In this blog post, we will examine whether nuclear power is a safe and efficient energy source or a dangerous choice.
The general public’s intuitive feeling toward nuclear power plants is closer to “disapproval” than “approval.” The majority of people feel that nuclear power is unsafe and frightening. The main factor influencing this view is the disaster that occurred in Fukushima, Japan.
The Fukushima nuclear power plant, which exploded due to the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami that occurred on March 11, 2011, is still in a critical recovery phase. The aftermath of this incident has also affected Korea, and the public’s opposition to nuclear power plants is growing stronger. The media constantly reports on the damage caused by nuclear power plant accidents, with sensational content such as photos of babies born with deformities and changes in the ecosystem.
Due to the serious damage caused by nuclear power, there are growing calls in Korea to stop nuclear power generation. However, what opponents of nuclear power overlook is that the news does not sensationalize how safe nuclear power is. Although the Shin-Kori No. 1 reactor has been shut down, this was not due to a problem with the reactor itself, but rather a malfunction in the power transmission equipment. It is illogical to argue that nuclear power plants should be reduced because they may break down in the future when they have not yet broken down. In fact, nuclear power is safer than people think, and there is no viable alternative to it.
The claim that nuclear power is safe may seem strange to some people. However, experts who are well aware of the safety of nuclear power are not concerned about this. The structure of a nuclear power plant is broadly divided into two parts. There is the NSSS, which is the equipment that supplies steam to the turbine generator, such as the reactor, and the BOP, which refers to all other equipment. Nuclear power plant design experts have further strengthened the core safety functions of the NSSS inside nuclear power plants since the Chernobyl accident in 1986 and the Fukushima accident in 2011. They are systematically equipped with protective facilities that can remove the decay heat from the reactor core and isolate radioactive materials, and ergonomics have been systematically incorporated into the design from the initial stages of plant design. In Korea, only pressurized light water reactors and pressurized heavy water reactors, which have larger and stronger containment structures than boiling water reactors, are being built to minimize the leakage of radioactive materials.
Even if the safety of nuclear power plants in Korea is guaranteed to a certain extent, if we want to eliminate nuclear power, we must find alternative energy resources. This will be difficult. Nuclear fission is a very efficient source of energy. If we reduce the number of nuclear power plants, we will have to use oil or coal instead. However, the energy produced by burning three tons of coal or nine barrels of oil can be produced with just one gram of uranium-235 (U235). There is a huge difference in power generation efficiency. It costs about $0.03 to produce 1 kW of energy from nuclear power, but about $0.05 from coal. Replacing nuclear power plants with thermal power plants would incur an additional cost of approximately $11.4 billion per year, resulting in an additional burden of approximately $730 per household per year.
Nuclear power is also advantageous from an environmental perspective. Nuclear waste is much less than coal waste. Nuclear waste is about the size of a cola can and weighs about 1 kg. However, coal-fired power generation produces 19,000 tons of carbon dioxide per day. This is a considerable amount compared to nuclear waste. When producing 1 GW of electricity for one year, only 20 tons of nuclear waste is produced, but coal waste produces 8 million tons of carbon dioxide. This can cause serious climate crisis issues. Replacing nuclear power with coal power would result in approximately 147.25 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year.
Some argue that radioactive waste from nuclear power plants is harmful to health. However, this is only true when the amount of radiation exposure is high. Only spent fuel from reactors inside nuclear power plants is high-level waste with high concentrations of radioactivity, and all radioactive waste is stored in safe, dedicated containers and disposed of in underground waste disposal sites. Some believe that renewable energy can replace nuclear power. However, Korea is small and densely populated, so there is not enough space to install renewable energy sources. Wind power requires approximately 2,100 pyeong of space to generate 1 GW, and solar power requires 1,650 square meters of land to generate 1 GW. It is unreasonable to use renewable energy to replace nuclear power to a sufficient extent.
In 2023, Korea ranked 12th in the world in terms of per capita electricity consumption. However, its energy self-sufficiency rate is only 2%. In order to improve Korea’s energy self-sufficiency, it is necessary to develop high-density forms of power generation. Therefore, nuclear power generation can be considered a Korean-style form of power generation. Korea has no oil or coal production, so it has no choice but to rely on imports from the Middle East. In addition, it is difficult to supply sufficient electricity from renewable energy alone because there are no vast open fields. Therefore, South Korea’s energy security depends on nuclear power generation. In fact, there has been a lack of communication to help the public understand nuclear power generation. If the public understands and accepts the safety and efficiency of nuclear power plants, there will be no need to reduce the number of nuclear power plants. Rather, the government should further strengthen safety requirements for the safe operation of nuclear power plants. Rather than blindly opposing nuclear power based on sensational news reports, it is necessary to understand and accept it.
