In this blog post, we will examine from various angles whether nuclear power can be a realistic alternative amid climate change and energy supply crises.
Long ago in South Korea, on September 15, 2011, the Korea Power Exchange suddenly cut off power transmission to each region of the country in a rotating pattern. Citizens suffered great inconvenience from the sudden blackout, and after the chaos subsided, they were told by the government that the measure was taken to prevent a blackout. In fact, in 2003, the worst blackout in history occurred in the eastern United States. For three days, power was completely cut off in seven states in the US and one province in Canada, leaving 50 million people in discomfort and fear as they waited for the power to return, and causing $6 billion in economic losses. Imagine not having electricity for three days. In the summer, food in the refrigerator would spoil quickly, and you wouldn’t be able to call anyone to check on them. With no TV or radio, you would have no idea what was going on and would be forced to spend days in fear.
In South Korea, where the power supply is unstable, there is still a possibility of large-scale blackouts. In particular, the surge in electricity consumption caused by the summer heat and winter cold puts a heavy strain on the power grid, and the more this happens, the greater the risk of large-scale blackouts. In addition, instability in the power supply can have a serious impact on industry. This is because large-scale factory shutdowns, data center disruptions, and key elements of the modern economy, such as e-commerce, can be severely affected by power outages. This can have a negative ripple effect on the entire national economy.
Back in South Korea, in 2011, KEPCO prevented a major blackout by urgently cutting power to some areas in a rotating cycle, as power consumption was about to exceed supply. Even after this major incident, the country continues to walk a tightrope, with the risk of a repeat of the incident remaining high during the summer and winter when power consumption is high. As electricity consumption continues to increase, it is becoming inevitable to build new power plants and improve existing ones to prevent disasters such as blackouts. Currently, coal-fired power plants account for the largest share of power generation, accounting for 35.5% of total power production, followed by nuclear power plants, which account for 29.5%. Other sources include gas and oil-fired thermal power, hydroelectric power, and alternative energy, but apart from thermal power, nuclear power accounts for the largest share. Despite its large share, there has been a lot of negative public opinion about nuclear power recently. What is nuclear power, and what are the problems with it?
Nuclear power generation is a method of generating electricity using Einstein’s formula E=mc^2, which states that mass is equal to energy. Uranium is commonly used in nuclear power generation, but heavy elements such as uranium are unstable and easily decay. In power generation, neutrons, which are particles that make up atoms, are fired at unstable uranium, causing the atoms to split into other smaller elements, two or three neutrons, and heat energy. The newly created neutrons split other uranium atoms, producing energy in a chain reaction. After fission, the total mass of the particles is less than before, and this mass defect (m) becomes thermal energy (E), which turns water into steam. The principle of nuclear power generation is to use this steam to turn turbines and generate electricity. Thermal power generation works in the same way, burning coal to produce steam that turns turbines. However, c^2 in Einstein’s formula is an incredibly large number. Even a very small amount of uranium can be split to produce a huge amount of energy. In fact, it is said that the amount of energy obtained from completely splitting 1 gram of uranium is equivalent to the amount of energy obtained from burning 3 tons of coal.
However, the core problem with nuclear power is its danger. Because it generates such enormous amounts of energy, it is extremely dangerous. The atomic bomb that ended World War II was based on the same principle, and the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident turned Chernobyl into a ghost town for 28 years. And in 2011, the Great East Japan Earthquake, considered the worst natural disaster in history, triggered the Fukushima nuclear accident. Three reactors exploded, seriously contaminating the ocean and atmosphere with radiation. The danger of nuclear power is not only due to its destructive power in the event of an explosion. As mentioned earlier, radiation means that elements that emit radiation are scattered and continue to emit radiation. Radiation is an electromagnetic wave with a very short wavelength, which can penetrate the body and destroy the molecular structure of living organisms, especially DNA, making it extremely dangerous. When such a dangerous accident occurred in neighboring Japan, public opposition to the construction and maintenance of nuclear power plants spread in Korea.
Opposition grew due to fears that “if a disaster were to damage a nuclear power plant in South Korea, the same thing that happened in Fukushima would happen here.” In addition, with the recent increase in extreme weather events caused by climate change, there are growing concerns about whether the safety of nuclear power plants can be guaranteed in the face of natural disasters. With various disasters such as earthquakes, typhoons, and floods becoming more severe, it has been pointed out that additional safety measures and facility improvements are essential to maintain the safety of nuclear power plants.
