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

121–130 of 188 posts

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

#121

Post by shermantanktop »

Veelox wrote: post #115
arjie wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny how this kind of pricing works. A bag of weed captured is estimated at a thousand dollars. Ten movies pirated at twice that. We fire a JASSM in combat and it costs a lot of money. We fire it in training and it costs nothing. There is no financial impact estimated to require all elevators be big enough to turn a full length gurney around. A wealth tax will yield revenue for the next thirty years at 30 times…

> $6.6 billion will end world hunger My understanding is that the only places that are starving is places like Gaza and South Sudan which are poor and actively under attack. Do you have a source for how we can spend <$10b and solve world hunger?

I read the comment as a set of examples to make a point. Sounds like you read it as a laundry list of facts that should each have cited sources.

Both could be true, but OPs point is clear and valid even without sourcing a (perhaps hyperbolic) statement.

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

#122

Post by shermantanktop »

dnnehgf wrote: post #72
arjie wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny how this kind of pricing works. A bag of weed captured is estimated at a thousand dollars. Ten movies pirated at twice that. We fire a JASSM in combat and it costs a lot of money. We fire it in training and it costs nothing. There is no financial impact estimated to require all elevators be big enough to turn a full length gurney around. A wealth tax will yield revenue for the next thirty years at 30 times…

good list. if you were to send me an article containing a new one of these each day, with citations, i would pay you $1 per day. but if you were to send me an article containing a new one of these each day, with citations, plus a bunch of econ theory rationalizing it, i would pay you $0.

But would you pay $0.50 for the article plus a wiki link to the Laffer Curve article?

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

#123

Post by jasonlotito »

mrngld wrote: post #114
ck2 wrote: post #110

sorry there is absolutely no federal agency that has not been compromised at this point you'd have to prove to me that Russell Vought has not tampered with an agency for any statement emerging to be believed even jobs numbers are not believed by wallstreet anymore and surpreme court has now said only Fed is off limits to protect their own money redo this report in 2029

If you've believed all the government data for the last 10 or 15 years I got a bridge for sale. It's one of those things like, yes, it's WAY more difficult than I think most people realize to arrive at numbers (be it employment, price indexes, etc), but it's also something that demonstrably can be done. It's like "space is hard", yes, but rocket companies still rightfully get flak if they can't perform. Also, for wha…

> If you've believed all the government data for the last 10 or 15 years I got a bridge for sale.

It's not about belief. It's about trust. And as they say: trust, but verify.

We could trust the data, but we should, of course, verify it. And that's generally how it worked. And both sides of the aisle happily trusted this data and verified it. It wasn't always correct, but not so much that you should start by not trusting it at all.

But now we are at that point. I've taken the attitude of simply assuming the opposite and starting from that position, and it has served me well most of the time. I take what the current administration is claiming, assume the opposite and start from there.

To be fair, I agree with your sentiment, don't just believe what the government is saying. But there has been a dramatic shift since January 2024.

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

#124

Post by chad_c »

ck2 wrote: post #110

sorry there is absolutely no federal agency that has not been compromised at this point you'd have to prove to me that Russell Vought has not tampered with an agency for any statement emerging to be believed even jobs numbers are not believed by wallstreet anymore and surpreme court has now said only Fed is off limits to protect their own money redo this report in 2029

People will both-sides this, but you are right. When your express purpose and position is to promote unitary executive theory and destroy US democracy, everything is suspect.

Marketplace (APM) has had several discussions about how difficult it is to mess with BLS numbers, but it's only a matter of time as Vought and Heritage make their way into these organizations.

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

#125

Post by Joel_Mckay »

viraptor wrote: post #112
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #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

> most off-site containment storage sites over 10 years old have failed to stop containment leaks There's nothing obvious I could find that I could find that would confirm it. Could you cite something?

Indeed, signal-to-noise ratio on the modern web is fairly challenging search space, but there was DoE documentation out there showing near zero practical success rate at actual long-term disposal sites. Every site has shown some concrete degradation within years, reported incidents, water ingress, and persistent operational costs. Current methodology is to pile up waste near cooling ponds, and lie to people about dealing with it at some point in the future.

My point was, few organizations have ever shown actual success with what they claimed would happen. Thus, arguing sites will hold for 75 years let alone 30k years is a fools errand. Water fills holes in the ground, and will likely continue to do so in the future. =3

https://armscontrolcenter.org/nuclear-waste-issues-in-the-un...

https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/acts-and-regulations/event-r...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid...

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

#126

Post by akramachamarei »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #102
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some people have to adjust their mortgage in order to pay property taxes. Most people pay property taxes out of their income. Most people get their income from wages and then pay the taxes with that. The people who are the target of a wealth tax get most of their income from investments and then to get money to pay a new tax would have to sell that proportion of the investments. It also doesn't really change anythi…

> Property tax to the extent that it's a tax on buildings/construction does precisely the opposite. Where land is more scarce the most efficient use is to build a high rise to maximize the amount of indoor living space per unit land, which is exactly the thing property tax taxes and thereby disincentivizes. Property tax breaks in my locale lead to empty lots and empty buildings, which is the least efficient use of la…

> Property tax breaks in my locale lead to empty lots and empty buildings, which is the least efficient use of land imaginable.

