In this blog post, we will examine the environmental groups’ arguments for phasing out nuclear power and the debate surrounding the necessity of nuclear power generation, and explore the significance of nuclear power from the perspective of current electricity supply and demand and energy policy.
Are the environmental groups’ arguments for phasing out nuclear power and their rationale valid?
On September 15, 2011, South Korea experienced a power crisis when electricity demand approached supply levels, causing a sharp drop in reserve capacity. Known as the “September 15 Rolling Blackout Incident,” this event became a prime example of the vulnerability of South Korea’s power supply system, as nationwide rolling blackouts were implemented. Although situations where reserve power dropped significantly recurred whenever heat waves and cold snaps struck in the years that followed, large-scale rolling blackouts like those seen at the time have not occurred thanks to policies to expand power generation capacity and stabilize the power grid.
Currently, nuclear power still plays a crucial role in South Korea’s electricity production. However, the structure of electricity production has changed compared to 2013. Recently, nuclear power accounts for around 30% of total electricity generation and serves as one of South Korea’s primary power sources alongside natural gas (LNG), coal, and renewable energy. While the government’s energy policies have varied over time, recent efforts have focused on utilizing both nuclear power and renewable energy in conjunction, taking into account carbon neutrality and energy security.
Although nuclear power continues to play a vital role in South Korea’s electricity production, some environmental groups are calling for the closure or phased phase-out of nuclear power plants. Various environmental organizations, including the Korea Federation for Environmental Movements and Greenpeace, have consistently advocated for a nuclear-free future since the Fukushima nuclear accident and have demanded an energy transition centered on renewable energy.
There are some differences in the specific positions held by these groups. While some advocate for the immediate shutdown of nuclear power plants, others argue that the share of nuclear power should be reduced gradually, taking into account the current high level of dependence on nuclear energy. However, they share a common stance that, ultimately, reliance on nuclear power must be reduced and a phase-out of nuclear power must be pursued.
Proponents of phasing out nuclear power primarily emphasize the dangers of nuclear power by citing the Fukushima nuclear accident or argue for its abolition based on the possibility of future accidents. However, some of these claims require further scrutiny in terms of scientific facts and statistical interpretation. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the evidence presented by environmental groups in support of phasing out nuclear power, while also reviewing the role that nuclear power currently plays in South Korea’s electricity supply.
Controversies Over Nuclear Waste and Nuclear Power Plant Safety
Since commercial nuclear power generation currently relies on nuclear fission, it produces spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. Nuclear waste refers to radioactive materials or substances contaminated with radioactive nuclides generated not only at nuclear power plants but also at hospitals and research institutions. One of the main reasons environmental groups oppose nuclear power is the issue of how to dispose of this radioactive waste.
In South Korea, low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste is managed at the Gyeongju Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, while spent nuclear fuel is currently stored in interim storage facilities on the sites of each nuclear power plant. However, a permanent disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel has not yet been established, and public debate on this issue continues. Consequently, while radioactive waste management technology is constantly advancing, the problem of long-term disposal of spent nuclear fuel remains a challenge to be addressed.
Nevertheless, the currently operating radioactive waste disposal facilities employ a multiple-barrier system in accordance with international standards and are subject to ongoing safety assessments and regulation. In addition, the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission and the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS) continuously monitor the safety of radioactive waste management and nuclear power plant operations.
Next, let’s examine the issue of nuclear power plant safety. The Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents are the most frequently cited examples when discussing the risks of nuclear power plants. Environmental groups argue, based on these accidents, that similar incidents could occur in South Korea as well.
However, the Chernobyl reactor differs significantly in design from the pressurized water reactors currently operating in South Korea. The Chernobyl accident is assessed to have resulted from a combination of design flaws and non-compliance with safety procedures.
The Fukushima nuclear accident was also directly caused by extreme natural disasters—a massive earthquake and a tsunami. Following the Fukushima accident, countries around the world significantly strengthened their nuclear safety standards.
South Korea, too, has implemented various follow-up measures to enhance nuclear power plant safety in the wake of the Fukushima accident. Numerous safety measures have been added, including reinforcing coastal barriers, securing mobile power generation equipment, improving emergency cooling water supply systems, supplementing guidelines for managing severe accidents, and installing hydrogen removal systems; the country also continues to incorporate recommendations from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Currently, South Korea’s nuclear power plants undergo not only inspections by domestic regulatory agencies but also verification in accordance with international safety standards.
Errors in Statistical Interpretation and Exaggerated Claims
It has also been pointed out that some of the data presented by environmental groups contains problems with statistical interpretation.
For example, in the past, some parties calculated the probability of a nuclear accident in South Korea by simply multiplying the global accident rate at nuclear power plants by the number of nuclear power plants in the country. However, this method is not statistically appropriate.