However, less than a month after the Fukushima accident, before the situation had even been resolved, the South Korean government announced that there would be no change in its plans to build additional nuclear power plants. Recently, the government is even pushing ahead with the construction of a nuclear power plant in Samcheok City, where 85% of residents voted against it in a referendum. From the government’s perspective, nuclear power is so important that it is willing to ignore the opposition of local residents and push ahead with construction. I agree with the government’s position and support the maintenance and construction of additional nuclear power plants. This is because the advantages of nuclear power are too great to be discarded due to the low probability of risk. Since thermal power generation accounts for a large proportion of electricity production other than nuclear power, we will examine the reasons why nuclear power cannot be abandoned by comparing it with thermal power generation.
First, nuclear power is more environmentally friendly than thermal power generation. Thermal power plants are the main source of electricity production because the technology is simple and construction is relatively easy. Thermal power generation uses heat from burning coal, which emits large amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide during combustion. In the case of oil-fired power plants, 1.5 million tons of oil are required to operate a 1 million kW power plant for one year. Naturally, carbon dioxide emissions are also enormous. Thermal power plants account for 24% of Korea’s total carbon dioxide emissions. Recently, efforts have been made to minimize gas emissions by installing carbon dioxide capture facilities at thermal power plants. However, there are still many technical limitations, and the captured gas is usually used for other purposes or buried underground. It is inefficient to spend additional money to dispose of the gas produced as a by-product of electricity generation, and it is not possible to eliminate all emissions. However, nuclear power is an eco-friendly energy source with almost no gas emissions. Compared to thermal power generation, which emits 991g of carbon dioxide per kWh, nuclear power generation emits only 10g. There are no gas emissions during the fuel combustion process, but a small amount is generated during operation and disposal. Therefore, nuclear power can be said to be a sustainable energy source that can be used freely without worrying about global warming.
The second advantage is economic efficiency. Economic efficiency here refers not only to the ability to achieve high efficiency at low cost, but also to economic efficiency in terms of Korea’s resource environment and export potential. As mentioned earlier, thermal power generation requires a lot of fuel. According to Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power, total energy imports in 2011 amounted to US$172.48 billion, of which US$16.7 billion was for bituminous coal and US$1.77 billion was for anthracite coal, while uranium imports amounted to only US$810 million. Nevertheless, nuclear power accounted for 31.3% of total power generation that year. This is because the cost of raw materials is low compared to other aspects of nuclear power generation, while other technical aspects are costly. Although foreign capital is not required for these technical costs, all raw materials are imported. Thermal power generation is vulnerable to international circumstances because most of its costs are spent on importing raw materials. The current estimated reserves of fossil fuels are 40 years for oil, 60 years for natural gas, and 230 years for coal. Coal, which has the largest reserves, is increasingly being phased out due to severe environmental pollution, and thermal power generation is on an unstable footing due to dwindling resources and fluctuating international oil prices. However, uranium used in nuclear power generation is evenly distributed around the world and has very large reserves, which are expected to last for about 3,600 years if reprocessed, ensuring a stable supply at a stable price.
As a resource-poor country, South Korea began developing technology-intensive nuclear power in the 1970s to meet its electricity demand. Nuclear energy plays a very important role in South Korea, if only for energy independence. South Korea’s nuclear power technology is now ranked fifth in the world. As a country that cannot export resources, exporting nuclear technology is the only way for South Korea to export energy. Starting with technical support for the operation and maintenance of the Guangdong Nuclear Power Plant in China in 1993, South Korea signed a contract to build four Korean-designed nuclear power plants in the United Arab Emirates in 2009. This is even more valuable as it was achieved in competition with France, another nuclear powerhouse. Since then, demand for power plant construction has increased overseas, and nuclear power technology exports are expected to continue to be a major source of foreign exchange earnings in the future.
