Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GAO: DOE Is Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Nuclear Cleanup

gao.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 188 posts

Re: GAO: DOE Is Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Nuclear Cleanup

#21

Post by dakolli »

Jtsummers wrote: post #9
dakolli wrote: post #6

A bunch of these nuclear power startups have started reached criticality over the last week. Aalo and Valar (thiel) and now GAO is trying to loosen regulations around nuclear waste disposal.. Makes sense. Weird how we only get green energy when it's necessary for the technocratic class to power their data centers (and when they are small enough to be flown on location for the military, so the military can destroy a n…

> now "doge" (GAO) GAO is not DOGE. For those who don't know the difference between the two, confusing them is about like confusing the President with the Senate. GAO is a Congressional agency, it does not fall under the Executive. Its purpose is in its name, and it does a pretty good job of it. It also cannot, on its own (unlike how DOGE was empowered) effect any change. They can only conduct studies and make recomm…

I mixed up some names. The timing doesn't seem coincidental. We are at the end of Executive Order 14301, signed May 2025, which called for at least three test reactors to reach criticality by July 4, 2026.

So immediately after Trumps nuclear power project ends (of which his son's and all his friends are invested in these neo-nuclear power companies), and a bunch of companies reach criticality this week, the government starts issuing orders to make things easier for them to be profitable.

Your naive to think it's anything else other than corruption.

Re: GAO: DOE Is Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Nuclear Cleanup

#22

Post by cucumber3732842 »

dakolli wrote: post #11
lclarkmichalek wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t it a fairly natural (and useful) capitalist outcome that as prices rise incentives to increase supply increase? What’s technocratic about responding to a demand change?

because they have infiltrated the government to reduce the cost of safety, and increase the possibility of environmental harm to pad their margins... faster shit code, AI cat videos and so they can add 100ft to the length of their next boat?

Who do you think was making money when all those safety and environmental compliance solutions got all but written into law?

If you think the ruling class isn't making money coming and going I've got a bridge to sell you.

Re: GAO: DOE Is Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Nuclear Cleanup

#23

Post by __float »

zer00eyz wrote: post #13
dakolli wrote: post #6

A bunch of these nuclear power startups have started reached criticality over the last week. Aalo and Valar (thiel) and now GAO is trying to loosen regulations around nuclear waste disposal.. Makes sense. Weird how we only get green energy when it's necessary for the technocratic class to power their data centers (and when they are small enough to be flown on location for the military, so the military can destroy a n…

> is trying to loosen regulations around nuclear waste disposal And here lies the problem that ever one wants to burry their head in the sand about. Can one, in theory, make safe nuclear reactors. You bet you can. The thing is that you cant leave a bunch of "we will deal with that later" problems laying around. In the case of the US thats spent fuel rods. Should one worry about these, no, but you also don't want them…

What are the fuel constraints the French have that we don't?

Is it geographic (we have a lot more unused/undesirable than France, for example), regulatory, etc?

Re: GAO: DOE Is Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Nuclear Cleanup

#24

Post by mindslight »

Jtsummers wrote: post #9
dakolli wrote: post #6

A bunch of these nuclear power startups have started reached criticality over the last week. Aalo and Valar (thiel) and now GAO is trying to loosen regulations around nuclear waste disposal.. Makes sense. Weird how we only get green energy when it's necessary for the technocratic class to power their data centers (and when they are small enough to be flown on location for the military, so the military can destroy a n…

> now "doge" (GAO) GAO is not DOGE. For those who don't know the difference between the two, confusing them is about like confusing the President with the Senate. GAO is a Congressional agency, it does not fall under the Executive. Its purpose is in its name, and it does a pretty good job of it. It also cannot, on its own (unlike how DOGE was empowered) effect any change. They can only conduct studies and make recomm…

> GAO is a Congressional agency, it does not fall under the Executive

I don't know that it's accurate to say such things any more, due to the unitary executive decree by the supreme council. The GAO is intrinsically motivated by law - both to carry out its purpose, and simply to pay its employees - and the supreme council has decreed that all execution of the law is subject to the whims of the president. If the president woke up from his afternoon nap and told GAO employees they weren't going to get paid unless they did a certain thing, it's certainly possible that the supreme council might walk back their earlier decree (although good luck with the payment infrastructure already being pwnt and all that). But it's also possible they might not, given how they've already approved other autocratic dynamics.

