In this blog post, we take a multifaceted look at whether the construction of additional nuclear power plants is a safe and realistic choice in South Korean society, which is in desperate need of energy independence.
The controversy surrounding the 7th Basic Plan for Electricity Supply and Demand announced by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy some time ago continues to rage. This is due to plans to build two additional nuclear power plants as part of the power generation mix by 2030. The issue of nuclear power plant construction has been a subject of debate for a long time. There are various opinions against the construction of additional nuclear power plants, including the opinion that additional construction should be avoided due to the risk of major damage in the event of an accident, the opinion that the share of renewable energy should be increased and nuclear power generation should be reduced, and the opinion that demand can be met without the construction of additional nuclear power plants. Nevertheless, the construction of nuclear power plants is the best option for South Korea, which is an energy-poor country.
The main argument put forward by those who oppose the construction of additional nuclear power plants is that “nuclear power is unsafe.” The safety of nuclear power plants has been a subject of debate for many years, and has become even more important since the recent nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan. To conclude, nuclear power plants in South Korea are safe. First, let’s look at the process of building a nuclear power plant. Nuclear power plants are built in locations where the possibility of seismic activity is extremely low. Any location that has shown signs of seismic activity at least once in the past 50,000 years or twice in the past 500,000 years is excluded from the list of potential sites for nuclear power plants. Earthquake-resistant designs are added to sites selected in this manner. Currently, South Korea’s nuclear power plants are designed to withstand earthquakes measuring 6.5 on the Richter scale, and the earthquake resistance standards for new nuclear power plants will be raised to 7.0 in the future. Unlike Japan, which is located on the boundary of tectonic plates, South Korea is located within a plate and is much safer from earthquakes due to its geographical conditions. Considering these factors, South Korea’s nuclear power plants are very safe as they are carefully selected and equipped with strong earthquake-resistant designs. According to data, there has never been an earthquake that could affect a power plant since weather observations began in South Korea. Arguing that additional nuclear power plants should not be built because accidents have occurred in other countries is like refusing to drive a car because you are afraid of getting into an accident. If safety is a concern, we should learn from the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents and focus our efforts on establishing stricter safety standards and making power plants safer, rather than arguing that nuclear power itself is dangerous and should no longer be used.
Many people talk about renewable energy as an alternative to nuclear power. However, even if the share of renewable energy in the power mix is increased, it is not realistic to replace nuclear power plants in Korea. Take wind power, which is currently the most widely used renewable energy source. To replace a single 1,500 MW nuclear power plant, you would need a power generation site four times the size of Yeouido. According to data from the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, wind power requires 336 times the area of a nuclear power plant to generate the same amount of electricity. What about solar power? Solar power requires 44 square kilometers to generate 1,000 MW of electricity. This is more than 10 times the size of Yeouido and more than 70 times the area required for a nuclear power plant. Under these circumstances, it is difficult for South Korea, with its small land area, to actively utilize renewable energy. Germany is often cited as an example of efficient use of renewable energy, and some say that South Korea should follow Germany’s example. However, it is unreasonable to compare South Korea and Germany in the same way. First, Germany’s facility reserve rate reached 82% in 2013. Until just before declaring its nuclear phase-out, Germany had enough energy to meet its own electricity demand and even export energy to other countries. However, with the suspension of nuclear power generation, Germany has become an energy-importing country, purchasing electricity from neighboring countries with nuclear power plants to meet late-night electricity demand. Due to the inherent instability of solar and wind power, Germany has to import energy from other countries despite having a reserve capacity nearly five times that of South Korea. Given South Korea’s current situation, where its reserve capacity is less than 15%, there is no guarantee that a man-made disaster such as the recent large-scale power outage will not happen again if the country relies on alternative energy sources that are not as stable as nuclear power. Second, Europe has a well-developed energy grid. Germany, which has a high share of renewable energy, has a physical system in place to import electricity from neighboring countries when electricity demand exceeds supply. However, South Korea is blocked by North Korea to the north and surrounded by the sea on three sides, so it must balance its own supply and demand. Therefore, it is essential to secure a stable energy base.
Let’s look at nearby Japan. Like South Korea, Japan is an energy-poor country with almost no energy resources of its own, and it cannot import electricity from other countries. For this reason, despite its geographical disadvantage of being located on the boundary of tectonic plates in the Pacific Rim, Japan has relied on nuclear power as its main source of energy. Then, a few years ago, it faced a major crisis due to an unprecedented natural disaster. After the Fukushima disaster, Japan adopted the slogan “zero nuclear power” and completely withdrew its plans to build additional nuclear power plants. It also began restructuring its industrial structure, including its energy policy, by increasing the share of renewable energy and fossil fuels. However, despite securing a reserve capacity of nearly 30% and nearly doubling electricity rates, supply is still far from meeting demand. The main cause of Japan’s record-high trade deficit is the rising cost of energy imports. In the end, even Japan, the country most affected by the Fukushima disaster, has decided to restart its nuclear power plants and has set the share of nuclear power in its 2030 energy mix at over 20%. Stable energy sources are essential for maintaining a national economy. For countries such as South Korea and Japan, which have almost no energy self-sufficiency, nuclear power is the only reliable source of energy. Nuclear power is not only the best way to increase energy self-sufficiency because it can generate large amounts of energy from very small amounts of uranium, but also because it is a sustainable source of energy as estimated reserves are gradually increasing. According to global energy demand forecasts, the price of imported energy, including fossil fuels, is expected to rise sharply due to rising energy demand in non-OECD countries. Considering this, increasing energy self-sufficiency through the construction of additional nuclear power plants is a necessary measure.
The world, including South Korea, is gradually becoming electrified. In South Korea, electricity is used not only for heating and cooling homes, but also to create environments for growing crops in plastic greenhouses in rural areas. Although growth has slowed temporarily due to global economic instability, a steady increase in electricity demand is inevitable given South Korea’s manufacturing-based industrial structure and the importance of exports to the national economy. In a situation where most energy is imported, national development is impossible without a stable source of energy. Looking at a few countries that do not rely on nuclear power and trying to follow in their footsteps is like a sparrow trying to fly like a crane. In a way, the Fukushima disaster was a wake-up call for us. We can explore the path we should take in the future by looking at Japan, which is similar to South Korea in many ways in terms of its energy industry. Looking at Japan, which has suffered a national disaster but ultimately has no choice but to rely on nuclear power, it seems that there is no alternative to building additional nuclear power plants. Therefore, rather than expressing opposition to the plan to build additional nuclear power plants, we should engage in more realistic discussions on how to build them more safely and how to operate them in an environmentally friendly manner.