Could you clarify what your locales property taxes are exactly? I'm trying to figure out whether you and Mouse are using the term the same way, in particular, tax on land or tax on buildings or both. (FWIW Wikipedia defines it as both.) It would also be very important to clarify how the tax break is defined, whether it applies to land and buildings equally, for example.

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

#127

Post by xienze »

triceratops wrote: post #116
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A wealth tax will yield revenue for the next thirty years at 30 times what it will yield this year. Isn't this the opposite of how a wealth tax works? The annual turnover for e.g. Apple stock is ~0.4%, so a 0.8%/year wealth tax would triple the number of sellers without adding any new buyers. The negative effect on the price is outsized because most people hold long-term rather than buying or selling in any given y…

> Apple stock is ~0.4%, a 0.8%/year wealth tax would triple the number of sellers without adding any new buyers Only if the tax had to be paid in US dollars. But it could just as easily be paid in Apple stock. The government doesn't have to sell the stock. It could keep it (disallow voting shares by law) and spend the dividends.

> It could keep it (disallow voting shares by law) and spend the dividends.

And if the stock doesn't yield dividends?

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

#128

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

akramachamarei wrote: post #126
datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Property tax to the extent that it's a tax on buildings/construction does precisely the opposite. Where land is more scarce the most efficient use is to build a high rise to maximize the amount of indoor living space per unit land, which is exactly the thing property tax taxes and thereby disincentivizes. Property tax breaks in my locale lead to empty lots and empty buildings, which is the least efficient use of la…

> Property tax breaks in my locale lead to empty lots and empty buildings, which is the least efficient use of land imaginable. Could you clarify what your locales property taxes are exactly? I'm trying to figure out whether you and Mouse are using the term the same way, in particular, tax on land or tax on buildings or both. (FWIW Wikipedia defines it as both.) It would also be very important to clarify how the tax…

It’s both in my locale, land and improvements. There’s a tax break for vacant commercial space, which leads to commercial RE holding companies to simply speculate on commercial RE and sit on vacant properties. They have such little incentive to find a tenant or even sell that commercial properties sit empty for years, despite plenty of prospective tenants taking tours. I’m on an HOA board in a building with commercial units and it’s shocking how little pushback it takes for us to deny a prospective tenants - the commercial RE company basically doesn’t put up a fight at all when we say “no”.

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

#129

Post by tancop »

roenxi wrote: post #106
scottlamb wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The annual turnover for e.g. Apple stock is ~0.4%, so a 0.8%/year wealth tax would triple the number of sellers without adding any new buyers. Is that assuming the tax money is going into the void? I agree it might force roughly 0.8% of shares to be sold in a given year. But as to not adding any new buyers: no one's being forced to buy stock in the same way, but shouldn't someone be getting the money and potentiall…

Although the argument does look fundamentally reasonable, I think its biggest weakness is it doesn't make an attempt to prioritise - yes taxes always make someone better off. So does wealth. A decision has to be made. Which is more valuable? We've got a highly reliable and effective system for working that out (aka the free market economy) and no alternative in 2nd place that doesn't typically lead to mass starvation…

the utility of wealth is not linear. a billionaire getting $100 probably has no use for it and they wont notice either way. but a homeless person getting $100 makes a big difference for them no matter if they use it to buy new clothes and apply for a job or spend it all on liquor. redistribution is actually good by itself because it maximizes the total wellbeing of society.

all the negative effects on economic output come from the fact that there is always some minimum amount of capital you need to start a successful business in each industry, and if nobody has enough wealth to match that requirement the business has no way to take off. but that argument only works if crowd funding or state investment are not practical, which is mostly true in our economic system but its not a law of nature.

we dont have to go all in on soviet style five year plans. in fact we know its one of the worst possible systems because the real world is unpredictable and large scale inflexible plans usually fail. its not always a disaster but its always unstable. but neoliberal capitalism is not the only form of a non-command economy.

"there is no alternative" only makes sense if you ignore all the things in between and outside to create a false binary. there is also tito style market socialism, decentralized commune systems, continuous planning, hybrid systems like china and vietnam, capitalism with worker ownership, and a lot of others i dont even know. not all of them are practical (like anarchy) but the ideas already exist and i think its worth it to try and make them real. a better world is possible as long as ours is not perfect.

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

#130

Post by Pxtl »

Terr_ wrote: post #27
Pxtl wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought that was mostly about coincidentally similar names.

Does it change when one is explicitly a reference to the copyrighted work? It's not like Thiel just thinks that Valar and Palantir and Anduril etc are all just nice sounding words, he's built a brand out of companies named after Tolkien's stuff.

Post reply on HN