Since the Fukushima nuclear disaster, debates over the safety and necessity of nuclear power have continued. Is nuclear power truly essential to South Korea’s energy future?
The Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, which occurred in March 2011, became a major global issue. Since then, the safety of nuclear power plants has emerged as a hot-button issue, and amid growing skepticism worldwide, the development of alternative energy sources is actively underway. However, despite the potential for disaster associated with nuclear power plants—such as the risk of radioactive material leaks—their advantages, including low generation costs and low carbon dioxide emissions, remain attractive. In particular, since there is no realistic alternative to meet current energy demand if nuclear power plants were suddenly shut down, the argument for unconditional closure is often considered unrealistic.
Reducing the number of nuclear power plants would not benefit South Korea’s energy development. Recently, a power outage occurred even at Seoul National University. If there is a power shortage like this despite nuclear power plants currently supplying the energy the nation needs, the energy shortage problem will become even more severe if nuclear power plants are reduced. Since the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, people around the world have become highly wary of nuclear power, and Northeast Asian countries such as South Korea, Japan, and China are among the regions most active in the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. Consequently, public interest and fear are inevitably greater here than in other countries. However, the reality is that South Korea does not have the luxury of halting its nuclear power industry immediately. Fossil fuels are gradually being depleted, and it is difficult to meet energy demand with solar or wind power alone.
It is true that the nuclear industry carries risks. However, in resource-poor South Korea, nuclear energy is considered the last remaining major energy source. In fact, if South Korea invests more in the nuclear industry while other countries are hesitating, Korea’s energy sector could develop even further.
South Korea is a resource-poor country that imports 97% of its energy, and because nuclear power has low generation costs, it contributes to enhancing the industry’s international competitiveness and stabilizing prices. Unlike Europe, South Korea is not connected to the power grids of neighboring countries, making it essential to secure its own cheap and stable power supply. Based on 2024 generation costs (KRW/kWh), nuclear power costs 42.57 won, coal 45.00 won, oil 75.00 won, and LNG 110.00 won. Although countries such as Germany and Sweden have announced the phased closure of nuclear power plants, they have yet to devise concrete plans to compensate for the resulting power supply shortages. Germany limits the operating life of nuclear power plants to 32 years and prohibits the construction of new plants; this is the result of the ruling party, the Green Party—which maintains an anti-nuclear stance—guaranteeing a certain level of operation. 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 a shutdown of nuclear power plants as anti-nuclear groups claim. On the contrary, the UK and Finland are considering the construction of new nuclear power plants, and the Netherlands withdrew its plan to close the Borssele plant in 2004 in September 2002. The United States has shifted its policy to promote nuclear power through the “Nuclear Power 2010” program, and Japan also plans to construct 13 additional reactors by 2010. France meets approximately 75% of its electricity needs through nuclear power and exports this electricity to various European countries. The United States is actively promoting nuclear power operations by achieving the equivalent effect of building four new reactors through efforts to increase the output of existing plants. Despite being a country prone to earthquakes and having suffered the devastation of atomic bombs, Japan currently operates 54 nuclear reactors, and France, which lacks natural resources, also operates 57 reactors.
Looking at the current status of alternative energy, even in the examples of developed countries, it is evident that the practical application of alternative energy as a large-scale energy source remains difficult due to technological and economic constraints. In Korea, following the enactment and implementation of the “Alternative Energy Development Promotion Act” in December 1987, the “Basic Plan for Alternative Energy Technology Development” was established, and full-scale technology development has been pursued since 1988. Subsequently, the law was revised into the “Act on the Promotion of Alternative Energy Development, Utilization, and Dissemination” (December 1997), establishing a legal framework for alternative energy utilization recommendations, pilot projects, subsidies and loans, tax incentives, and the use of state- and public-owned property. To expand the dissemination of alternative energy, the government subsidizes the difference between the production cost and the market selling price when electricity is generated using alternative energy sources such as solar and wind power. The standard prices per kWh by power source are 716.40 won for solar, 107.66 won for wind, and 73.69 won for small-scale hydro. Looking at the percentage of alternative energy in the energy mix of developed countries, Denmark stands at 8.5%, France at 4.5%, the United States at 4.1%, Japan at 2.1%, and South Korea at 1.03%. In terms of economic viability, a limitation of alternative energy is that wind and solar power are currently at least two to fifteen times more expensive than conventional energy sources. From an environmental perspective, they require large land areas. In terms of energy security, alternative energy serves only as a supplementary power source.
Even in developed countries where alternative energy research is underway, practical difficulties in terms of technology and economic viability remain when attempting to commercialize them as large-scale energy sources. Furthermore, since greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide—a major cause of global warming—are primarily emitted from fossil fuels, there is a growing movement, particularly among developed nations, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by curbing the use of fossil fuels. Although South Korea is not a country with mandatory emission reduction obligations, it needs to actively pursue energy policies in preparation for international environmental regulations. Countries around the world are striving to develop alternative energy sources that do not emit carbon dioxide, and are exploring the expansion or promotion of nuclear power as an alternative. South Korea is also expanding nuclear power generation to reduce its dependence on imported fossil fuels and is actively pursuing the development of alternative energy sources. In particular, since the power generation sector accounts for 21.8% of the country’s total carbon dioxide emissions, there is a widespread view that expanding nuclear power is inevitable as a means to reduce these emissions.
Currently, approximately 30% of South Korea’s electricity is supplied by nuclear power plants. Just as the available power supply dropped significantly a few weeks ago when a nuclear power plant ceased operations, South Korea would face a severe power shortage without nuclear power plants. While it is true that the construction costs of nuclear power plants are high, the cost of electricity production is lower than that of thermal, wind, and hydroelectric power, making it more economical in the long run. The uranium used during operation is much cheaper than oil or natural gas, and since fuel does not need to be replaced for about 12 to 18 months once loaded into a reactor, it also offers the benefit of fuel stockpiling. In fact, the $40 billion in exports generated by South Korea’s contract to build nuclear power plants in the UAE has the same economic impact as exporting 2 million Hyundai NF Sonatas or 360 300,000-ton supertankers.
Nuclear power generates fewer carbon emissions than other energy sources, making it the most environmentally friendly energy source used by the Korean public. Since fossil fuels account for 85% of total energy consumption in Korea and have the highest rate of carbon dioxide increase, nuclear power is essential for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The primary reason cited against nuclear power is the issue of “safety.” While the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents are often cited as examples, nuclear power plants in Japan and South Korea cannot be viewed as having the same structure. Japanese nuclear plants focus on the efficiency of power generation, whereas South Korean plants were designed with safety in mind. South Korean nuclear power plants are equipped with five layers of safety measures, and the risk of a hydrogen explosion is low, so even if an accident occurs, its progression is slow. Furthermore, since South Korea is located within the Eurasian Plate, the likelihood of a major earthquake with a magnitude of 7.0 or higher is virtually nonexistent. Even if an earthquake were to occur directly beneath a nuclear power plant, the plants are designed to prevent the leakage of radioactive material and coolant, making it highly unlikely that the plant structure itself would crack. The Chernobyl nuclear accident was caused by human error on the part of researchers, not by environmental factors. Furthermore, the Chernobyl plant had slow control response times, and the damage was exacerbated by operations that disregarded design principles. For these reasons, reducing the number of nuclear power plants in Korea could further exacerbate energy shortages.
