& BRIEFLY NOTED: FOR 2022-01-11 Tu: First.... I read...My immediate first response is to ask : In what sense is the Fed supposed to have been "way too slow" in tightening monetary policy? We still are way short of full employment. Some of that is due to childcare and virus-fear bottlenecks. But some of it isn’t. And to the extent that there are important jobs not being done because people can’t afford to make alternative childcare arrangements or fear the virus—well, the inflation that comes from paying people more to see if they will take those jobs is to be welcomed, not fought...
Speaking as someone with $1M in housing debt on a recent Prop 13 basis, and all my savings in stock, and a tech job where wages are highly competitive, I say bring on the inflation (I may regret this sentiment later, but that is my outlook now; I am not quite so rosy about the political effects of inflation but I think it’ll be good for wage compression).
German nukes: I am a new-nuclear-power skeptic (too much $, not enough water, nobody wants them next door, but go ahead and try if you want) but Germany’s plan to shut down ahead of design life made, makes no sense. You can’t fix design problems in Japan (or Ukraine) by shutting down well-run German reactors. It’s a classic “solve ocean waste by reducing my personal plastic use” non-solution: you cannot solve a problem that exists elsewhere by changing something unrelated to it that you happen to control.
Yeah, I actually agree... let them run to their design life. Don't build any new nukes because they're a waste of money (we can build more solar, wind, batteries, and transmission for the same amount of money quicker). Let the old ones run to the end of design life.
Germany does have the problem that it's currently having to excavate nuclear waste which was irresponsibly dumped in a wet cavern, however. I can see why they don't want to generate any MORE of it, given that they have nowhere to put the damn stuff.
In the US, our big problem is that most of our nuclear power plants are already BEYOND their 40-year design life. They need to be shuttered because they're rustbuckets. This is particularly a problem in my area: Indian Point 1, Ginna, Fitzpatrick -- all of them are decaying hulks which simply aren't fit to keep running much longer. If we maintain orderly shutdowns at ages between 40 and 60 years, all is well. If we leave these rustbuckets going to 80 years, they're all going to melt down.
The US, despite a lot of conflict, has finally settled on storing spent nuclear fuel in dry casks on surface pads. Forever. And low-level nuclear waste goes in concrete-lined cells near the surface in deserts. We're still doing stupid shit with the other high-level nuclear waste (WIPP is a disaster which will leak) but the way forward is clear. Scotland decided to store its waste in dry casks on a concrete pad in a concrete warehouse on the surface, which seems to be 100% correct.
The US authorities who thought it was OK to put radioactive waste in salt caverns (at WIPP, for example) are completely irresponsible idiots who should be prosecuted for endangering public health.
Speaking as someone with $1M in housing debt on a recent Prop 13 basis, and all my savings in stock, and a tech job where wages are highly competitive, I say bring on the inflation (I may regret this sentiment later, but that is my outlook now; I am not quite so rosy about the political effects of inflation but I think it’ll be good for wage compression).
German nukes: I am a new-nuclear-power skeptic (too much $, not enough water, nobody wants them next door, but go ahead and try if you want) but Germany’s plan to shut down ahead of design life made, makes no sense. You can’t fix design problems in Japan (or Ukraine) by shutting down well-run German reactors. It’s a classic “solve ocean waste by reducing my personal plastic use” non-solution: you cannot solve a problem that exists elsewhere by changing something unrelated to it that you happen to control.
Yeah, I actually agree... let them run to their design life. Don't build any new nukes because they're a waste of money (we can build more solar, wind, batteries, and transmission for the same amount of money quicker). Let the old ones run to the end of design life.
Germany does have the problem that it's currently having to excavate nuclear waste which was irresponsibly dumped in a wet cavern, however. I can see why they don't want to generate any MORE of it, given that they have nowhere to put the damn stuff.
In the US, our big problem is that most of our nuclear power plants are already BEYOND their 40-year design life. They need to be shuttered because they're rustbuckets. This is particularly a problem in my area: Indian Point 1, Ginna, Fitzpatrick -- all of them are decaying hulks which simply aren't fit to keep running much longer. If we maintain orderly shutdowns at ages between 40 and 60 years, all is well. If we leave these rustbuckets going to 80 years, they're all going to melt down.
The US, despite a lot of conflict, has finally settled on storing spent nuclear fuel in dry casks on surface pads. Forever. And low-level nuclear waste goes in concrete-lined cells near the surface in deserts. We're still doing stupid shit with the other high-level nuclear waste (WIPP is a disaster which will leak) but the way forward is clear. Scotland decided to store its waste in dry casks on a concrete pad in a concrete warehouse on the surface, which seems to be 100% correct.
I tend to agree: Scotland seems to have gotten it right. All the more complicated stuff seems to be overthinking it
For reference, this is the German nuclear waste mess, which is going to be very expensive; possibly Hanford-level expensive:
https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-waste-in-disused-german-mine-leaves-a-bitter-legacy/a-47420382
The US authorities who thought it was OK to put radioactive waste in salt caverns (at WIPP, for example) are completely irresponsible idiots who should be prosecuted for endangering public health.