Live data from Hacker News

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

gao.gov

31–40 of 188 posts

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

#31
Sure, but has anyone ever built a container that lasts 30k years, and remains watertight?

Thus far, most off-site containment storage sites over 10 years old have failed to stop containment leaks, Radon gas diffusion, or hot-material fires. Fission reactors are a 1950's loss-leader technology, and only make sense for already uninhabitable areas like space. =3

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

#32

Sure, but has anyone ever built a container that lasts 30k years, and remains watertight? Thus far, most off-site containment storage sites over 10 years old have failed to stop containment leaks, Radon gas diffusion, or hot-material fires. Fission reactors are a 1950's loss-leader technology, and only make sense for already uninhabitable areas like space. =3

There are plenty of dry areas like in the American Southwest which can be projected to not have meaningful water attempt ingress in that time frame.

Also, fission reactors make phenomenal sense on aircraft carriers, submarines, etc.

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

#34

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.

But Congress is very comfortable so far just letting the executive branch do whatever. Even if the orders aren't emanating from the oval office directly, there's clearly a coordinated agenda in motion. It's entirely reasonable to suspect that the GAO has been politicized in that environment.

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

#35

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?

The branches are explicitly defined in the Constitution.

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

#37

Sure, but has anyone ever built a container that lasts 30k years, and remains watertight? Thus far, most off-site containment storage sites over 10 years old have failed to stop containment leaks, Radon gas diffusion, or hot-material fires. Fission reactors are a 1950's loss-leader technology, and only make sense for already uninhabitable areas like space. =3

There are plenty of dry areas like in the American Southwest which can be projected to not have meaningful water attempt ingress in that time frame. Also, fission reactors make phenomenal sense on aircraft carriers, submarines, etc.

We've already leached too much uranium into the groundwater for many to drink just from the mining alone.

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

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

To be fair this was all happening before, just 10x less. And the current minority party was often willing to ignore it when it was their people doing it. So yes it's bad on a generational scale and we might never recover from it, but we also have to admit that we are reaping the fruit of a bipartisan-sown seed.

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

#39

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?

[deleted]

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

#40

Sure, but has anyone ever built a container that lasts 30k years, and remains watertight? Thus far, most off-site containment storage sites over 10 years old have failed to stop containment leaks, Radon gas diffusion, or hot-material fires. Fission reactors are a 1950's loss-leader technology, and only make sense for already uninhabitable areas like space. =3

There are plenty of dry areas like in the American Southwest which can be projected to not have meaningful water attempt ingress in that time frame. Also, fission reactors make phenomenal sense on aircraft carriers, submarines, etc.

Every miner knows most holes fill with water sooner or later.

Corollary: Every sailor knows most vessels are sunk sooner or later.

Aircraft carriers and Submarines are not civilian infrastructure, and if they sink offshore where no can live... will usually pose less of a problem like buoyant waste barrels popping up later.

We are in the age of bargain conflicts, where throwing gold bricks at adversaries makes less sense strategically. =3

Post reply on HN