Topic: Solar Roadways... (Read 4538 times)

I would say it would be outside of the NPT that arms reductions occur.
All talks for disarmament were between the USA and Russia not through the Non Proliferation Treaty.
Even the Six Party talks didn't involve the whole council.
 
The reason that it is done this way is because to many parties mean nothing will be done
The recent talks now are between Iran the USA and Russia are an interesting example though
http://www.news.com.au/world/iran-to-hold-nuclear-talks-with-us-russia/story-fndir2ev-1226947164634


Agree from a feasibility standpoint weathering is a serious problem, when the temperature changes rapidly etc. There is also the concern of heavy rainfall or how it would work with its electrical line if the thing is flooded. Waterproof wires perhaps but that raises questions as well on how much underground wiring is needed beneath the surface and how it generates energy if one part is broken aka the circuit stops
(Similar to Christmas lights where if one lightbulb is broken the energy isn't passed on past that lightbulb but works to the breaking point)
It raises many questions on how it would work in practice that said it could work so its still worth analyzing. Perhaps they can find solutions.

I didn't know that it was considered for Trains but that makes sense to me, the costs may be too high presently but as costs go down and production increases it may work in the future. Neat idea thanks for sharing that.

And decentralized energy, well we do use a decentralized system with Bitcoin so I can see that becoming a natural extension of energy, and bringing about illuminated revolution

From a technical stand point, this proposal has some a good part which is the fact how roads are a surface that has been already prepared, flattened and stuff which will cut costs, but from a feasibility stand point it's illogical, the properties of tarmac and current solar panels has nothing to do with each others in anyway and that one of many issues.

A similar study was made for trains a couple of years ago, and for trains is by far more logical and the plan was to have a roof running all over the railroads which will produce electricity that will be injected to the train network, but the study showed the amount of solar panels needed for the needs of one train is HUGE not to mention from investment stand point it was viable at all.

I think the best way to deal with carbon is to think about decentralized energy, the Sahara desert for example offers an illimited potential in terms of Thermosolar and solar ray concentration power (not so in terms of photovoltaic as these require a lower temperature for optimum power delivery (around 21°C) which can be good in northern Africa, southern Europe and similar thing can be made done NA region) the energy can be then exported to EU, and you'll have carbon free energy (from a production perspective at least that can electrify Africa and europe ! and for the cheap

They had 4x more 30 years ago so it's going down.
Besides that's the number of total nuclear weapons (some of them might be already dismantled or out of service) , not the total active nuclear warheads.

How much long is this long-term target?

Right now, this is the number of nuclear weapons possessed by the nuclear powers:

Russia - 8,500
USA - 7,700
France - 300
China - 200
UK - 225
Pakistan - 120
India - 110
Israel - 80
DPRK - 10

For the last 10 years or so, there has been no considerable reduction in this number.

Oh really?

And where doe the power come in a two stage nuclear weapon?

U238 can't sustain a chain reaction but it is used as a temper which goes to a fission reaction.

Basically for a thermonuclear bomb you might not need u238 (you can repalce it with plutonium) but you will need the cheap u235 "waste".

Of course you might argue that p239 is also created from uranium and... so on .

when i see people talking about this (above)
i think that world need some change in their way of think
you know world change because of big or impossible idea coming from anymous people with their crazy idea
you know someone who found gravitation law came just because he's sitting and just saw apple drop from the tree
you know people will not can transport with airplane if theres not two people with their crazy idea, they want to fly in the sky
you know thomas who created lamp with thousand failure and then found the perfect material to created it

i think this is crazy idea because if this success it will can change the world with this idea

and nuclear is the cheapest energy in this era , i will agree with this but , this energy have big problem with its radiation   

It is hypocritical that is why the NPT has had a resolution for them to denuclearize their own arsenals every 5 years
Which the US and Russia did by decreasing total units but also updating and modernizing their arsenals

That said the NPT is non binding and attempts to make it binding would result in states leaving the treaty so its complex.