This is because each nuclear power plant differs in design, operating environment, safety equipment, and regulatory standards, and the likelihood of an accident at each cannot simply be assumed to be the same. Furthermore, since probability must be calculated by considering independence and conditions, deriving a specific country’s accident probability through simple multiplication is not statistically valid.
In another instance, some past reports presented simulation results suggesting that a nuclear accident would result in massive casualties. However, these analyses were often based on assumptions such as conditions identical to those at the Chernobyl plant, the absence of a containment structure, or a complete lack of resident evacuation; thus, it was difficult to view them as accurately reflecting the actual design and operating environments of South Korean nuclear power plants.
Of course, these points do not deny the risks of nuclear accidents. Even if the probability of a nuclear accident is extremely low, the scale of damage can be immense if one were to occur; therefore, continuous safety enhancements and strict regulation are absolutely necessary. Consequently, discussions regarding nuclear safety must be based on objective data and scientific evidence, rather than exaggeration or downplaying of the risks.
Is nuclear power still essential for the current electricity supply?
We have examined the limitations of some of the arguments presented by environmental groups in favor of phasing out nuclear power. So, is nuclear power still a necessary source of electricity to meet current demand?
Electricity is essential infrastructure for national economic development and maintaining the quality of life for citizens. A shortage in the electricity supply would have a major impact on society as a whole—including industrial production, healthcare, telecommunications, and transportation—and restoring it would require significant time and expense. Therefore, a stable electricity supply is a crucial factor in the operation of a nation.
Following the Fukushima nuclear accident, Japan sequentially shut down most of its nuclear power plants. As a result, the country faced problems such as increased fossil fuel imports, rising electricity rates, and instability in the electricity supply. Since then, Japan has been gradually restarting nuclear power plants that have passed safety reviews, taking both energy security and carbon neutrality into account. In other words, Japan did not completely abandon nuclear power after the Fukushima accident but adjusted its policy to resume the operation of some plants after enhancing safety measures.
This does not mean that the risks associated with nuclear power should be overlooked; rather, it serves as an example demonstrating the need to balance practical electricity supply and demand, carbon emission reduction, and energy security.
The reasons why nuclear power remains important today can be found in its economic viability and energy security. South Korea imports a significant portion of its energy resources from abroad and is highly vulnerable to fluctuations in international energy prices. In this context, nuclear power offers the advantages of relatively low fuel consumption and the ability to generate electricity stably over the long term.
However, in recent years, the cost per unit of electricity generated from renewable energy sources such as solar and wind has been steadily declining, and energy storage systems (ESS), transmission and distribution technologies, and smart grid technologies are also advancing rapidly. Nevertheless, challenges such as output variability and grid stability remain, making it difficult to reliably meet South Korea’s total electricity demand with renewable energy alone at this time. For these reasons, South Korea’s current energy policy is being pursued in a direction that utilizes both nuclear power and renewable energy.
While past governments’ Basic Power Supply and Demand Plans had proposed expanding the share of nuclear power as a key policy, nuclear policy has undergone several changes following subsequent administrations. Currently, a policy is in place that maintains a certain level of nuclear power while simultaneously expanding renewable energy, taking into account carbon neutrality and energy security. Therefore, while the role of nuclear power remains important, the long-term emphasis is on an energy mix that harmoniously utilizes various power sources.
So, what is the current share of nuclear power in South Korea’s electricity production? As of recent data, nuclear power accounts for approximately 30% of the country’s total electricity generation and serves as a major baseload power source alongside coal and natural gas (LNG). If all nuclear power plants were to suddenly shut down, it would be practically difficult to fully replace them with other power sources in the short term.
Of course, in the long term, it is possible to reduce dependence on nuclear power through the expansion of renewable energy and advancements in energy storage technology. However, considering the current power generation infrastructure and electricity supply-demand structure, nuclear power remains one of the key pillars for maintaining the stability of South Korea’s power grid. Replacing it immediately with thermal power and renewable energy alone presents significant challenges in terms of cost, generation capacity, grid stability, and other factors.
The share of electricity in South Korea’s total energy consumption continues to rise, and electricity consumption in the industrial sector also remains at a very high level. A large-scale power outage could cause significant damage not only to households but also to society as a whole, including industry, healthcare, telecommunications, and transportation.
Given the current share and role of nuclear power in South Korea’s electricity supply, it is necessary to take an objective approach that evaluates both the benefits and risks of nuclear power. While nuclear power faces challenges such as radioactive waste disposal and the risk of accidents, it also clearly contributes to a stable power supply, carbon emission reduction, and energy security. Therefore, nuclear power policy should be determined through social consensus based on scientific evidence and objective data, rather than emphasizing any single perspective.
