In this blog post, we take a multifaceted look at whether the construction of additional nuclear power plants, which is gaining attention as a realistic solution to climate change, is a safe choice or a challenge that poses new risks.
We have reached an era where we cannot live without electricity and energy. Energy is generated by power plants. South Korea supplies electricity to a population of nearly 55 million people through thermal, nuclear, hydro, renewable, pumped storage, and solar power plants. Among them, nuclear, hydro, pumped storage, and solar power have been in use for the past 50 to 60 years. As more people became aware of nuclear power in the 20th century, some even said that “nuclear power is the new beginning of the future.” This is because nuclear power is clean. It emits almost no carbon dioxide. Nuclear power is generated by the principles of nuclear fusion or fission, and the principle used in power plants is fission. The energy released when atomic nuclei split is used to generate steam. This steam turns turbines to generate electricity. No carbon dioxide is emitted at any stage of this process. Furthermore, nuclear power plants are more efficient at supplying electricity than the hydroelectric, solar, and thermal power plants that have been used until now. This is simply because there are fewer nuclear power plants.
The 7th Basic Plan for Electric Power Supply and Demand announced the construction of two new nuclear power plants, sparking debate over whether additional nuclear power plants are necessary. Nuclear power plants, like thermal power plants, emit almost no carbon dioxide, so it is appropriate to build additional nuclear power plants in the current situation where carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced. However, there are also opinions that nuclear power plants are dangerous. Nuclear power plants use uranium, so constant caution is required. The greatest danger of nuclear power plants is radiation.
Some people believe that nuclear power plants are necessary for ensuring energy stability. As long as people continue to pursue convenience, electricity consumption will inevitably increase. With the increasing number of electronic devices, electricity consumption will continue to rise. As electricity consumption increases, production must also increase to meet demand. When demand is high and supply is low, power outages occur. In the last three years, many people have suffered from power shortages. In this situation, it is necessary to build additional power plants, but we will examine the pros and cons of nuclear power.
Nuclear power generation is more expensive to build than other types of power generation, but fuel costs are very low compared to other types of power generation, making it the least expensive option when considering the lifespan of a power plant. In 2013, the cost of nuclear energy production was $0.036 per kWh. The costs for bituminous coal, anthracite coal, and hydroelectric power were $0.064, $0.120, and $0.143, respectively. In terms of energy production costs alone, nuclear energy is much cheaper than other forms of energy production. For example, the cost of producing 1 million kWh of energy is $36,000 for nuclear energy. The costs for bituminous coal, anthracite coal, and hydropower are $64,000, $120,000, and $143,000, respectively. The larger the production capacity, the higher the cost. Under these circumstances, nuclear power plants are more cost-effective than other power plants.
According to the Korea Atomic Energy Culture Foundation, “nuclear energy can produce a tremendous amount of energy with a very small amount of fuel.” The energy obtained from the fission of 1 g of uranium is equivalent to the energy obtained from burning 9 drums of oil or 3 tons of coal. Currently, uranium costs $36 per pound, or $0.079 per gram. On the other hand, a barrel of oil costs $50, and a ton of coal costs $49. Therefore, to obtain the same amount of energy as 1 gram of uranium, it would cost $450 for oil and $147 for coal. The cost difference is a staggering 1:5696:1860.
In addition, greenhouse gas emissions are becoming a major issue these days, and carbon dioxide (CO2), the main cause of climate change, is produced when fossil fuels are burned. In order to solve this problem globally, we need to create “clean” energy, and one of the answers is nuclear power. There are other sources of energy such as hydroelectric power, solar power, and renewable energy, but they cannot generate as much energy as nuclear power, so they have been excluded from this argument. As mentioned above, nuclear power is a process of nuclear fission. It can be considered that almost no carbon dioxide is generated. Accordingly, nuclear power generation produces almost no greenhouse gas emissions, making it a solution to the greenhouse gas emission problem and the most realistic way to respond to climate change. In addition, carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced due to the emissions trading system that came into effect this year. If emissions cannot be reduced, emissions credits must be purchased from other countries, which is not cheap.