Pretty much can sum it up here
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2013_12/How-Divergent-Views-on-Nuclear-Disarmament-Threaten-the-NPT

Consequently, nuclear-weapon states consider nuclear disarmament and the achievement of a world without nuclear weapons to be a long-term aspirational objective at best. Thus, pending the achievement of perceived global preconditions for nuclear disarmament, these countries are prepared to take only limited and gradual disarmament steps without fundamentally reassessing the role of nuclear weapons or altering the nuclear strategic balance. At the same time, nuclear-weapon states focus on the prevention of further proliferation of nuclear weapons, which they see as the only real challenge to the integrity of the NPT. This is not only their clear priority, but they argue it is a necessary precondition for more-substantial nuclear disarmament steps.

The perspectives of most non-nuclear-weapon states regarding the urgency of nuclear disarmament are quite different. Among these countries, nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence are widely seen as a high-risk approach to national and international security. According to this view, humanity escaped unharmed during the Cold War period and thereafter as much by luck as by design. Moreover, the concepts of nuclear deterrence and the necessity of nuclear strategic stability, which were merely transferred to the 21st century with little change, look increasingly anachronistic 20 years after the end of the Cold War. This lack of adaptation to new realities might be seen not only as a missed opportunity but also as a serious misjudgment and a key driver and incentive for proliferation. Arguably, there is a direct relation between the continued reliance on nuclear weapons by nuclear-weapon states and the quest for these weapons by other states. This link can only be broken by a collective and sincere move away from nuclear weapons.

Most non-nuclear-weapon states that are not part of “nuclear sharing arrangements” or “nuclear umbrellas” consider nuclear weapons to be highly dangerous in themselves. They view retention of and reliance on nuclear weapons as outdated, while seeing disarmament as an essential element of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The mere existence of nuclear weapons results in a permanent risk of devastating consequences for the entire planet. Such an existential threat to all humankind should no longer be handled by a few states as a national security matter to the detriment of the security interests of the vast majority of states.

So it's a fundamental shift in the approach between the Nuclear Weapon States and the Non Nuclear Weapon States on Non-Proliferation

Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons must mean that none of the world nations can possess nuclear weapons. It is hypocrisy from the part of Russia and the US, when they say that other nations can't have nukes and only they can have them.

Fair point Byrant, I just went with those two since they are the typical ones on the table when your talking about the NPT and Non-Proliferation.

Technical list is
India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and Previously Libya to complete that list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

I could go on a rant about how Israel's policy of ambiguity is a problem since they don't officially say we have nukes but also don't say we do not have nukes as well.

Or India having Nukes making Pakistan want to have nukes as well due to their tensions to have a power balance but that said I agree with you having the nuclear chip on the bargaining table is a weapon that larger states simply do not want little or unstable states to be able to wield.

Heck could even say Gaddafi following the USA and disarming his nuclear arsenal led to his downfall as without the nuclear deterrent they were not afraid to invade and take over the country
Disarmament in 2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya
Invasion and Takeover in 2011 with a civil war ongoing to now because even though Gaddafi was controversial he was the balancing pin between all different ethnic groups.

Carrying on one DPRK missile launched would destroy a big area of Japan or South Korea and do massive damage (Not China though lone buddy/sort of), but that attack would be suicidal and that is what scares large states that one missile can be a giant threat and as a result slows nuclear proliferation even for peaceful purposes, since they assume not all actors are rational.

Or governments change why South Africa abandoned its program once Apartheid failed and the ANC was to come into power.

That said Solar is a neat solution to those energy problems just not scalable or low enough in cost yet (even with the recent US Solar Bankruptcies to Chinese Firms), but Geothermal seems like the most efficient one in the long run if technologies can improve stored energy forever (well a long time) from the Earth.

However there is always room for a more diverse set of energy options but that Geopolitics still gets in the way.

No need to single out North Korea or Iran, when none of the nuclear powers themselves (including India and Pakistan) are transparent about their facilities and capabilities. How can the US or Russia blame the DPRK, when the former is having thousands of nuclear weapons compared to the few dozen under the control of the latter?

This is an issue that has no easy solutions On one hand inexpensive power is something that can make a more stable economy in places that really need it but their unstable governments will always be interested in exploiting it to increase their standing in the world as a nuclear nation. Sanctions as you mentioned only tend to hurt innocent civilians and military force should always be a last resort.

