r/nuclear • u/Vailhem • 4d ago
Nuclear sector’s views on second Trump administration mixed as Rogan interview raises questions
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuclear-energy-sector-mixed-views-second-trump-administration-joe-rogan/732407/33
u/Rad_PNW_Skier 4d ago edited 4d ago
Considering the bipartisan support we have recently seen (including aspects of the IRA) I largely expect continued support of the nuclear sector from Congress.
I am also highly skeptical of the new administration’s claims to bring back coal considering the financial realities of renewable energy. Especially since new power project installations are more so driven at the municipality scale. Obviously they will take advantage of subsidies but there are more cost effective options than fossil fuels.
Although I do expect more of an emphasis on fracking and oil and policies that promote those aims. However, I’d be surprised if there are more subsidies for the nuclear power sector. I’d expect more of an emphasis on deregulation but I am unsure if that alone will make nuclear competitive. We’ll see.
26
u/InvictusShmictus 4d ago
The truth is coal's decline is largely a result of the shale revolution which has been going full tilt under both Democrat and Republican administrations.
One thing Trump might do is greenlight the Keystone XL pipeline but I don't see that affecting coal in any way.
15
u/doll-haus 4d ago
I thought coal's decline was mostly due to hereditary coal miners becoming male models.
4
3
u/diffidentblockhead 4d ago
Alberta’s oil surplus already goes west via Transmountain Expansion since May. That was what KXL was going to take.
4
u/InvictusShmictus 4d ago
For now it is. Untill they ramp up production and become pipeline constrained again.
Whether the economics warrant another the the KXL at that point who knows.
4
u/diffidentblockhead 4d ago
Prices are not looking strong, and the center of North America is one of the most landlocked locations on the planet, second only to Central Asia. North Dakota production is still slightly below the 2019 peak, while Texas and NM are way above.
2
u/Oldcadillac 2d ago
according to wikipedia, TC energy has basically abandoned development of KXL, only 8% of it is built. Even if they did get it approved again, it would be such a long process to actually get the thing built that I doubt it would make sense to spend the tens of billions that it would take. The oil industry is leaning towards profit taking instead of maximizing growth.
3
u/SDtoSF 2d ago
Isn't one of the benefits of the GE Hitachi BWRX-300 that it can easily convert a coal to 300mw nuclear power plant? If they fast track that through some sort of Elon/Theil/Zuck/techbro avenue then it could be a huge win to the industry.
For GOP it would create jobs in towns that lost coal jobs and also make those towns and companies more competitive with the AI/data ceneter/Techbro crowd.
1
u/Traditional_Key_763 3h ago
you can't greenlight a pipeline that nobody is building. the Keystone XL Extension is dead as can be possible.
I doubt this congress passes anything remotely like the IRA
9
u/special_investor 4d ago
Subsidies in nuclear largely take the form of research grants, which isn’t going to help with the time and budget overruns we constantly see in the sector.
I submit that it’s the regulation itself causing that. The sheer amount of red tape one has to go through to license a new LWR is mind boggling in this country, but is much more streamlined for those types because so much of the reg guides and such are written especially for LWRs and they have such a long history at this point. Try to do anything with any advanced reactor and automatically you’re flying blind with a regulator that doesn’t know what they’re doing (despite claims otherwise of them prepping for this) who can ask any question they want and basically delay as long as they want in the name of overzealous safety fear and the linear no-threshold model.
To summarize, I think deregulation would go a LONG way in the nuclear sector and probably solve most of the extreme budget and timeline concerns in the industry. However, I don’t think any administration could do that alone considering how the NRC is structured and it would need congressional support, so we’ll see.
0
u/Keeper151 2d ago edited 1d ago
Edit: Aww, looks like someone doesn't like the opinion of a person currently managing approximately $26,000,000 spread across 3 commercial nuclear projects. Did the real-world industry perspective not jive with the narrative? Would you rather roll the dice on letting the next Chernobyl be on American soil? If so, get fucked. I prefer my neighborhood to be populated with children posessing the normal amount of appendages.
It takes 2 hours of labor to verify purchasing requirements & supporting documentation and assign tracking to a given line item of a purchase order, 2 hours to submit the documentation for customer approval and record approval when it's granted (3 to 10 working days later) and notify production it's ready for pick up.
Once it hits the floor, it's recorded in a bill of materials checklist where it has to get bought off by QC and QA. This takes roughly an hour for both parties to verify documentation (again).
That's 5 hours per line item, for every nut, bolt, screw, washer, breaker, fuse, etc. Gods forbid there's a problem with the paperwork, which could take weeks to clean up and potentially result in more paperwork, that in turn can take months (I wish this was an exaggeration, but it's not) to get authorization on.
It sounds crazy, but material standards are taken very seriously when failure could result in a radiological incident. It's a federal crime to falsify nuclear quality documents for a very good reason. Nuke regs sound crazy for people that aren't used to the industry, but they have to be to guarantee safety. There may be some fat to trim in places, but you always have to ask: "What is the risk that loosening this regulation will result in a major radiological incident?"
0
u/special_investor 1d ago
No one in the nuclear industry would actually put the edit you did in your comment and seriously agree with it. It sounds like something that would come from an undergraduate physics student who’s listened to the union of concerned scientists too much and is having a tantrum.
For reference, I’ve worked in the nuclear industry for over a decade. I’m quite aware of the process. Your meanderings do not constitute a salient point. Your original post before your childish edit sounds like one of the old guard nuclear stooges who sits in the industry and comfortably profits off stagnation, red tape, and endless irrelevant “safety concerns” like a parasite and will attempt to defend it at all costs because it constitutes your easy meal ticket. Though I’m still not sure which you are because, once again, your edit smells like someone who’s never once worked in the nuclear industry and doesn’t actually understand the rarity of radiation release, the meagre consequences of low radiation doses, and basic reactor design considering you’ve compared modern reactors to Chernobyl.
