Yes, to some extent at least.
All the progress we have atm is helpful, all the new materials, and approaches - we definitely can do better than it was done 90+ years ago.
And LZ 127 had 590 flights, 17,177 hours, and 1.7 million km under its belt. And it had hydrogen as its lifting gas, so as hydrogen as part of its fuel, that Blau gas. And that isn't bad, even by modern standards.
with modern material and technologies, we sure can improve it, and expect more safety and miles on it.
However it does not mean we can do that immediately, this is interrupted technology, even if there are some modern versions of airships. But if we would like to have it to be used more, we will need to go through interations of development, testing, operation, improvements and maturing.
Hydrogen is not the only lifting gas, another one is methane - yes, it has half of the lifting power, but if we consider Blau gas as well the LZ average lifting 100k m3 hydrogen and 30k m3 of Blau gas average lifting density of available gas volumes was 0.370kg per cubic meter, and methane is 0.657kg - so the difference in lifting capacities is 70% of its hydrogen analog.
They used Blau gas for keeping the same buoyancy during the flight, but we, as carbon neutral party, can easily compress some percentage of co2 from engine exhaust for the same purpose, it does not require that much effort.
what difference it makes
permeability of hydrogen is notorious, and it is one of the challenges, to make things safer, and methane is better for our purposes by that aspect. So as it is available in great quantities off the shelf.
Methane also is a product and good portion of natural gas which is carried over long distances by LNG carriers and CNG carrier. They carry that gas in liquified form or in compressed one(at 250 bar), so as that gas is transported by pipes in huge volumes, where the pipes are available. Meaning there is a demand to haul it in big volumes.
All three approaches have their cons and pros, liquifying isn't free, pressure 250 bar is quite demanding for big volumes, pipes have to be built and they have no flexibility in where they deliver stuff, etc.
Airships could be another means to deliver natural gas - which could propel the development and mature of that technology.
Advantages are no need to liquefy the gas which dumps big installations dedicated for that, and basically, refueling may happen out of the well. Neutral buoyancy is achievable with pressures less than 2 bars which put less demands on the materials, less than 250, so as it within the capacities of materials we may use to build that airship.
So one LNG tanker is from 18'000 up to 266'000 m3 of liquified gas, 422 tonne per 1000m3 of liquid gas.
For a potential airship if half of the lifting capacity is the mass of construction of that ship then per each 400t of lifting gas it can carry 200t of cargo(oil as an example). or 1.25 bar with no cargo.
what other advantages it may have
Airships are not bound by land or sea - so one can have shortened, more direct routes aren't limited by restrictions of canals, delivery can happen when it needs to be, no need for pipes to shore/port.
with that "400t of lifting gas, it can carry 200t of cargo" there clearly is a problem, u can't unload more than 50% of that gas(can't is a bit too strong, but other approaches require more doings, not necessarily worth it), but there is also a thing other means will have a hard time to have - energy-free delivery using Jet stream's which are high altitude wind/air flows. (solar powered is also an option)
Those are proposed as a potential energy source because "Winds at higher altitudes become steadier, more persistent, and of higher velocity.", so as they were one of the factors behind Loon (internet access, worldwide through high altitude balloons, atmospheric Starlink equivalent)
All those winds also need some technologies and have their challenges and bring some difficulties, but wind power tries to comeback even on an oil tanker's so ...
what we are better at, than in old days
Variety of materials which are available to us today, and means to shape them and strengthen them with different kinds of fibers(basalt fibre is suffice no need for carbon) - that one is clear and obvious, so as helpful to make airship to come back.
Less obvious, for this application, ofter overlooked one - we are way much better at detecting things, in this case, gases leakages, etc.
if we combine that - in old days they had no other ways than have a single layer gas cell, but we can have a multilayer structure, a typical double-hull strategy used in the oil tanker industry.
There are 2 aspects to the design - detect leakages, and recuperate the loss of gases due to permeability or internal shell damage, and preventing mixing of it with air.
we can easily detect different gases at ppm concentrations (parts per million) or better which way less than any combustible mixture ratios(parts per hundreds). Thus we can be aware of what and why happens inside out lifting volumes, and offset some naturally happening processes(gas permeating) and small leakages due to wear and tear. And thus we can say when and what needs a service and most likely where it needs it and how much.
- by double layers I do not mean something drastic, it can be the same gas cell, just two layers of the same(or not) material with some spacer in between in which we can have neutral gas flowing, carbon dioxide as an example(Dichlorofluoromethane, Propane, etc), a flow of which carries away any leakage and is collected in some membrane separator, to recuperate lifting gas, and place it back.
Those two factors are the main factors for my yes answer. uncertainties are mostly because advancement in other areas does not make us automatically good at designing and building airships. plenty of research and development needs to be made, and it needs to build some expertise at using them and ironing kinks we may oversee at the beginning.
practice makes perfect, and there are commercial use cases for the technology, beyond current use, to help development and usage. And in general, airships do make sense, not worse than current cruise sea ships. And that can allow visiting paces which not possible to reach by sea alone.
They do make sense as cargo delivery means, for medium and long distances. if no free energy of wind then they can't beat sea transporting, but at slow speeds(20-40kmh), they are not much worse than railroads efficiencies, which potentially places them at 3rd place in terms of energy-efficient means for cargo transporting.
So maybe one thing we are waiting for is another Elon Tusk, who has the money and a will/a taste for them
At least as it looks on a napkin, if we dive into details it may or may not look better or worse, but some development with modern approaches do happen so it not a totally dry field.