This article addresses the issue of unstable power supply in South Korea and the importance of nuclear power. It discusses the environmental and economic benefits of nuclear power, the concerns of naysayers, and explains why nuclear power is essential to South Korea.
A long time ago in South Korea, on September 15, 2011, without warning, the electricity exchange cut off power transmission to different parts of the country in a circular fashion. Citizens were inconvenienced by the sudden blackout, and after much confusion, the government’s explanation was that it was done to prevent a major “blackout”. In fact, the worst blackout in history occurred in the eastern United States in 2003. For three days, seven U.S. states and one Canadian province were completely without power, leaving 50 million people inconvenienced, scared, and waiting for the power to return, and causing $6 billion in economic losses. Imagine being without power for three days. If it’s summer, the food in your fridge will quickly spoil, and you can’t make phone calls to check on your loved ones. The TV and radio wouldn’t work, and you’d live in fear, not knowing what was going on.
In South Korea, there is still a possibility of a large-scale blackout due to unstable power supply. In particular, spikes in electricity usage due to heat waves in the summer or cold waves in the winter put a lot of strain on the grid, and the risk of a large-scale blackout increases with repeated events. In addition, unstable power supply and demand can have a serious impact on industry. Large-scale factory shutdowns, disruptions to data centers, and other key elements of the modern economy, such as e-commerce, can be severely impacted by power outages. This, in turn, can have a negative ripple effect throughout a country’s economy.
Back in 2011, KEPCO prevented a similar blackout in South Korea by hastily cycling power to some areas of the country because electricity usage was nearly exceeding supply. Even after such a major incident, the country is still walking a tightrope that could be repeated in the summer or winter when electricity usage is high. As electricity usage continues to increase, new or improved power plants are needed to prevent blackouts and other disasters. Currently, coal-fired thermal power plants account for 35.5% of total electricity generation, followed by nuclear power plants, which generate 29.5%. Other sources include gas and oil-fired power generation, hydropower, and alternative energy, but nuclear power generation accounts for the largest share. Despite this large share, there has been a lot of negative publicity about nuclear power recently. What is nuclear power and what is wrong with it?
Nuclear power is a method of electricity generation that utilizes Einstein’s formula E=mc^2, which means that mass equals energy. Nuclear power typically uses uranium, but heavy elements like uranium are unstable and decay easily. When neutrons, the particles that make up an atom, are bombarded with unstable uranium, the atom splits into smaller elements, two or three neutrons, and heat energy. The new neutrons can then split other uranium, creating a cascade of energy. The particles have less total mass than the initial state, and this mass deficit (m) becomes thermal energy (E), which turns the water into steam. This steam is then used to turn a turbine to generate electricity, which is how nuclear power works. Thermal power generation is similarly based on burning coal to create steam and turning a turbine, but c^2 is a very large number in Einstein’s formula. Fissioning a very small amount of uranium yields a very large amount of energy. In fact, the amount of energy that can be obtained by completely fissioning 1 gram of uranium is equivalent to the amount of energy obtained by burning 3 tons of coal.
The key problem with nuclear power, however, is its danger. With such a huge amount of energy, it’s also extremely dangerous. The atomic bomb that ended World War II was based on the same principle, and the 1986 nuclear explosion in Chernobyl left the city a ghost town for 28 years. And in 2011, the Great East Japan Earthquake, the worst natural disaster in history, triggered the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Three reactors exploded, severely contaminating the ocean and atmosphere with radioactivity. What makes nuclear power dangerous isn’t just the destructive power of an explosion. The aforementioned radioactivity means that the radioactive elements are scattered and continue to emit radiation. Radiation is an electromagnetic wave with a very short wavelength that can penetrate the body and destroy the molecular structure of living things, especially DNA, making it extremely dangerous. This dangerous accident in neighboring Japan has led to widespread opposition to building and maintaining nuclear power plants in Korea.
The fear that “something like the Fukushima accident will happen in Korea if a nuclear power plant is damaged by any disaster” has led to increased opposition. In addition, as extreme weather events caused by climate change have become more frequent in recent years, concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants from natural disasters have also grown. With earthquakes, typhoons, floods, and other disasters becoming more powerful, it has been pointed out that additional safety measures and equipment improvements are essential to ensure the continued safety of nuclear power plants.
