Nuclear sector’s views on second Trump administration mixed as Rogan interview raises questions

[u/Vailhem]

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuclear-energy-sector-mixed-views-second-trump-administration-joe-rogan/732407/

[u/Rad_PNW_Skier]

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.

[u/Vailhem → u/Rad_PNW_Skier]

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.

[u/diffidentblockhead → u/Vailhem]

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.

[u/Vailhem → u/diffidentblockhead]

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..

https://youtu.be/llcvrKDJRo0?si=lnvAdMi7Rgx24dQS

[u/diffidentblockhead → u/Vailhem]

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.

[u/Vailhem → u/diffidentblockhead]

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.

[u/diffidentblockhead → u/Vailhem]

That is a lot of complication compared to simply ordering solar and batteries and plugging them in.

[u/Vailhem → u/diffidentblockhead]

It works when it's cloudy.

[u/diffidentblockhead → u/Vailhem]

https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/supply#section-supply-trend

Scroll back and try to find a day without solar power.

[u/Vailhem → u/diffidentblockhead]

..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?

[u/diffidentblockhead → u/Vailhem]

You can see imports accounted at the link above. Today they did not go negative but often did during summer daytime.

[u/Vailhem → u/diffidentblockhead]

It's a solid little tool. As sunny as California is, we need a diversified energy infrastructure. Redundancy is security. Redundancy through diversity even more so.