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

141–150 of 188 posts

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

#141

Post by triceratops »

xienze wrote: post #127
triceratops wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

For the general case: Redeem all stock collected as tax for ETF shares that track broad-market indices. ETFs almost always yield dividends. Toss whatever remains into a black box that no one is allowed to look at. When the government needs some revenue, pick something at random and sell it. It can also sell some ETF shares.

The best part is this works for private companies too. If you work at a startup and get options, now you don't have to pay taxes (as cash) for options you exercise which later turn out to be worthless. You can just hand the government some of your shares. Later down the line, the government either shares in your windfall or misses out along with you. Very fair.

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

#142

Post by Joel_Mckay »

chickenbig wrote: post #134
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24110 years" There are dozens of other decay products with various hazardous properties. Scientific hubris can't be made safe, and societies have proven irresponsible with fuel life-cycle management. =3

> "Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24110 years" Great, that means it is not very radioactive, and an alpha emitter, so unless you ingest it is not particularly harmful. > societies have proven irresponsible with fuel life-cycle management Do you have evidence that the spent nuclear fuel from power stations has killed people?

>Do you have evidence that the spent nuclear fuel from power stations has killed people?

Did you mean intentional Polonium 210 exposure from decay chains, medical mistakes, or unintentional worker exposure to hot garbage.

I could have a look for you, but Google should already give several reasonable results to keep one entertained. =3

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

#143

Post by throwaway27448 »

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?

Where did you get that understanding?? People are starving all over the world, even in places that generally have access to food markets. Food insecurity exists outside of famine, sanctions, etc.

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

#144

Post by quickthrowman »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #83
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…

Some disjointed thoughts of mine on this topic: Some people have to adjust their mortgage in order to pay property taxes. Most people pay property taxes out of their income. What percentage of Americans, especially home-owning Americans, have more wealth in the stock market than in their home? Property tax has the positive effect of encouraging efficient land usage and discouraging speculation and rent seeking. Is th…

> What percentage of Americans, especially home-owning Americans, have more wealth in the stock market than in their home?

I don’t own a home (and can’t afford to own a home) but I have close to $1M in various retirement accounts. If you’re a first time homebuyer in my area, you need an income of like $150k to afford it and not cut retirement savings to zero.

I’ll be able to retire some day but may never be able to afford a home. It’s an odd situation to be in, nearly a millionaire and only able to afford a meager apartment.

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

#145

Post by throwaway27448 »

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…

> China's numbers have always been almost wholly manufactured

Do you have a link to read about this?

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

#146

Post by ortusdux »

jjk166 wrote: post #20

This is an excellent example of how to communicate investigation findings. The summary is clear and succinct, there are illustrative examples readily understood by a layman, the recommendations are actionable and unambiguous, and the potential impact is quantified without promising some stupidly precise estimate. I've got some customers whose quality auditors could learn a lot from this.

Unless I'm missing something, footnote #20 at the end of the 43 page report significantly undercuts their argument. It is easy to make a clear and succinct report that comes to the conclusion you want.

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

#147

Post by Joel_Mckay »

freestanding wrote: post #131
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

[flagged]

South Park fans are hilarious =3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veHTTuePS1w

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

#148

Post by Balgair »

Animats wrote: post #90

This isn't about radioactivity at all. It's about the millions of pounds of mercury used at the Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge,[1] resulting in a lot of low-level mercury contamination. [1] https://ehss.energy.gov/ohre/new/findingaids/epidemiologic/o...

Wait the giant deadly ball of mercury that is highly radioactive for neutron studies? Or is this another mercury thing there?

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

#149

Post by Terr_ »

darth_aardvark wrote: post #133
Pxtl wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I happen to know for a fact that Palantir licenses the name from the estate at an exorbitant yearly fee.

IANAL but I would assume that such an agreement (A) falls under trademark law and (B) is being done to avoid a costly/embarrassing fight, even if it's a fight Thiel might win.

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

#150

Post by inigyou »

IanCal wrote: post #118
roenxi wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 because someone underestimated how much food was needed. This is an absolutely wild comparison. The choice is not "everything is purely market forces" vs "everything is centrally planned". We have all kinds of implementations across the wo…

Besides, modern market forces are central planning. Bezos central plans. So does Musk. So does whoever is in charge of Microsoft right now.

To avoid this you need a wide variety of small to medium sized businesses instead of a few large ones. A wealth tax may help this happen.

Post reply on HN