However, more than a month after the accident, before the Fukushima disaster was even over, the South Korean government announced that it would not change its plans to build more nuclear power plants. The government is even trying to push ahead with a nuclear plant in Samcheok, where a whopping 85% of residents recently voted against it in a referendum. Nuclear power is important enough for the government to push ahead with construction despite the backlash from residents. I am in favor of maintaining and building more nuclear power plants. The benefits of nuclear power are too great to be discarded for a low-probability risk. Since thermal power generation accounts for a large proportion of electricity production in Japan, let’s compare it with nuclear power generation to see why we cannot abandon nuclear power.
First, nuclear power is more environmentally friendly than thermal power. Thermal power plants are the mainstay of electricity generation because of their simple technology and relative ease of construction. Thermal power plants utilize the heat from burning coal, which produces a lot of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Oil-fired power plants require 1.5 million tons of oil a year to operate a 1 million kW power plant. Naturally, the carbon dioxide emissions are huge. Thermal power plants account for 24% of total domestic carbon dioxide emissions. In recent years, efforts have been made to minimize gas emissions by building carbon capture facilities at thermal power plants. However, the technology is still very limited, and the captured gas is usually repurposed or buried underground, which is inefficient and does not eliminate all of the emissions, as the gas is a byproduct of generating electricity and must be removed at great expense. Nuclear power, on the other hand, is a green energy source with almost no gas emissions. Whereas thermal power produces 991 grams of carbon dioxide per kWh, nuclear power produces only 10 grams. There are no gas emissions from the fuel combustion process, but small amounts are produced during operation and disposal. Therefore, nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that can be used without worrying about global warming.
The second advantage is affordability. It is not just that it is economical in terms of low cost and high efficiency, but also in terms of Korea’s resource environment and export possibilities. As mentioned earlier, thermal power generation requires a lot of fuel. According to Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power, in 2011, South Korea imported $172.8 billion in total energy imports, of which $16.7 billion was for lignite and $1.77 billion for anthracite, while only $8.1 billion was for uranium. Yet it generated 31.3 percent of its electricity that year. This is because the cost of nuclear power plants is low in raw materials and high in other technical aspects. The technical costs do not require foreign capital, but the raw materials are all imported. Thermal power is vulnerable to international politics because most of its costs are spent on importing raw materials. Current estimates of fossil fuel reserves are 40 years for oil, 60 years for natural gas, and 230 years for coal. Coal, the most abundant remaining fuel, is becoming increasingly obsolete due to its high environmental pollution, and dwindling resources and volatile oil prices put thermal power generation on a very shaky footing. However, uranium, which is used in nuclear power generation, is evenly distributed around the world and has large reserves, which, if reprocessed, are expected to last for about 3,600 years, ensuring a steady supply at a stable price.
Korea, a resource-poor country, started developing nuclear power in the 70s to meet its electricity needs, which is more technology-intensive than resource-intensive. Nuclear energy has remained an important part of South Korea’s energy independence. Today, South Korea’s nuclear power generation technology ranks fifth in the world. Since South Korea cannot export resources, exporting nuclear technology is the only way to export energy. Starting with technical support for the operation and maintenance of China’s Guangdong Nuclear Power Plant in 1993, South Korea signed a contract in 2009 to build four Korean nuclear power plants in the United Arab Emirates. The deal was won in competition with France, another nuclear power, making it all the more valuable. Since then, there has been an increasing demand for power plant construction overseas, and it is expected that the export of nuclear power plant technology will continue to play a role in earning foreign currency.