The problem is not all nations are transparent about their facilities and capabilities
Having enriched uranium for medical usage (nuclear medicine) requires 20% purity
That said once at 20% it becomes much easier to get to 90% nuclear grade than it is from that 3% to 5% enrichment

That is why governments are concerned with Breakout which is the ability to get to weapons grade rapidly before any counter response can be done simply put the centrifuges just need 3 months from 20%
http://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/articles-reports/irans-nuclear-timetable
___
Increasing the percentage of U-235 becomes progressively easier, as explained in a 2012 glossary by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Harvard Kennedy School.

If the aim is to reach 90 per cent, getting to 3.5 per cent requires some 75 per cent of the work, and once 20 per cent is attained, nine-tenths of the job is done.

For this reason, when in February 2010 Iran began enriching to 20 per cent alarm bells rang. This dramatically shortens the time needed – in theory – to produce a bomb's worth of weapons-grade uranium.

Iran could, in theory, produce weapons-grade uranium from its stockpile of uranium enriched to five per cent using its existing enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordo.

But it would take considerably longer than with 20-per cent and crucially, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN watchdog, would notice any such "break out" long before it is completed.
__
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10436068/Iran-nuclear-talks-what-you-need-to-know-about-uranium-enrichment.html


Newer reactors have less of this risk but older reactors even CANDU can enrich to that level easily
Take the Chalk River Facility the North American Source for Radioactive Isotopes it enriches to 20% and no one is concerned but if you put one of those in Latin America some people would worry about the facilities security from Terrorist Attacks and the risk they move to weapons grade weaponry depending on the transparency they provide.

The reason their are inspectors checking those facilities or negotiating at the NPT every 5 years (Non-Proliferation Treaty)

As an aside that does not mean sanctions on innocent civilians and student bank accounts is the solution either in regards to Iran.
Economic warfare is still warfare

The nuclear waste or the nuclear fuel can't be directly converted to nuclear weaponry.

The Uranium fuel used in nuclear reactors is Low-enriched uranium (LEU), which contains 3% to 5% U-235. (The remainder is U-238, which is not radio-active).

For creating nuclear weapons, you need Highly enriched uranium (HEU), which contains 80% to 90% U-235.

Converting the LEU to HEU is a very complicated process, and only a very few nations in the world currently possess that technology.

The biggest risk is that governments are concerned some of the byproducts from the reactors are then moved and converted into nuclear weaponry
Also how to dispose of nuclear waste Glassification processes etc how long it takes for spent fuel to cool down example Fukushima reactors
Although countries like Japan have the tech and could go nuclear or China which is nuclear there are concerns about giving it to other countries
Iran nuclear program/ sanctions and poor economic well being of its citizens as a consequence
North Korea Nuclear Armed and Independent but based on the reports we have sucks to live there
No New Nuclear Reactor has been built in the USA since 1977 because of increasing costs as more and more safeguards are put on them and people protest the idea.
The only reason nuclear has been able to maintain its share of the energy grid is because of efficiencies found in reactors
From 30% efficient in the 1970s to 90% efficient in 2000
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power/
That said until the Geopolitics is solved nuclear probably won't sell well for some time yet.

Since just two days ago you claimed that there were no nuclear test near villages in Russia


... I will not believe a word of what you're saying about the minimal impact those test had on the population and that there were no mutation reports

Just because mutations are likely to be small and difficult to detect it doesn't mean they haven't occurred.




http://www.ippnw-students.org/Japan/Semipalatinsk.pdf

Genetic mutation from radiation, either in humans or animals have not been reported from Kazakhstan. There has been some incidents of increase in cancer rates, especially in areas near the Semipalatinsk nuclear test sites. But mutation hasn't been reported from anywhere yet. And cancer is not a hereditary disease. If there is no mutation, then cancer patients can have healthy babies.

Not having a child and maybe I will think on an adoption.

I will not risk it.

they should be quarantined and live in their own areas.. letting people mix like that could lead to catastrophic disaster in the kazakhstani society. it's not convenient doing that to a group of people, but it's for the greater goods.. and sometimes it just has to happen that way.

The doctor is giving percentage it means he is not totally sure. And the doctor is not 100 percent correct in giving percentages. What if the doctor says 99 percent and the reality is 1 percent. What would you do if you are the affected person?

If a doctor says it's 99% probable you will give birth to a child with a malformation or any other problem , what gives you the right to bring to this world a child that will have to suffer all his life?