In this blog post, we will examine whether nuclear power is a future energy source that is highly efficient and environmentally friendly, or a burden for future generations that will have to deal with nuclear waste and safety issues.
Proponents of nuclear power argue that it is highly efficient, environmentally friendly, and relatively abundant. In fact, compared to the amount of fossil fuels used in thermal power generation, the same amount of electricity can be generated with a small amount of uranium. The amount of oil required to produce the same amount of electricity is 75,000 times that of uranium. Furthermore, the disadvantage of so-called “renewable energy” sources such as solar and wind power, which is their low power generation capacity, is irrelevant to nuclear power, which is capable of mass production of electricity. On the other hand, compared to thermal power generation, which produces large amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, nuclear power causes almost no environmental pollution. These advantages are undeniable, and it is natural to consider nuclear power plants an essential element of modern society. Nevertheless, there are reasons to oppose the expansion of nuclear power plants based on existing models.
First, dismantling nuclear power plants is very expensive. It costs about $158 million to build a nuclear power plant, but after 15 to 20 years, depreciation costs are eliminated and the plant can generate a lot of revenue. However, the problem is that dismantling nuclear power plants also costs a lot of money. Applying the dismantling costs adjusted by Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power in 2012 to the 23 nuclear power plants currently in operation, the cost of dismantling nuclear power plants at the end of their service life is approximately $1.1 billion, or approximately $2.37 billion to $3.16 billion according to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s calculations. Nuclear power plants are economical because they have low power generation costs, but considering the demolition costs after 30 to 40 years of operation, it cannot be said that they are ideal. Therefore, if nuclear power plants are expanded for economic reasons, the burden on future generations will increase in decades to come.
On the other hand, strict conditions must be met in order to build a nuclear power plant. As with hydroelectric power, there are not many places that meet these conditions, and building a nuclear power plant inevitably destroys the environment in that area. It is impossible to estimate the extent of environmental damage before conducting a survey to determine which areas meet the conditions. Expanding nuclear power plants means accepting further damage to nature. Furthermore, as mentioned above, dismantling nuclear power plants is extremely costly, so even if the same site is used, there is a difference between installing a nuclear power plant and installing a different type of power plant. In the case of other power plants, even if the buildings become dilapidated, the site can continue to be used by rebuilding or replacing parts, but in the case of nuclear power plants, the main buildings are contaminated with radiation, and rebuilding requires a large amount of money, so there is a big difference in the actual period of use of the site. Therefore, the expansion of nuclear power plants must be approached with caution. As will be discussed later, nuclear fusion power generation, which is not currently in the third generation, has relatively few site restrictions and can be used for long periods of time. Until its development is complete, renewable energy and efforts by individuals and companies can serve as alternatives to nuclear power. On an individual level, people can save electricity by conserving energy, while companies can reduce electricity consumption by streamlining their production processes and developing high-efficiency products. Any remaining increase in electricity demand can be met by renewable energy sources.
On the other hand, many people are concerned about the safety of nuclear power plants. Citing the tragic precedents of Chernobyl and Fukushima, anti-nuclear activists question the safety of nuclear power plants. The South Korean nuclear industry has already established safety measures manuals based on high design standards. Since the Fukushima accident was caused by a disaster that exceeded the design standards, the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute is currently developing a major accident management manual through simulations and experiments. However, it is impossible to say with certainty that the probability of an accident occurring is zero. In particular, if war breaks out with North Korea, nuclear power plants will be one of the top targets for attack, and expanding nuclear power plants will make it more difficult to defend each plant because it will分散 manpower and increase the number of possible scenarios. Therefore, from the perspective of safety, expansion is not desirable.
However, perhaps the most problematic issue is the disposal of nuclear waste, specifically high-level waste. The current third-generation nuclear power plants use uranium as fuel and generate electricity through nuclear fission. However, this process produces radioactive waste, which is classified as low-level, medium-level, or high-level waste according to its half-life. Low-level waste with a short half-life is usually compressed or incinerated and then buried, while medium-level waste is usually solidified with concrete or asphalt and stored in repositories. However, high-level waste, also known as spent nuclear fuel, cannot be disposed of as easily as low- and medium-level waste. Currently, South Korea temporarily stores high-level waste in specially constructed storage facilities within nuclear power plants. However, storage space is running out. Although separate storage facilities will have to be built, it is only natural to expect that expanding existing nuclear power plants will increase the amount of high-level waste generated, making it even more difficult to dispose of.
Some may suggest pyroprocessing technology as a complementary measure. If the Korea-U.S. Nuclear Agreement (Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy) is revised to allow the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, pyroprocessing, which is currently being researched by the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), could be used to reduce the volume and heat of spent nuclear fuel and the radioactive toxicity of spent nuclear fuel can be significantly reduced, and the nuclear material (plutonium) separated in the process can be used in fourth-generation reactors. However, there are two decisive problems with this alternative. One is the possibility of revising the Korea-U.S. Nuclear Agreement. The main reason the US does not allow reprocessing is because reprocessing technology can be used to develop nuclear weapons. Because of this, South Korea has stated that it will use dry reprocessing using pyroprocessing, arguing that this will prevent nuclear proliferation because it produces impure plutonium. However, according to a joint report released by seven US nuclear research institutes in 2009, impure plutonium produced by pyroprocessing can be purified into pure plutonium through wet reprocessing, so it cannot be considered highly non-proliferative. Therefore, it is not possible to be optimistic that the US-South Korea nuclear agreement will be revised. Another issue is fourth-generation reactors, particularly fast breeder reactors. Plutonium produced through pyroprocessing is to be used in fast reactors using sodium, but given that many advanced countries, including the US, France, and Japan, have suspended research or operation of fast reactors, the feasibility of fast reactors is questionable.
Clearly, nuclear power is still indispensable due to its high efficiency. However, heavy reliance on nuclear power inevitably leads to adverse effects, and nuclear power plants equipped with third-generation reactors have the problems mentioned above. However, fourth-generation reactors, which are a new model of nuclear reactor, can overcome the disadvantage of high-level waste to a certain extent. In South Korea, there is particular interest in liquid metal reactors and hydrogen production reactors. The former reuses nuclear fuel, increasing fuel utilization by 60 times. The latter can produce not only electricity but also hydrogen, also increasing energy efficiency compared to the same amount of fuel. There are several other fourth-generation reactor models, and using these reactors would reduce concerns about nuclear waste because they can produce more energy for the amount of high-level waste generated. Furthermore, if nuclear fusion power plants, which are considered the ultimate energy source of the future, are developed, the problem can be solved fundamentally because they do not generate high-level waste. The disadvantage of fourth-generation nuclear reactors and nuclear fusion reactors is that they have not yet been developed. However, with South Korea establishing a roadmap for commercializing nuclear fusion in the 2040s, it is expected that development will be possible within a few decades. rather than expanding third-generation nuclear power plants, it would be better to endure with the efforts of the people and other alternative means, while investing heavily in areas such as fourth-generation nuclear reactors and nuclear fusion power generation to resolve the issue of spent nuclear fuel that may arise in the future as soon as possible.
