Solarial solar blimp concept could aid in disaster relief, terrify villagers

Getting power to disaster-affected areas is always a tough task, but Andrew Leinonen's undergrad industrial design thesis (and recent first place entry in the 2008 ACIDO Rocket Show) might be able to solve the problem in an efficient and clever way. Dubbed Solarial, the idea is to use small unmanned airships made out of materials embedded with CIGS solar cells to autonomously deliver clean power to disaster sites by deploying anchored "power boxes" that have 12 total 120V outlets and 2 240V sockets. Obviously this is just a concept, but it's a clever one -- let's hope someone with the cash to make it happen finds out about it.

[stevemoog @ May 16th 2008 6:11AM]

i hope we have this in china now.........

[Flashpoint @ May 16th 2008 8:01AM]

The best idea for Solar energy I've seen was to use Satallites to capture solar energy and then beam it down to Earth using Microwave guns.

[rock99rock @ May 16th 2008 8:50AM]

I don't enjoy the idea of having microwave guns pointed anywhere near me... especially considering the somewhat recent news of satellite trajectory failure.

[Moonbright @ May 16th 2008 6:11AM]

IF... But now I am in Sichuan of China,this country has been lost more 25,000 lives,These people need aid!
So sad~

[Kizorblade @ May 16th 2008 6:11AM]

Go away you useless spammer.
Honestly. Bugger off.

[David W. @ May 16th 2008 6:14AM]

Wow...I actually think this is a great idea...why not add some wind turbines along the sides as well for even more power? iono

[Lee @ May 16th 2008 6:20AM]

one of this "Why didn't we think of this before" idea's that could be great.

[Jack @ May 16th 2008 6:29AM]

if you had a long enough cable it could be positioned above the clouds

[rmjb @ May 16th 2008 6:33AM]

Concept has been around for a while:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite

[Earl Jr. @ May 16th 2008 2:56PM]

I'm sorry, you have failed. Better luck next time. This is nothing like a stratellite. For starters, a stratellite is intended for high altitude (60,000+) long term communications i.e. satellite replacement. This is intended to be quickly deployed in a disaster area to provide power in a cinch.

[Moonbright @ May 16th 2008 7:16AM]

more than 21,500

[Rusty @ May 16th 2008 7:29AM]

Why does it have to be airborne ? why not just a cluster of foldable solar cells on the ground? would be way cheaper....

[Jared @ May 16th 2008 10:01AM]

Rusty,

Then you run the risk of kids or loose livestock running over the panels and destroying them. It's safer up in the air.

[LarryLarryLarry @ May 16th 2008 5:25PM]

That's ridiculous, there are fences which are much cheaper than blimps.

The ONLY advantage of flying it would be places where there's no open ground, like dense urban areas. But dense urban areas can get their powered restored very quickly after a natural disaster. AND dense urban areas are not served by the number of power outlets this thing offers.

It's just a stupid idea.

If you can get a blimp or a set of solar panels into a disaster area, you can get gasoline trucks and generators there as well. This is not a permanent solution, it's for saving lives. Use the best portable energy solution so far: gasoline.

[Twitchy @ May 16th 2008 7:25AM]

Honestly, what the hell do I want with 120V plugs? Takes too long to charge the car.

[Eldiablo @ May 16th 2008 8:07AM]

Why not an option of either 12x120v or 6x240v - not everywhere uses Low Voltage :) . I'm guessing that perhaps there is detail required in amps and watts, but, yerknow...

Still, an excellent concept that can be used to help out people in strife, as long as the developed nations don't use them as trojan horses..

[Jayden @ May 16th 2008 8:21AM]

Why don't we just strap thousands of solar panels to the backs of the poor and homeless to harvest the energy of the sun. They've gotta be used for something?

[F @ May 16th 2008 9:15AM]

This concept might not work well when deployed immediately after a disaster. Often, the disaster weather that would make use of a blimp very difficult. If, for instance, the disaster was caused by a hurricane, strong winds would likely linger in the disaster area for days. Deployment would need to wait until the winds decrease.