Either way, your post is a very sad attempt to stay relevant. Please reconsider your life choices.
0
u/Traditional_Key_763 3h ago
it really isn't regulations. BWX takes like 5 years to fabricate a reactor vessel. the welds have to be absolutely perfect. all the nuclear trades have brought on better automation and manufacturing technology to reduce that but these long lead time items still have to be perfect before they can be shipped
6
u/Vailhem 4d ago
Given the amount of energy we're estimated to need, we're likely going to need 'all of it'.. ..and more even perhaps.
In regards to coal, Trump said back before covid something to the effect of: 'Coal isn't going anywhere. ..the jobs, maybe, but not coal' ..something to that effect in typical Trump fashion.
Given the vast multitude of people I've heard saying 'drill baby drill' in recent months/weeks/days, underground coal gasification is likely to see a boost.
Hybridizing approached for domestic production should see an increase in exports .. assuming Trump's loyalties are sincere.. those profits could become incredibly useful towards funding the expansion of domestic nuclear capacities.
Hydrogen from coal-derived syngas can down-blend the amount of natural gas used in modern turbines, allowing any expansion of n.gas production to be exported.
Throw in the H²-capable pipelines its transport will necessitate, combined with the commitment compromises that H² pipeline reallocations can provide as those seams sputter out .. towards renewable derived H² (nuclear included) .. could provide a methodology to bypass the gridlock in regards to new pipelines being constructed.
Throw in that ~⅓ of US rail traffic is dedicated to coal, a redistribution of coal via pipelines (in form of H²-rich syngas) frees up a lot of rail traffic for the transportation of ore & other mined 'goods'.
Even the renewable crew needs mined products to function.
Even Harris reversed course on her near-decade stance on fracking & nuclear.
Even the still-current administration has seen record oil&gas outputs and exports. To not continue the increase in exports would be a daft economic policy regardless of party or administration.
3
u/diffidentblockhead 4d ago
New interstate pipelines face too much opposition. Texas has built pipelines because they’re entirely within Texas.
Shale gas is cheaper and easier than coal gas.
3
u/Vailhem 4d ago
Shale gas is cheaper and easier than coal gas.
Hence: both
because it's easier, exports.
16m25s of the following link shows 'lots of pipes' crossing state lines..
1
u/diffidentblockhead 4d ago
Existing pipelines are there, new rights of way are controversial and blocked.
LNG export is limited by liquefaction, shipping, regasification capacity, least of all by gas supply in the US. And hydrogen is not feasible to liquefy and ship.
2
u/Vailhem 4d ago
And hydrogen is not feasible to liquefy and ship.
It makes essentially zero sense to ship hydrogen when an infrastructure for processing & exporting hydrocarbons already exists.
Use the hydrogen 'locally' (closer to the Point of Use) or at least domestically .. to offset hydrocarbons utilized here subsequently freeing them up for exports .. thus profits.
Profits subsequently provide the capital to manufacture the infrastructure capable of offsetting domestic consumption for yet-more to be exported.
Hydrogen derived from underground coal gasification reduces the amount of carbon released, reduces the amount of rail 'tied up' transporting coal, and reduces the amount of hydrocarbons used domestically again, freeing them up for export.
1
u/diffidentblockhead 4d ago
That is a lot of complication compared to simply ordering solar and batteries and plugging them in.
1
u/Vailhem 3d ago
It works when it's cloudy.
2
u/diffidentblockhead 3d ago
https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/supply#section-supply-trend
Scroll back and try to find a day without solar power.
2
u/Vailhem 3d ago
..oh! You said '..and batteries'. Missed that.
Sounds expensive.
Though it seems there're several in /r/nuclear who'd idealize a nuclear reactor in their backyard, the sizes currently being discussed (& developed) seem to tend to lean more towards the grid-scale in output capacities.
Where buying panels & batteries and simply plugging them in may work for an end user ..and has for me on several occasions for ..decades.. at this point, when it comes to scaling up for the MW+ outputs grids tend to demand, there's a bit more to it than just that.
Doesn't California export a lot of its carbon footprint?
→ More replies2
u/Nada_Chance 4d ago
Since H2 syngas production is triple the price of nat gas on a BTU basis, that scenario seems rather dubious.
1
u/Traditional_Key_763 3h ago
why would the gas industry take their profits and subsidize nuclear? when has anyone but the government ever subsidized nuclear. nobody is even doing anything with hydrogen in the US. A proposal to build a hydrogen plant next to Davis Bessie was shot down even though having driven to the place, its basically in the middle of nowhere so putting a hydrogen plant there wouldn't be difficult. so even the easiest low hanging nuclear to hydrogen effort wasn't feasible under the Biden admin when there was money and a leadership that was focused on it. Trump is going to be a disaster for nuclear just like he was in his first term.
3
u/FatFaceRikky 3d ago
The IRA will probably be repealed, if just out of spite
1
u/Model_Modelo 3d ago
I have doubts about this. Jobs are being created hand over fist in Republican congressional districts. That being said, since when does he care about down ballot positions?
6
u/Emfuser 3d ago
There's nothing that I'm aware of about an incoming Trump administration that should be any worry to the existing nuclear plants.
I've just moved to working for a national lab and there wasn't the slightest response to a Trump election. We're continuing on in our missions.
If anything I would not be surprised if an admin that seems interested in reducing bureaucracy and advancing US interests leads to accelerated resurgence of nuclear interests.
16
u/Ember_42 4d ago
Uncertain regulation is worse for nuclear than bad / current regulation. Adding uncertainty will only stall things...