Fossil Fuel Free Aviation

[Ara Pacis]

You misunderstand slightly. I referred to using the photoelectric effect, not the photoelectric panel technology. Ultraviolet and any frequencies higher than this are easily higher than the work function for aluminum, which is both lightweight and has a threshold frequency much lower than silicon, the metalloid currently in use for application in solar panels.

It's still using solar energy which is still not always available.

The difficulty in using nuclear is not its weight, nor its power capacity, but its highly radioactive fuel. At high altitudes, any accident resulting in a nuclear meltdown or release would expose the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of miles to radioactive particulates. It is obvious why this is a problem.

Nuclear Pebble Bed technology does not experience those failure modes.

[neilzero]

We may need to fund 100 technologies to keep the world ecconomy from collapsing as fosil fuel becomes more expensive. One study concluded USA could get 22% of our energy from wind without use of www.skywindpower.com
We can produce both present and future aviation fuel with algae in transparent pipes, on land suitable only for about one beef cow per square kilometer. I remain unconviced about most of the others including hydrogen, except for filling the lighter than air craft which could use solar energy and/or nuclear to power laser diodes which beam energy to solar panels on aircraft at lower altitudes and conventional solar sites when no aircraft need the beam. Development costs are high and miscellanious costs may exceed the cost of energy from dirty coal, or low safety nuclear. Even so I reccomend building the pilot plants as buying oil from countries who want us dead is not wise. Neil

[neilzero]

"All forms of electromagnetic radiation would suffice, and considering the tremendous size of the ship, a very thin layer of aluminum pressed between two vacuum filled carbon-fiber layers would theoretically provide very high amounts of energy not dependent on dangerous radioactive materials." ~ Has someone more details on the above? I remain unconviced about most of the others including hydrogen, except for filling the lighter than air craft which could use solar energy and/or nuclear to power laser diodes which beam energy to solar panels on aircraft at lower altitudes and conventional solar sites when no aircraft need the beam. Development costs are high and miscellanious costs may exceed the cost of energy from dirty coal, or low safety nuclear. Even so I reccomment building the pilot plants as buying oil from countries who want us dead is not wise. Neil

[DoggerDan]

Nuclear Pebble Bed technology does not experience those failure modes.

True. However, it fails with respect to flight because of it's high mass to power ratio. Piles designed for flight have small mass, large power.

[Ara Pacis]

True. However, it fails with respect to flight because of it's high mass to power ratio. Piles designed for flight have small mass, large power.

It depends on what you're optimizing for.

[NEOWatcher]

Actually, the idea of using nuclear power in a high-altitude application sounds like asking for a global Chernobyl event.

There are several issues I have with that statement.
First; Chernobyl was an entirely different nuclear technology prone to that kind of disaster.
Second; We are not talking about such a large reactor or large amount of fuel.

I am not denying that a nuclear reactor in a plane wouldn't be a danger, I just don't like it when nuclear is not held in context and automatically equated to Chernobyl.

[HenrikOlsen]

I am not denying that a nuclear reactor in a plane wouldn't be a danger, I just don't like it when nuclear is not held in context and automatically equated to Chernobyl.

I tend to see it as a declaration of ignorance and will ignore what else is said by that person.