Since the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, the safety of nuclear power and the limits of alternative energy development have emerged as global issues. South Korea has been reexamining the need for nuclear power to stabilize energy supply and reduce carbon dioxide, and is expanding nuclear power plants and developing alternative energy sources in parallel.
In March 2011, the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan became a major global issue. Since then, the safety of nuclear power has become a hot topic, and the development of alternative energy sources has been actively pursued along with skepticism about nuclear power around the world. However, despite the potential for catastrophe, including the risk of radioactive emissions, nuclear power remains attractive due to its low cost of electricity and low carbon dioxide emissions. The argument for shutting down nuclear power plants is often seen as unrealistic, especially since there are no realistic alternatives to meet current energy needs if they were to shut down abruptly.
Cutting back on nuclear power plants will not help South Korea’s development. A recent power outage at Seoul National University. If the country is already experiencing power shortages despite the fact that nuclear power plants are currently providing the country with the energy it needs, cutting back on nuclear power plants will only exacerbate the problem. Since the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, people around the world have become very wary of nuclear power, and Northeast Asian countries such as South Korea, Japan, and China are among the most active regions for nuclear power plant construction and operation. As a result, there is more public concern and fear than in other countries. But the reality is that South Korea can’t afford to shut down its nuclear power industry anytime soon. Fossil fuels are becoming increasingly scarce, and solar and wind power alone will not be enough to meet our energy needs.
While there are risks to the industry, nuclear energy is seen as the last major source of energy for resource-poor South Korea. In fact, if South Korea invests more in nuclear energy while other countries are slowing down, the country’s energy industry will be able to develop further.
South Korea is a resource-poor country that imports 97% of its energy, and nuclear power is cheap to generate, contributing to the country’s international competitiveness and price stability. Unlike Europe, South Korea does not have a grid connection with neighboring countries, making it essential to secure its own cheap and reliable power supply. Based on the cost of electricity 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 phasing out of nuclear power plants, but have no concrete plans to cover the resulting shortfall in electricity supply. Germany has limited the age of its nuclear reactors to 32 years and banned the construction of new reactors, which is partly a result of the ruling Green Party’s anti-nuclear stance. The United Kingdom has also stated that it has no plans to build new reactors for the foreseeable future, but it has not announced the closure of any reactors as claimed by anti-nuclear groups. Rather, the UK and Finland are considering building new reactors, and the Netherlands withdrew its plans in September 2002 to close the Borssele plant in 2004. The United States has reversed course with its Nuclear Power 2010 program, and Japan is planning to build 13 additional reactors by 2010. France generates about 75% of its electricity from nuclear power, which it exports to other European countries. The U.S. is actively promoting nuclear power through efforts to increase the output of existing plants, which has resulted in the construction of four new units. Japan currently has 54 nuclear reactors in operation, despite the country’s history of atomic bomb damage and earthquakes, and resource-poor France has 57 nuclear reactors.
Looking at the status of alternative energy, we can see that even in developed countries, the technology and economics of alternative energy are still far from being practical as a large-scale energy source. Korea has been promoting the development of alternative energy technologies in earnest since 1988, when the ‘Alternative Energy Development Promotion Act’ was enacted and implemented in December 1987 and the ‘Basic Plan for Alternative Energy Technology Development’ was established. It was later amended to the ‘Act on Promotion of Alternative Energy Development and Utilization’ (December 1997), which provided legal basis for alternative energy use recommendations, pilot projects, subsidies and loans, tax support, and use of state-owned property. To promote the widespread use of alternative energy, the government supports the difference between the production price and the selling price in the electricity market when electricity is generated using alternative energy such as solar and wind power. The reference price per kWh is KRW 716.40 for solar, KRW 107.66 for wind, and KRW 73.69 for hydropower. The percentage of alternative energy supply in developed countries 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. Limitations of alternative energy include the fact that wind and solar power are currently at least two to 15 times more expensive than conventional energy, and that they require large land areas for environmental reasons. In terms of energy security, alternative energy is only a supplementary source of power.
Even in developed countries, where alternative energy research is ongoing, there are still technological and economic challenges to making it practical as a large-scale energy source. In addition, greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming, are mainly emitted from fossil fuels, so there is a strong movement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the use of fossil fuels, especially in developed countries. Although Korea is not obligated to reduce emissions, it is necessary to actively pursue energy policies in preparation for international environmental regulations. Countries around the world are working to develop alternative energy sources that do not emit carbon dioxide, and are looking to expand or promote nuclear power generation as an alternative. Korea is also expanding nuclear power generation and promoting the development of alternative energy sources to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels overseas. 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 this.
Currently, about 30% of South Korea’s electricity is supplied by nuclear power plants. Without them, South Korea would face severe power shortages, as evidenced by the shutdown of a nuclear power plant a few weeks ago, which significantly reduced the amount of standby power. While it is true that nuclear power plants are expensive to build, they are cheaper to produce electricity than 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 the reactors are loaded, they don’t need to be refueled for 12 to 18 months, so there is a fuel stockpile effect. In fact, South Korea’s $40 billion in exports from the UAE nuclear power plant order is the economic equivalent of exporting 2 million Hyundai NF Sonatas or 360 super tankers of 300,000 tons.
Nuclear power produces fewer carbon emissions than other energy sources, making it close to the greenest form of energy used by South Koreans. The cost of fossil fuels used in South Korea accounts for 85% of total energy consumption and has the highest carbon dioxide growth rate, making nuclear power essential for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The main reason for opposition to nuclear power is the issue of safety. While the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents are often cited as examples, Japanese and Korean nuclear power plants are not the same. While Japanese nuclear power plants are focused on the efficiency of power production, South Korean nuclear power plants are designed with safety in mind. South Korean reactors are equipped with five layers of safety and are unlikely to suffer a hydrogen explosion, which would be slow to occur. In addition, South Korea’s location inside the Eurasian Plate makes it unlikely that an earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or greater would occur, and the reactors themselves are designed to prevent the release of radiation and coolant even if an earthquake were to occur directly beneath them. The accident at Chernobyl was caused by researcher error, not environmental factors, and the damage was caused by slow control and operation that ignored design principles. For these reasons, reducing the number of nuclear power plants in South Korea could exacerbate the energy shortage.
