This blog post delves deeply into the direction South Korea should take, examining safety, economic viability, and the potential for future energy transition surrounding its reliance on nuclear power.
The 2011 Tohoku earthquake in Japan triggered the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, re-emphasizing the dangers of nuclear power to the world for the first time since the 1986 Chernobyl explosion. Following this accident, several problems were also revealed at South Korea’s Gori Nuclear Power Plant. As the trend of reducing nuclear power, which began in Europe, spread domestically, the debate over whether to reduce nuclear power generation intensified. However, to this day, the situation remains deadlocked with clear conclusions eluding both proponents and opponents.
First, from a long-term perspective on energy structure, the necessity to reduce nuclear power is undeniable. Both nuclear fission fuel and fossil fuels are finite resources, inevitably destined to deplete someday. After that, the energy sources humanity can utilize will be renewable energy like wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal, along with nuclear fusion energy, currently called the ‘dream energy’. However, nuclear fusion remains in the research phase, has not yet been commercialized, and carries a certain level of risk as a form of nuclear power. Ultimately, the future is likely to involve an appropriate combination of nuclear fusion and renewable energy. Therefore, the South Korean government must expand the share of renewable energy to prepare for a long-term energy transition and, to reduce power generation costs, needs to prioritize reducing either fossil fuel power generation or nuclear power generation.
In this process, it is necessary to compare the risks of these two power generation methods. Fossil fuel power generation carries the serious problem of causing global warming, but compared to nuclear accidents like Fukushima, the immediacy of the risk and the scale of damage are relatively limited. The impacts of global warming often lack immediately apparent damage, except for certain low-lying nations. Conversely, a single nuclear accident requires long-term recovery and leaves behind fatal radioactive contamination. This comparison leads to the conclusion that if we must expand renewable energy, reducing nuclear power first is the rational approach.
As seen in the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents, the restoration costs of nuclear accidents are enormous, placing a significant burden on national economies. In the case of Fukushima, controversy over radioactive contamination in nearby waters persists to this day, and the situation remains far from resolved, with access to the damaged facilities itself posing risks. Similarly, while Chernobyl prevented further contamination through massive investment of manpower and funds, the affected area remains uninhabitable. Furthermore, as uranium and other nuclear fuels approach depletion, power generation costs rise due to increasing raw material prices. The costs of radioactive waste disposal and nuclear plant decommissioning are also substantial. Considering the need to expand renewable energy investments to prepare for energy depletion, nuclear power can hardly be considered a cheap option.
Currently, most of South Korea’s nuclear power plants are located along the east coast, supplying over 30% of the nation’s total electricity. If a large-scale tsunami, similar to the one that struck Japan’s Tohoku region, were to hit the east coast, a significant number of nuclear plants could be forced to shut down. This could result in the temporary loss of approximately one-third of the country’s total power supply. This could lead to a severe national power shortage, and the high dependency itself already increases national risk. Therefore, even to minimize such risks, a long-term reduction in nuclear power is desirable.
Counterarguments exist. Some claim that future commercial nuclear fusion power, operating on the same principle as hydrogen bombs, also carries risks. Indeed, the possibility of major accidents if nuclear fusion reactions cannot be controlled has been raised. However, the existence of risk factors does not justify the argument that existing nuclear power plants should be maintained as-is. Whether it’s nuclear fusion or fission, strategies to minimize risk are necessary, and it cannot be considered rational to maintain existing nuclear power plants whose risks have already been proven.
Furthermore, some argue that “accidents can be prevented with proper management,” citing the significant human error factors in the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents. Chernobyl’s accident occurred due to reckless control rod manipulation during a safety test, while Fukushima’s core cause was the failure to implement adequate cooling measures immediately after the earthquake. However, as confirmed by incidents like the Sewol ferry disaster in South Korea or the mismanagement at the Kori nuclear power plant, human error is always present in major accidents. Considering that human judgment errors cannot be completely controlled, the possibility of a nuclear accident cannot be entirely ruled out, and even a single accident can have catastrophic consequences. Therefore, even if the probability is low, nuclear accidents, which carry extremely high risks and potential for massive damage, should be reduced as a preventive measure.
Counterarguments regarding the limitations of renewable energy can also be raised. Renewable energy is influenced by regional and climatic conditions: wind power is efficient only in windy areas, solar power only in regions with sufficient sunlight, and geothermal only in locations with favorable geothermal conditions. Biomass faces the physical constraint of requiring agricultural land, while tidal and small-scale hydroelectric power may also cause environmental destruction. Furthermore, past statistics from Korea Electric Power Corporation indicate that electricity demand has shown an annual upward trend, leading to arguments that renewable energy alone cannot meet this increasing demand.
However, examining the case of Germany, which has been the most proactive in adopting renewable energy in Europe, can mitigate these counterarguments. Germany already secures over 30% of its electricity from renewable sources and aims to reach 80% by 2050. Even considering that Germany’s population density is about 40% of South Korea’s, South Korea possesses the potential to transition to at least 30% renewable energy. Furthermore, despite being a manufacturing-centric nation, Germany has achieved reduced electricity demand through energy efficiency improvement policies. As technologies advance to enhance energy efficiency and reduce power consumption in electronic product manufacturing processes, the premise that electricity demand will increase indefinitely lacks strong grounds. These examples demonstrate that if the South Korean government possesses the policy will, it can replace at least 30% of nuclear power generation with renewable energy.
Counterarguments point to the low efficiency and high installation costs of renewable energy. However, considering the depletion of fossil fuels and nuclear fuel, investment in renewable energy infrastructure is ultimately an unavoidable task. Furthermore, when factoring in the costs of nuclear accident response, waste disposal, and plant decommissioning, nuclear power is difficult to justify as cost-effective in the long term. Therefore, renewable energy is a realistic alternative that can substantially replace nuclear power from both economic and environmental perspectives.
In conclusion, nuclear power is a generation method that must inevitably be reduced in the long term due to fuel depletion. Considering the accident risks and recovery costs, it is also economically unsustainable. As the German case demonstrates, renewable energy can secure a sufficient share to replace nuclear power when technological advancement is combined with policy commitment. Therefore, South Korea must transition its energy system by gradually increasing the share of renewable energy and reducing dependence on nuclear power. This will be the most realistic and rational choice to prepare for future energy depletion and safety concerns.