Uranium, the raw material for nuclear power generation, is found in deposits around the world, so the stability of uranium supply is another advantage. Unlike oil, uranium is not concentrated in the Middle East, but is widely distributed around the world, so there is no need to worry about sudden price increases or supply disruptions. In short, uranium is distributed around the world and is not greatly affected by the energy situation. In addition, uranium is much easier to transport and store than oil. In summary, uranium, the raw material for nuclear power generation, has a stable supply and import source.
However, as with anything, there are disadvantages as well as advantages. The same is true for nuclear power generation. Nuclear power plants supply electricity as energy, but they also inevitably produce radioactive waste. Radioactive waste is different from waste that can be disposed of like food waste or general waste. Radioactive waste is difficult to dispose of and has a long half-life, so it takes a long time for all of the uranium to decay. The half-life of uranium-235 is 703 million years. It has been nearly 4.5 billion years since the Earth was formed, and with uranium having a half-life of 703 million years, it is difficult to dispose of it, and the next question is where to dispose of such a large amount of waste. Countries such as the United States and Russia have vast amounts of land, so they bury radioactive waste generated by power plants deep underground. However, Korea does not have much land. Even if a waste storage facility were to be built, the cost could be higher than the cost of building a power plant. Not only would the construction costs be enormous, but the maintenance costs would also be astronomical. To date, there is no facility that has remained intact for a thousand years. Even the slightest trace of radioactive waste in a storage facility increases the possibility of leakage, so the cost of inspecting and maintaining the facility almost every year cannot be overlooked.
Radioactive waste has the potential to contaminate the surrounding area and cause enormous damage. Another disadvantage is the danger of nuclear power generation. As mentioned above, radioactive contamination is highly toxic and can cause serious damage. Typical examples include the TMI nuclear accident in the United States in 1979 and the Chernobyl nuclear accident in the former Soviet Union in 1986. More recently, there was the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan in 2011. The Chernobyl accident in 1986 caused numerous casualties, and due to radioactive contamination, it is still impossible to approach Chernobyl. The cause of the Chernobyl nuclear accident was the lack of a reactor building (containment facility). The Fukushima nuclear accident was caused by a tsunami triggered by a large earthquake. The magnitude of the earthquake was 9.0. Even though South Korea is not located near any tectonic plates, we cannot afford to be complacent. The tsunami caused by the Fukushima nuclear accident was 15 meters high, and if a major earthquake with a magnitude greater than 9.0 occurs, not only island countries like Japan but also the Korean Peninsula will suffer damage. In this regard, we must always be vigilant and build nuclear power plants with earthquake preparedness in mind.
If we decide to build additional nuclear power plants, we must continue to develop technologies for accident prevention and safety management at nuclear power plants, and we must be able to safely dispose of and manage radioactive waste. Due to climate change, it is uncertain how long we will be able to use thermal power plants. When oil and coal run out, how will we operate power plants and generate electricity to continue supplying power to the public? Energy can be obtained from hydropower, renewable energy, and solar power, but the amount obtained is still too small to be efficient. On the other hand, nuclear power may be the answer to this problem. Nuclear power plants have their disadvantages, but there are alternatives that can be developed through technological advances, as we have done in the past, to overcome these disadvantages and make them more stable. Some countries, such as Germany and Italy, have suspended the operation of nuclear power plants due to the Fukushima nuclear accident, but others, such as the UK, are planning to build eight nuclear power plants in 2013. Of course, nothing is more important than life and safety. We must take to heart Einstein’s words: “A ship is always safe at the shore, but that is NOT what it is built for.” This means that if we cannot develop because we are always afraid of danger, we will eventually fall behind. We must think long and hard about whether the path we are on is the right one.