Despite these advantages, opponents of nuclear power are concerned about safety. They say it’s a ticking time bomb that could be triggered by a management lapse like Chernobyl or a natural disaster like Fukushima. But I think the phrase “I’m too scared of maggots to flush my bowels” applies to this situation. Of course, Chernobyl and Fukushima are not “maggots,” but they were both Class 7 accidents, the highest classification, which has only happened twice in the history of nuclear power plants. Since Chernobyl, there have been no major disasters due to management lapses, and Korea does not have the unstable geology of Japan, so the current level of seismic design is sufficient to prevent accidents. In particular, safety measures have been strengthened since the Fukushima disaster. The government has allocated KRW 1 trillion from 2011 to 2015 to improve safety, and to date, 39 out of 56 improvement measures have been implemented. KHNPP also recently won a gold medal for the second consecutive year in the International Competition for Quality Control and Control (ICQCC). The company was recognized for significantly reducing the response time to a hypothetical emergency at the plant, which significantly contributed to securing safety. Korea’s nuclear power plant safety is recognized worldwide. As for radiation, as long as there are no accidents, there is no need to worry too much. Expressed in Sv (sieverts), a unit of radiation exposure, a person receives 2.4 mSv of radiation in one year in natural conditions without any accidents. And according to the Atomic Energy Act, you’re allowed to be exposed to less than 1 mSv for an additional year. These figures come from the United Nations Commission on Radiological Sciences’ survey of the victims of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and are scientifically reliable. You can check the level of radiation in different parts of the country in real time by visiting the National Environmental Radiation Automated Monitoring Network website. If you check near a nuclear power plant that is currently operating smoothly, you can easily see that the radiation level is not high compared to other areas at around 120 nSv per hour. In fact, it’s much lower than in Seoul. So it’s overblown to say that people are against nuclear power because they’re worried about the risk of accidents or radiation leaks.
Others suggest alternative energy sources that pose little risk. Solar, wind, ocean, and bioenergy are some of the most promising greenhouse gas-free alternatives. However, they are not yet technologically ready to replace nuclear energy, which is much more efficient, or suitable for domestic use. Solar energy is the most popular because it’s pollution-free and infinitely available. However, South Korea doesn’t get much sunshine and solar cells are only about 30W/m^2 efficient, so it would take 10 million square kilometers of solar cells to power a 950MW nuclear power plant. This may be fine for home use, but it’s not enough to power the entire country. The same goes for wind power. Wind power is inexpensive to install and utilizes the wind as an inexhaustible source of energy, but it is not feasible for domestic operation. Currently, wind turbines can be seen all over Jeju Island, but they produce only a small amount of electricity, covering only a small portion of the island’s electricity usage. There is currently a push to develop and install large wind turbines in the 3MW class, but Korea’s lack of access to the open ocean means that they are expected to be very inefficient compared to the 6562MW of offshore wind power in Europe, which spans 11 countries. Other power generation methods have potential but are still underdeveloped or limited, so they are rarely used and have significantly lower efficiency. In the end, nuclear power is the only way to replace fossil fuel power generation at this point.
So far, we’ve seen why South Korea’s electricity supply and demand depends on nuclear power. Even now, electricity consumption is on the verge of exceeding supply, so the government is considering maintaining power plants and building new ones as needed. And of all the ways to generate electricity, nuclear power is the most suitable. First of all, thermal power generation produces a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, whereas nuclear power generation produces only a small amount of greenhouse gas emissions. This makes it a very attractive resource for sustainable development as the world tries to limit carbon emissions. Secondly, nuclear power has great economic potential. Fossil fuels are a potentially risky resource in a country that is absolutely short of them and has to rely almost entirely on foreign sources. However, the uranium used in nuclear power generation is abundant and evenly distributed around the world, so there is no risk of weaponization of the resource, and the price of the resource required for power generation is extremely low. It is a technology-intensive power generation. South Korea has world-leading nuclear power generation technology. Since winning the UAE nuclear power plant in 2009, nuclear technology has also become an export item. Despite these irrefutable advantages, many people oppose nuclear power because of the risk of accidents and the existence of other alternatives. However, nuclear accidents are extremely rare, and enhanced safety measures since the Fukushima disaster have made it a safer way to generate electricity. And South Korea’s nuclear safety technology is globally recognized, so it would be irrational for the country to abandon nuclear power with its many benefits. Currently, the most popular alternative energies are solar and wind power, which are not considered to be responsible for domestic power generation from an environmental and technical perspective. Therefore, nuclear power is an energy source with unlimited potential that South Korea cannot afford to give up. We look forward to the day when nuclear power will be proven safe enough to silence the naysayers.