Despite the significant advantages of nuclear power, opponents express concerns about safety. They argue that management lapses could lead to major damage, as in Chernobyl, or natural disasters could cause accidents, as in Fukushima, calling nuclear power a potential time bomb. However, I believe the proverb, “Don’t let the fear of maggots prevent you from eating meat,” is appropriate in this situation. Of course, Chernobyl and Fukushima are not just “maggots,” but these two accidents were the only two accidents in the history of nuclear power to be rated at the highest level 7. There have been no major disasters due to management failures since Chernobyl, and South Korea does not have the same unstable geological structure as Japan, so accidents can be sufficiently prevented with the current level of earthquake-resistant design. In particular, safety measures have been strengthened since the Fukushima accident, and management has become even safer in recent years. The government has secured a budget of 1 trillion won from 2011 to 2015 to focus on improving safety, and announced that it has implemented 39 of the 56 improvement measures to date. In addition, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. recently won the gold medal for the second consecutive year in the competition category of the International Quality Control Circle Conference (ICQCC). The company received high marks for its significant contribution to ensuring safety by greatly reducing the response time to a simulated emergency situation at a power plant. This is recognition of the safety of South Korea’s nuclear power plants on a global level. As long as there are no accidents, there is no need to worry about radiation. In terms of Sv (sievert), the unit of radiation exposure, a person is exposed to 2.4 mSv of radiation per year in a natural environment without any accidents. According to the Atomic Energy Law, additional exposure of less than 1 mSv per year is permitted. This figure is based on the results of a study conducted by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation on the victims of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and is scientifically reliable. You can check the radiation levels in various parts of the country in real time on the National Environmental Radiation Automatic Monitoring Network website. If you check the areas near nuclear power plants that are currently operating smoothly, you can easily see that the radiation levels are around 120 nSv per hour, which is not high compared to other areas. In fact, it is much lower than in Seoul. Therefore, it is an exaggeration to oppose nuclear power plants out of concern for the risk of accidents or radiation leaks.
Others propose alternative energy sources that pose little risk. Emerging alternative energy sources that do not emit greenhouse gases include solar energy, wind energy, ocean energy, and bioenergy. However, these energy sources still have technical limitations or are not suitable for the environment in Korea to replace nuclear energy, which is far more efficient. Solar energy is the most popular energy source because it is pollution-free and can be obtained in unlimited quantities. However, South Korea does not have much sunlight, and the efficiency of solar cells is only about 30W/m^2, so in order to generate the same amount of electricity as a 950MW nuclear power plant, 10 million square meters of solar cells would be needed. Therefore, while it may be suitable for household use, it is not feasible for supplying electricity to the entire country. The same is true for wind power. Wind power requires little installation costs and uses wind, an unlimited energy source, but it is not feasible for operation in Korea. Currently, wind turbines can be easily seen on Jeju Island, but their production is so low that they only cover a negligible portion of Jeju Island’s electricity consumption. There are currently plans to develop and install large 3MW wind turbines, but as South Korea is not surrounded by vast oceans, the efficiency is expected to be very low compared to Europe’s 6,562MW offshore wind power generation capacity across 11 countries. Other power generation methods have potential, but they are still underdeveloped or have limitations, so they are rarely used and have significantly low efficiency. Ultimately, the only way to replace fossil fuel power generation at this point is nuclear power.
We have looked at why South Korea’s power supply has depended on nuclear power until now. Even now, power consumption is on the verge of exceeding supply, so the government is considering maintaining existing power plants and building new ones as needed. Among the various methods of power generation, nuclear power is the most suitable for us. First, thermal power generation produces a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, but nuclear power only produces a small amount during incidental processes other than power generation. With carbon emissions being restricted worldwide, nuclear power is a very attractive resource for sustainable development. Second, nuclear power has great economic potential. In South Korea, where resources are extremely scarce, fossil fuels, which must be imported from abroad, are potentially risky resources. However, uranium used in nuclear power generation is abundant and evenly distributed around the world, so there is no risk of it being weaponized, and the price of the resources needed for power generation is extremely low. This is because it is a technology-intensive form of power generation. South Korea has world-leading nuclear power technology. Since winning an order for nuclear power plants in the UAE in 2009, nuclear technology has been in the spotlight as an export item. Despite the undeniable advantages of nuclear power, many people oppose it due to the risk of accidents and the existence of alternative energy sources. However, nuclear accidents are extremely rare, and safety measures have been strengthened since the Fukushima accident, making nuclear power an even safer form of energy. Furthermore, South Korea’s nuclear safety technology is recognized worldwide, and given the many advantages of nuclear power, it would be unreasonable for South Korea to abandon it. The most popular alternative energy sources are solar and wind power, but from an environmental and technological perspective, it is difficult to believe that these two sources can meet Korea’s electricity needs. Therefore, nuclear power is an energy source with unlimited potential that Korea cannot afford to give up. We hope that the day will come soon when the safety of nuclear power is proven beyond doubt, thereby silencing the voices of its opponents.