[Speedmonkay @ May 16th 2008 9:35AM]

Actually in here in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina the weather was pretty calm until Rita kind of showed up. Then for a long time after that there wasnt any rain or bad weather for a while.
One of these would have been great, considering how hard it was to get feul for generators. Put one on a street and run some cord to a few houses and let them start rebuilding. Thats plenty of energy for some saws, power tools, and chargers for cordless tools.

[PDubNYC @ May 16th 2008 1:03PM]

F, that's simply not true. Have you ever been through a hurricane? It seems to clear all weather out of the area, leaving calm skies for days

[Magallanes @ May 16th 2008 9:22AM]

rhombus + Moon = ????

[Stem $ell @ May 16th 2008 9:57AM]

High ampreage and blimps? Sounds like the perfect demonstration of 'Hindinburg's Uncertainty Principle' to me...

[Earl Jr. @ May 16th 2008 2:58PM]

helium?

[Ghen @ May 16th 2008 1:47PM]

if your spam is longer than your comment it should get auto-deleted

[SuperDre @ May 16th 2008 3:41PM]

Hmmm... I do remember a few months ago some people doing the same with balloons, and that was also for the same purpose..

I do like the idea someone above here had, add windturbines and you have more power...

[LarryLarryLarry @ May 16th 2008 8:37PM]

Yes, all you need for that brilliant idea is a mooring made of adamantium and a cable made of carbon nanotubes. Practical and cost effective!

[Mujeeb @ May 16th 2008 5:20PM]

Meh it looks like a flying cameltoe to me.

[Andrew Leinonen @ May 16th 2008 6:37PM]

As the designer, I felt like I should chime in and answer some questions. Interesting discussion so far!

Rusty: foldable solar cells would great, but you need to get them there in the first place. Which is easier said than done. The idea behind being airborne and autonomous is to enable very rapid response at first reports of a disaster, before it's possible to mobilize personnel and equipment. Infrastructure damage can also severely complicate disaster relief efforts, since roads (if they exist in the first place) can be destroyed - even if there is a runway in good repair that is long enough for cargo aircraft to land on, you still need to get your supplies from the airstrip into the thick of things.

LarryLarryLarry: Fossil fueled generators need a lot of resupply, which uses up valuable manpower that could be put to better uses elsewhere. And that assumes you can easily transport the gas/diesel to your site, let alone get it in the first place.

A FEMP study corroborates that - they considered solar powered gensets to be an effective, reliable alternative to fossil-fueled generators for disaster relief requirements.

As for the number of outlets, that's not really important - the 240V sockets provide the option of wiring up auxiliary power for buildings or anything else, as with other temporary generators.

The important number is the energy output, which is around 125 kWh/day on average (clearly dependent on atmospheric conditions, latitude, etc...). That's between the solar cells and the reversible motor/generator propulsor/wind turbine on the stern.

If you've got more questions, I recommend you read the post on my site...it explains the concept in much greater detail.

Cheers!

[LarryLarryLarry @ May 16th 2008 8:45PM]

So your justification is the word "autonomous"? That explains everything? It's going to fly to a disaster area by itself (it's not powered) and then robotically drop the electrical terminal down to the ground? For 0.5 kW? That's not even one horsepower.

If you used a manned aircraft to drop 55-gallon drums of gas and generators, you would have something ten times better and more cost-effective.

Let me repeat that this is a totally hopeless, useless and stupid idea. I only say it so strongly because we are talking about saving lives. If anyone dies because you pursued this concept, their blood will be on your hands.

[LarryLarryLarry @ May 16th 2008 8:48PM]

I forgot to add, does this "autonomous" blimp find it's own mooring point and tie itself up? Without hurting anyone? Because being part of the landing and mooring crew for a blimp is deadly serious business. You can't ask some disaster victim to "please tie up the blimp" and expect anything good to happen. Plus you're not even there to ask them.

A disaster location is no place for comic-book fantasies about the beauty and cleanilness of solar power. It's the place to make sure more people don't die. They can install a solar farm when they are healed up and fed.

