In the wake of the Fukushima disaster, the debate over nuclear power plant curtailment has been heating up. But given South Korea’s geography and energy needs, is it really the best option?
In recent years, there has been a growing opposition to nuclear power in South Korea. Their arguments are largely based on the dangers of nuclear power, and the damage caused by the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan should be enough to wake everyone up. In fact, the 2011 earthquake caused the nuclear disaster. In addition, Japan announced a “zero nuclear power plant policy” shortly after the accident. Given the nature of nuclear energy, it’s clear that the Fukushima disaster will damage Japan in a semi-permanent way. So, are we right to scale back nuclear power to prevent a catastrophe in Japan?
I don’t think so. While Japan is on a plate boundary and is prone to earthquakes, South Korea is fundamentally different because it is located inside the Eurasian plate and is a whopping 600 kilometers away from the Pacific Ring of Fire. If the government were to implement the same policy as Japan simply because a neighboring country is prone to earthquakes and nuclear accidents, it would be met with a backlash from the public. According to an article in the Kyunghyang Ilbo (1985), there are more than 1800 records of earthquakes in Korean history books from 2 AD to the end of the 19th century. More than 300 occurred after 1905, when seismographs were installed. In the 100 years that we have been able to accurately measure the magnitude of earthquakes, the largest was a magnitude 5 earthquake in the 70s, which caused only 400 million won in damage. There hasn’t been an earthquake of this magnitude in Japan in over 2000 years of recorded history. A magnitude 5 earthquake occurs about once a month in Japan, and this value is less than 1/10000th of the magnitude of the earthquake that caused the 2011 nuclear disaster.
The phrase “Korea is no longer a safe zone for earthquakes” is often on people’s lips. The plates are shifting. But how can the Korean peninsula, which has been safe from earthquakes for more than 2,000 years, suddenly become dangerous in the 21st century? Plate movements are much slower than in human history, and it is pointless to consider the timing of the peninsula’s exposure to earthquakes. In fact, while there has been a recent surge in research on earthquake-resistant design in the architectural and structural research community, it is widely believed that this is only to alleviate people’s vague fears of earthquakes, not that it is actually necessary. Therefore, it is wrong to extend the possibility of a nuclear accident in Japan to South Korea.
Some people say that South Korea’s electricity supply would be fine even without nuclear power, as the country relies primarily on thermal power generation. However, this is not true. If nuclear power plants, which account for about 30 percent of South Korea’s electricity generation, were to be retired, the power burden on households would not be 30 percent. The government will try to keep as much power as possible in factories to minimize the impact on South Korean industry, and household electricity bills will increase significantly. Individuals will have to conserve much more electricity than the 30% they currently use.
Nuclear power is actually a necessity for South Korea. Even today, with all the nuclear power plants in operation, South Koreans face power shortages every summer and have to reduce air conditioning to save electricity. Furthermore, in an era where temperatures are breaking records every summer due to global warming, air conditioning restrictions greatly reduce individual work efficiency. Even if all the nuclear power plants were operational, it would still be difficult to meet the total power requirements, and the reduction of nuclear power plants would be a major blow to South Korean production.
Increasing the share of nuclear power makes economic sense. Thermal power generation is more expensive than nuclear power generation. Replacing the current thermal power generation with nuclear power would mean higher fixed costs to build the plants, but in the long run, it would provide electricity to the people at a lower cost. Thermal power generation is one of the main contributors to increasing the density of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide causes warming. Warmer temperatures in turn increase the need for air conditioning, which drives up electricity consumption, creating a vicious cycle. Nuclear power has negligible greenhouse gas emissions compared to thermal power. This was confirmed in a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) published in 2021. Nuclear accidents are rare, but they can be devastating, which is why thorough safety management is essential.
Let’s look at examples from other countries. In the mid-20th century, France and Germany took different paths when it came to providing electricity. France chose nuclear power as its source of electricity and now has the second largest number of nuclear power plants in the world after the United States. In fact, as a nuclear power, France has been able to produce electricity cheaply and maintain a stable supply of electricity. French people don’t feel the burden of using electricity to live their lives, there are few complaints about electricity, and industry runs smoothly. France also exports electricity to neighboring countries, such as Germany, which, unlike France in the mid-20th century, chose to oppose nuclear power, and imports electricity from France. France, which is not prone to natural disasters, is reaping the economic benefits of nuclear power, which can be applied to South Korea. Germany has recently been pushing for more renewable energy, but it still relies on imports.
In 2022, South Korea succeeded in winning a contract from the UAE to build a nuclear power plant, which could lead to astronomical economic gains. The news made the country even more jubilant because it won the order against France, the world’s leading nuclear power. France was not only using nuclear power to power its own country, but also exporting nuclear power to other countries, killing two birds with one stone. South Korea’s success in winning the order means that South Korea is now in a position to compete with them to some extent. This is not just a one-time economic benefit, but it could become a major industry for South Korea and provide lasting economic benefits.
Just because a diabetic won’t take a piece of candy doesn’t mean we should throw away the candy we have in our hands. For South Korea, NPPs are the candy that keeps the electricity supply running smoothly and boosts exports. At a time when households are struggling due to the prolonged economic downturn, cutting nuclear power plants is a policy that will only add to the stress of the people. Thermal power generation is inferior to nuclear power in both cost and environmental terms, and green energy is still too far away for us to realize.
Finally, according to a report by the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) released in July 2023, nuclear power plants continue to operate reliably and strictly manage safety. In addition, reactors with the latest technology have become even safer, making them an important resource to meet future energy needs. For these reasons, we need to remind ourselves of the need and benefits of nuclear power.
