South Korea’s plans to build more nuclear power plants are still hotly debated. We discuss the safety of nuclear power, the feasibility of alternative energy, and the need to build more nuclear power plants in South Korea and Japan.
The controversy over the 7th Basic Plan for Electricity Supply and Demand, released by the Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy (MOTIE) a long time ago, has not abated. The plan included two additional nuclear power plants in the 2030 power generation mix. The issue of installing nuclear power plants has been debated for a long time. There are many arguments against building more nuclear power plants, including that they should be avoided because of the damage they can cause in the event of an accident, that the country should increase its share of renewable energy and reduce nuclear power generation, and that the country can meet its demand without building more nuclear power plants, but they are the best option for energy-poor South Korea.
The first and foremost argument used by opponents is that “nuclear power is unsafe”. The question of nuclear power plant safety has been raised consistently in the past and has recently become more important after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. The bottom line is that Korean nuclear power plants are safe. First, let’s take a look at how nuclear power plants are built. Nuclear power plants are built in places where tectonic shifts are extremely unlikely to occur. Sites that have experienced at least one earthquake in the past 50,000 years or two earthquakes in the past 500,000 years are excluded from consideration. These sites are then added to the seismic design. Currently, nuclear power plants in South Korea are designed to withstand an earthquake measuring 6.5 on the Richter scale, and the seismic design standard will be raised to 7.0 for new plants built in the future. Given the geography of South Korea, which is much safer from earthquakes because it is on the inside of a tectonic plate, as opposed to Japan, which is on the edge of a tectonic plate, the carefully selected and robust seismic design of South Korea’s nuclear power plants makes them very safe. Data shows that there have been no earthquakes large enough to affect the plants since South Korea began monitoring weather. Arguing that we shouldn’t build more nuclear power plants because there have been accidents in other countries is like saying we shouldn’t drive a car because we’re afraid of getting into an accident. If we’re concerned about safety, we should use Chernobyl and Fukushima as a wake-up call and focus our efforts on setting stricter safety standards and making our power generation facilities safer, not on arguing that nuclear power is inherently dangerous and shouldn’t be used anymore.
Many people talk about renewable energy as an alternative to nuclear power. However, even if we increase the share of renewable energy in our power supply, it is not realistic to replace nuclear power plants in Korea. Taking wind power, which is currently the most popular form of power generation, as an example, a new 1,500 MW nuclear power plant would require a power generation site four times the size of Yeouido. According to data from the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, wind power requires 336 times the area required by nuclear power plants to generate the same amount of electricity. What about solar power? Solar’s power generation efficiency requires 44 square kilometers to generate 1,000 MW. That’s more than 10 times the size of Yeouido, and more than 70 times the area required for a nuclear power plant. With such a small landmass, it is difficult for South Korea to actively utilize renewable energy. Germany is often cited as an example of efficiently utilizing renewable energy, and Korea should follow suit. However, it is not fair to compare Korea and Germany in the same way. First, Germany’s capacity reserve ratio was 82% in 2013. Germany, which was able to meet its own electricity needs and even export energy to other countries until just before it announced its nuclear phase-out, has stopped generating electricity through nuclear power and is now an energy importer, buying electricity from neighboring countries with nuclear power plants to meet its late-night electricity needs when the sun goes down. The “unreliability” of solar and wind power means that Germany has to import energy from other countries even though it has nearly five times the reserve capacity of South Korea. With less than 15% of the country’s capacity utilization, there is no guarantee that the same kind of disaster will not happen again if we rely on alternative energy instead of stable sources like nuclear power. Second, Europe has a well-developed energy grid. Germany, with its high share of renewable energy, actually has the physical system in place to import electricity from neighboring countries when demand exceeds supply. South Korea, on the other hand, has to balance its own supply and demand, with North Korea on top and the sea on three sides. Therefore, it is essential to secure a stable energy base.
Let’s look at neighboring Japan. Like South Korea, Japan is an energy-poor country that can hardly supply its own energy and cannot import electricity from elsewhere, so it has relied on nuclear power as its main source of electricity despite its geographical disadvantage of being on the edge of tectonic plates in the Pacific Rim. A few years ago, it was hit by an unprecedented natural disaster. In the aftermath of Fukushima, Japan scrapped plans to build more nuclear reactors under the slogan “Zero Nuclear Power,” and embarked on an overhaul of its energy policy and industrial structure, increasing the share of renewables and fossil fuels. But even with a nearly 30% capacity reserve and electricity prices that have nearly doubled, supply has struggled to keep up with demand. The rising cost of energy imports is a major contributor to Japan’s trade deficit, which is reaching new highs every year. As a result, even Japan, a party to and the biggest victim of the Fukushima disaster, has pulled out the nuclear reactivation card again, with the share of nuclear power in its energy mix set to rise to more than 20% in 2030. This reliable source of energy is vital for sustaining a country’s economy. In countries like South Korea and Japan, where energy self-sufficiency is almost non-existent, nuclear power is the only source of energy they can rely on. Nuclear power is not only the best option for increasing energy self-sufficiency because it can derive large amounts of energy from very small amounts of uranium, but it is also a sustainable source of power generation because of its growing estimated reserves. According to global energy demand forecasts, imported energy prices, including fossil fuels, are expected to rise steeply due to rising energy demand in non-OECD countries. Considering this, increasing the amount of energy procurement through the construction of additional nuclear power plants is a necessary measure.
The world, including Korea, is becoming increasingly electrified. In Korea, electricity is used to cool and heat homes, as well as greenhouses in rural areas to create an environment and grow crops. While the global economic instability has caused a pause, Korea’s manufacturing-based industrial structure and the importance of exports to the country’s economy make it inevitable that electricity demand will continue to grow. As a country that imports most of its energy, it is difficult to develop without a reliable source of energy. Looking at the examples of other countries that have managed to do away with nuclear power and suggesting that we follow suit is like trying to follow the stork. In a way, we got a big shot in the arm with Fukushima. Japan, which is similar to Korea in many ways in the energy industry, can help us navigate our way forward. If you look at Japan, which is similar to Korea in many ways in the energy industry, and you see that they had to rely on nuclear power even after a national disaster, building more nuclear power plants is like a road with no alternative. Therefore, rather than opposing the idea of building more nuclear reactors, we should have a more realistic discussion about how to build them more safely and how to operate them more environmentally friendly.