[Deluxe @ May 17th 2008 10:14AM]

Larry, I'd love to see your concept, oh wait, that's right, you got nothing but non-constructive criticisms.

i.e, STFU

[loosely_coupled @ May 24th 2008 6:19PM]

@Larry

"Let me repeat that this is a totally hopeless, useless and stupid idea. I only say it so strongly because we are talking about saving lives. If anyone dies because you pursued this concept, their blood will be on your hands."

Ha! I'm sure you are helping more people in disaster areas than the designer of this by sitting on your fat geek ass reading technology blogs and criticizing everyone else's ideas. Easier to be a non-helpful, pain in the ass right?

Besides, you have no idea whatsoever as to the background of this man and his project, nor the research that has been done on this concept. To dismiss this so easily without any knowledge of the actual details reveals your incredible ignorance and short-sightedness.

Do us all a favor, and STFU!

[Andrew Leinonen @ May 25th 2008 11:48PM]

Larry:

Your criticisms are legitimate, inasmuch as you're basing them on the incomplete information that's available to you. The project was premised on serious research, and there's more than 75 pages of context, design development, operational strategies, and marketing economics in my thesis report. I was also in contact with several authorities on airships, one of whom has put significant effort into looking at operational solutions to infrastructure challenges in Africa, so I feel confident enough in the concept's basis.

You've also fudged your calculations - 125 kWh/day corresponds to 5 kW constant, not 0.5. 125 kWh/day is an average, conservative figure I use, since I didn't want to get into particulars, because they are so dependent on the region and ambient conditions where its operating. In tropical latitudes, (which tend to be most disaster-prone) the insolation factor is generally higher, so output may be closer to 200 kWh/day. With a stiff breeze for the wind turbine, it could be even more.

Power requirements for critical services in disaster relief situations are surprisingly low, making renewable energy a very good option. As I mentioned, fossil-fuelled generators need constant resupply, which is always easier said than done. While they are able to produce power more consistently (assuming you have the fuel), their overall reliability is worse, which is an important consideration. The benefits of renewable power in this application are not just environmental - they are actually practical, and research backs this up.

And I don't know what you mean when you say it's not powered - it uses solar to fly during the day, and buffer H2 gas in fuel cells at night. Its power requirements are well within the capabilities of solar/fuel cell technology available commercially, even now. A demonstration solar airship (LOTTE) was even built and flown by the University of Stuttgart in the 90's, when thin-film technology was significantly inferior to what's available now.

As far as the mooring issue goes, it's obviously absurd to expect disaster victims to do it. By the time this is on the scene (transit time is not zero, clearly), there will be first-responders starting operations. Automated hails are used to establish radio communications between said first-responders and disaster management HQ, at which time final deployment coordinates can be decided on, and detailed deployment instructions can be relayed. If worst comes to worst, the information can be conveyed via the display and communications equipment on the ground unit.

The power box contains the primary anchoring hardware in the form of a driven pile with splaying arms. It could be driven in mechanically (i.e. with a sledgehammer), or for improved automation an electric driver or auger could be integrated into the unit. Once it's secured, redundant anchoring is provided with ratcheting straps (of the heavy-duty webbing, 20,000 lb breaking strength variety) that can be attached to any immobile objects in the area (rubble or fallen trees are useful for that), or if necessary also driven into the ground via attached stakes.

Tethered aerostats (for which the proportions of this design more closely resemble) have much larger control surfaces than regular airships, making them more stable in terms of ground handling. This design is also optimised with a more aerodynamic cross-section, reducing cross-wind turbulence, and vectored thrust, which dramatically improves ground control issues.

It's nice to hear that you're thinking about the serious issues involved, but I've done my best to think about them, too. Clearly it remains just a concept at this point, and would require additional engineering before it's truly viability. But I'm also glad that many of the people who have contacted me are enthused about the idea's potential, instead of utterly dismissing it out of hand as you have done.

[Joshua Young @ May 29th 2008 9:14AM]

The idea seems very similar to the work done by Magenn: http://www.magenn.com/

Magenn is planning to begin shipping product in October 2009 and thier idea seems much closer to being a viable solution than a full scale blimp. However, the idea of a mobile power station is very interesting.

Andrew: Have you considered working with Magenn to create a second generation product combining both solutions?