Since the Fukushima accident, there has been an ongoing debate about the safety and necessity of nuclear power. Is nuclear power really essential to Korea’s energy future?
The nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan in March 2011 became a major global issue. Since then, the safety of nuclear power plants has become a hot topic, and the development of alternative energy sources is being actively pursued along with a growing skepticism of nuclear power plants around the world. However, despite the potential for disaster that nuclear power plants pose, such as the risk of radioactive material emissions, their advantages of low power generation costs and low carbon dioxide emissions are still attractive. In particular, if nuclear power plants are suddenly shut down, there is no realistic alternative to meet current energy needs, so the argument that nuclear power plants should be shut down unconditionally is sometimes considered unrealistic.
Reducing the number of nuclear power plants will not help Korea’s development. Recently, there was a power outage at Seoul National University. If the current situation of power shortage persists even though nuclear power plants are supplying the country’s energy needs, the problem of power shortage will become even more serious if the number of nuclear power plants is reduced. Since the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, people around the world have become wary of nuclear power, and Northeast Asian countries such as South Korea, Japan, and China are among the most active in building and operating nuclear power plants. Therefore, there is bound to be more public interest and fear than in other countries. However, there is also the reality that South Korea is not in a position to stop the nuclear power industry immediately. Fossil fuels are gradually being depleted, and it is difficult to meet energy needs with solar and wind power alone.
It is true that the nuclear power industry is risky. However, in a resource-poor country like Korea, nuclear power is considered the last major source of energy. In fact, if Korea invests more in the nuclear power industry while other countries are holding back, the country’s energy industry will be able to develop further.
Korea is a resource-poor country that imports 97% of its energy, and nuclear power contributes to improving the international competitiveness of the industry and stabilizing prices due to its low power generation costs. Unlike Europe, Korea is not connected to the power grid of neighboring countries, so it is essential to secure a cheap and stable power supply on its own. Based on the cost of power generation in 2024 (KRW/kWh), nuclear power is KRW 42.57, coal is KRW 45.00, oil is KRW 75.00, and LNG is KRW 110.00. Germany and Sweden have announced the phase-out of nuclear power plants, but have not yet come up with specific plans to cover the resulting power shortfall. Germany has limited the operating life of nuclear power plants to 32 years and banned the construction of new nuclear power plants. This is a result of the ruling party guaranteeing some level of operation as the anti-nuclear Green Party is in power. The United Kingdom has also stated that it has no plans to build new nuclear power plants for the time being, but it has not announced the closure of nuclear power plants, as anti-nuclear groups claim. On the contrary, the UK and Finland are considering building new nuclear power plants, and the Netherlands withdrew its plan to close the Borssele nuclear power plant in 2004 in September 2002. The United States has reversed its policy of promoting nuclear power through the Nuclear Power 2010 program, and Japan plans to build 13 additional nuclear power plants by 2010. France generates about 75% of its electricity from nuclear power and exports this electricity to other European countries. The United States is actively promoting nuclear power by increasing the output of existing plants, which will result in the construction of four new nuclear power plants. Japan, a country with many atomic bomb victims and earthquakes, currently operates 54 nuclear power plants, and France, which has few natural resources, also operates 57 nuclear power plants.
Looking at the current status of alternative energy, we can see that even in the case of advanced countries, it is still difficult to use alternative energy as a practical large-capacity energy source due to technology and economic feasibility. In Korea, the Alternative Energy Development Promotion Act was enacted and implemented in December 1987, and the Basic Plan for Alternative Energy Technology Development was established, and full-scale technology development has been promoted since 1988. The Act was later amended into the Alternative Energy Development, Utilization and Promotion Act (December 1997), which established the legal basis for alternative energy utilization recommendations, pilot projects, subsidies/loans, tax support, and use of government property. In order to expand the use of alternative energy, the government supports the difference between the production price and the sales price in the electricity market for the production of electricity using alternative energy such as solar and wind power. The standard prices by power generation source are 716.40 won per kWh for solar power, 107.66 won for wind power and 73.69 won for small hydro power. Looking at the share of alternative energy supply in developed countries, it is 8.5% in Denmark, 4.5% in France, 4.1% in the United States, 2.1% in Japan, and 1.03% in South Korea. Due to the limitations of alternative energy, wind and solar power are currently at least twice and up to 15 times as expensive as conventional energy in terms of economic feasibility, and they require large areas of land for environmental reasons. In terms of energy security, alternative energy is only a supplemental source of power.
Even in the case of advanced countries where alternative energy is being researched, there are still realistic difficulties in terms of technology and economic feasibility to commercialize it as a large-scale energy source. In addition, since greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which are the main cause of global warming, are mainly emitted from fossil fuels, there is a growing movement among advanced countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the use of fossil fuels. Although South Korea is not a country with mandatory reduction obligations, it must actively pursue energy policies in preparation for international environmental regulations. Countries around the world are seeking to develop alternative energy sources that do not emit carbon dioxide and are looking to expand or promote nuclear power generation as an alternative. South Korea is also expanding nuclear power generation and is in the process of developing alternative energy sources to reduce its dependence on overseas fossil fuels. In particular, the power generation sector accounts for 21.8% of Korea’s total carbon dioxide emissions, and many believe that expanding nuclear power generation is inevitable as a way to reduce these emissions.
Currently, about 30% of Korea’s electricity is supplied by nuclear power plants. Since the amount of standby power was greatly reduced when the nuclear power plants were shut down a few weeks ago, Korea would face a serious power shortage without nuclear power plants. While it is true that nuclear power plants are expensive to build, the cost of producing electricity is cheaper than that of thermal, wind, and hydroelectric power, making them more economical in the long run. The uranium used during operation is much cheaper than oil or natural gas, and once loaded into the reactor, the fuel does not need to be replaced for 12 to 18 months, so it can also be expected to have a fuel storage effect. In fact, the $40 billion in exports that South Korea earned by winning the UAE nuclear power plant contract is equivalent to the economic impact of exporting 2 million Hyundai NF Sonata cars or 360 300,000-ton supertankers.
Nuclear power generation produces less carbon emissions than other energy sources, making it the most environmentally friendly energy source used by the Korean people. In Korea, the cost of fossil fuels used accounts for 85% of total energy consumption and the rate of carbon dioxide increase is the highest, making nuclear power generation essential for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The main reason for opposition to nuclear power is the issue of safety. Chernobyl and Fukushima are often cited as examples, but nuclear power plants in Japan and South Korea are not the same. Japanese nuclear power plants focus on the efficiency of power generation, while South Korean nuclear power plants are designed with safety in mind. The nuclear power plants in South Korea are equipped with five layers of safety devices, and the possibility of hydrogen explosion is low, so even if an accident occurs, the speed of progression is slow. In addition, South Korea is located within the Eurasian plate, so there is almost no possibility of a strong earthquake of 7.0 or higher, and even if an earthquake occurs directly under the nuclear power plant, it is designed to prevent the leakage of radiation and cooling water, so there is no possibility of a crack in the nuclear power plant itself. The Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident was caused by a mistake made by researchers, not by environmental factors. In addition, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was slow to respond and its damage was exacerbated by operation that ignored design principles. For these reasons, reducing the number of nuclear power plants in South Korea could exacerbate the energy shortage.
