are the implications of all this?<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="ceXv4XLv" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="3b407f5aa043eeb84f2b7ff82f97dc35"> <div id="botr_ceXv4XLv_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/ceXv4XLv-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/ceXv4XLv-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/ceXv4XLv-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> <p>Firstly, it shows that direct investments in children in a variety of areas generate very high MVPFs. Likewise, the above chart shows that a large number of the programs considered pay for themselves, particularly ones that "invest in human capital" by promoting education, health, or similar things. While programs that focus on adults tend to have lower MVPF values, this isn't a hard and fast rule.</p><p>It also shows us that very many programs don't "pay for themselves" or even go below an MVPF of one. However, this study and its authors do not suggest that we abolish programs like disability payments just because they don't turn a profit.</p><p>Different motivations exist behind various programs, and just because something doesn't pay for itself isn't a definitive reason to abolish it. The returns on investment for a welfare program are diverse and often challenging to reckon in terms of money gained or lost. The point of this study was merely to provide a comprehensive review of a wide range of programs from a single perspective, one of dollars and cents. </p><p>The authors suggest that this study can be used as a starting point for further analysis of other programs not necessarily related to welfare. </p><p>It can be difficult to measure the success or failure of a government program with how many metrics you have to choose from and how many different stakeholders there are fighting for their metric to be used. This study provides us a comprehensive look through one possible lens at how some of our largest welfare programs are doing. </p><p>As America debates whether we should expand or contract our welfare state, the findings of this study offer an essential insight into how much we spend and how much we gain from these programs. </p>
Finding a balance between job satisfaction, money, and lifestyle is not easy.
- When most of your life is spent doing one thing, it matters if that thing is unfulfilling or if it makes you unhappy. According to research, most people are not thrilled with their jobs. However, there are ways to find purpose in your work and to reduce the negative impact that the daily grind has on your mental health.
- "The evidence is that about 70 percent of people are not engaged in what they do all day long, and about 18 percent of people are repulsed," London Business School professor Dan Cable says, calling the current state of work unhappiness an epidemic. In this video, he and other big thinkers consider what it means to find meaning in your work, discuss the parts of the brain that fuel creativity, and share strategies for reassessing your relationship to your job.
- Author James Citrin offers a career triangle model that sees work as a balance of three forces: job satisfaction, money, and lifestyle. While it is possible to have all three, Citrin says that they are not always possible at the same time, especially not early on in your career.