Re: GAO: DOE Is Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Nuclear Cleanup

#26

Post by jauntywundrkind »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #16
dakolli wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because they have infiltrated the government to reduce the cost of safety, and increase the possibility of environmental harm to pad their margins... faster shit code, AI cat videos and so they can add 100ft to the length of their next boat?

> infiltrated the government That's an awfully emotionally charged way to phrase "lobbied in the same way that everyone else does". When a matter of geopolitical interest that's consuming a significant fraction of the national economy is being impeded by the current regulations it seems entirely expected that the government would start making changes. If anything refusing to make changes under those circumstances wou…

The presumption of regularity here is a joke. This administration has grifted swindled no-bid awarded and bought out anything they please with reckless abandon, Vought is actively Project 2025 shutting done any and everything not run by the most fanatical political operatives.

It's impossible to pretend like any agencies are functioning in any way as normal, are using objective scientific expert based assessments to govern.

Re: GAO: DOE Is Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Nuclear Cleanup

#27

Post by Terr_ »

Pxtl wrote: post #10
dakolli wrote: post #6

A bunch of these nuclear power startups have started reached criticality over the last week. Aalo and Valar (thiel) and now GAO is trying to loosen regulations around nuclear waste disposal.. Makes sense. Weird how we only get green energy when it's necessary for the technocratic class to power their data centers (and when they are small enough to be flown on location for the military, so the military can destroy a n…

Can Tolkien's estate please do something?

In seriousness, probably not, unless US "intellectual property" law gets worse somehow.

Short phrases fall under trademarks rather than copyrights, and even then it needs to be something that would cause commercial confusion, and very few people are going to buy a Tolkien book expecting a nuclear reactor or vice-versa.

Re: GAO: DOE Is Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Nuclear Cleanup

#28

Post by zdragnar »

mindslight wrote: post #24
Jtsummers wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> now "doge" (GAO) GAO is not DOGE. For those who don't know the difference between the two, confusing them is about like confusing the President with the Senate. GAO is a Congressional agency, it does not fall under the Executive. Its purpose is in its name, and it does a pretty good job of it. It also cannot, on its own (unlike how DOGE was empowered) effect any change. They can only conduct studies and make recomm…

> GAO is a Congressional agency, it does not fall under the Executive I don't know that it's accurate to say such things any more, due to the unitary executive decree by the supreme council. The GAO is intrinsically motivated by law - both to carry out its purpose, and simply to pay its employees - and the supreme council has decreed that all execution of the law is subject to the whims of the president. If the presi…

They aren't part of the executive branch, period. The president has no control over their pay or performance. Hell, the president doesn't have nearly as much control over the executive branch as you imply, however much he might want it.

Re: GAO: DOE Is Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Nuclear Cleanup

#29

Post by mindslight »

zdragnar wrote: post #28
mindslight wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GAO is a Congressional agency, it does not fall under the Executive I don't know that it's accurate to say such things any more, due to the unitary executive decree by the supreme council. The GAO is intrinsically motivated by law - both to carry out its purpose, and simply to pay its employees - and the supreme council has decreed that all execution of the law is subject to the whims of the president. If the presi…

They aren't part of the executive branch, period. The president has no control over their pay or performance. Hell, the president doesn't have nearly as much control over the executive branch as you imply, however much he might want it.

You've just blindly asserted a whole bunch of things without laying out any sort of supporting arguments. What exactly makes the GAO not "part of the executive branch" ? My understanding is that "branches" are merely a framework used for describing government, not a prescriptive org chart. And how do the GAO's employees get paid, if not by a system that is now under the control of the autocratic Executive?

Re: GAO: DOE Is Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Nuclear Cleanup

#30

Post by Jtsummers »

mindslight wrote: post #29
zdragnar wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't part of the executive branch, period. The president has no control over their pay or performance. Hell, the president doesn't have nearly as much control over the executive branch as you imply, however much he might want it.

You've just blindly asserted a whole bunch of things without laying out any sort of supporting arguments. What exactly makes the GAO not "part of the executive branch" ? My understanding is that "branches" are merely a framework used for describing government, not a prescriptive org chart. And how do the GAO's employees get paid, if not by a system that is now under the control of the autocratic Executive?

> What exactly makes the GAO not "part of the executive branch" ?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/702

>> (a)The Government Accountability Office is an instrumentality of the United States Government independent of the executive departments.

The law establishing it also establishes it as independent.

Post reply on HN