What is the future of nuclear energy after the Fukushima nuclear disaster?

Since the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, the reliability of nuclear power has been debated and the development of alternative energy sources has accelerated. However, the need for nuclear power remains important due to its economic and low carbon emissions benefits.

 

In March 2011, the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan became a major global issue. Since then, the reliability of nuclear power has become a hot topic of debate, leading to global scepticism about nuclear power and spurring the development of alternative energy sources. However, despite the potentially catastrophic risks associated with nuclear power, such as the risk of radioactive material being released, the benefits of low cost of electricity generation and lowest levels of carbon dioxide emissions remain attractive. The argument for shutting down nuclear power plants seems unrealistic, especially since there is no realistic alternative to meet the current energy demand in the event of a sudden shutdown.
Cutting back on nuclear power plants will not help South Korea’s development. Recently, there was a blackout at Seoul National University in South Korea. If there is such a shortage of power, despite the fact that nuclear power plants are currently providing the country with the energy it needs, we can expect the problem of energy shortages to increase if nuclear power plants are cut. Since the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, people around the world have become very wary of nuclear power. Northeast Asian countries like South Korea, Japan, and China are among the most active regions for nuclear power plant construction and operation. It’s understandable that there’s more public concern and fear than in other countries, but the reality is that South Korea can’t afford to shut down its nuclear power industry anytime soon. Fossil fuels are becoming increasingly scarce, and solar and wind power alone cannot keep up with energy demand.
There are risks to the nuclear industry. However, I believe that nuclear energy is the last energy industry left for Korea, which lacks raw materials and resources. In fact, investing more in nuclear energy at a time when other countries are slowing down may even help South Korea develop its energy industry further.
South Korea is a resource-poor country that imports 97 per cent of its energy, and nuclear power is cheap to generate, contributing to the country’s international competitiveness and price stability. Unlike Europe, South Korea does not have an interconnected power grid with neighbouring countries, making it essential for the country to secure its own cheap and reliable power supply. In 2024, the unit sales price (KRW/kWh) is KRW 42.57 for nuclear, KRW 45.00 for coal, KRW 75.00 for oil, and KRW 110.00 for LNG. While Germany, Sweden, and others have announced the phasing out of nuclear power plants, they have no concrete plans to meet the resulting decline in electricity supply. Germany has capped the age of its nuclear reactors at 32 years and banned the construction of new reactors, which is not surprising given that the anti-nuclear Green Party is in power. The UK has also stated that it has no plans to build any new reactors for the foreseeable future, but has not announced any closures as claimed by anti-nuclear groups. The UK and Finland are considering building new reactors, and the Netherlands cancelled plans in September 2002 to close the Borssele plant in 2004. The United States has moved to a policy of reactivating nuclear power plants (2001.5), and Japan has plans to build 13 more by 2010. France provides 75 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power, which it exports to other European countries. The United States is working to increase the output of its existing plants, with four new reactors under construction, and has established the Nuclear Power 2010 programme. Japan has 54 nuclear reactors in operation despite the country’s history of atomic bomb damage and earthquakes, and France, which has limited resources, has 57 nuclear reactors in operation.
Looking at the current status of alternative energy, even in developed countries, the technology and economics are still far from being able to realistically utilise it as a large-scale energy source. In Korea, the ‘Basic Plan for the Development of Alternative Energy Technology’ was established in December 1987 following the enactment of the Alternative Energy Development Promotion Act in 1988, and was later amended into the Alternative Energy Development and Utilisation Promotion Act (December 1997), which provided the basis for alternative energy use recommendations, pilot projects, subsidies and loans, tax support, and the use of state-owned property. To promote the widespread use of alternative energy, the government subsidises the difference between the production price and the sales price traded on the electricity market when electricity is generated using alternative energy sources such as solar and wind power. The reference price per kWh is KRW 716.40 for solar power, KRW 107.66 for wind power, and KRW 73.69 for hydropower. In developed countries, the share of alternative energy supply (%) is 8.5% in Denmark, 4.5% in France, 4.1% in the US, 2.1% in Japan, and 1.03% in South Korea. Among the limitations of alternative energy, economically, wind and solar power are currently at least two to 15 times more expensive, and environmentally, they still have environmental impacts such as large land areas. In terms of energy security, alternative energy is only a supplementary source of power.
Even in developed countries where alternative energy research is underway, the technology and economics are still far from being practical as a large-scale energy source. Moreover, since the source of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which causes global warming, is mainly fossil fuels, developed countries are mandating the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the use of fossil fuels. Although Korea is not a mandatory country, it should actively promote energy policies that prepare for international environmental regulations. Countries around the world are focusing on developing alternative energy sources that do not emit carbon dioxide, and are looking to expand or promote nuclear power generation as an alternative. Korea is also beginning to expand nuclear power generation and develop alternative energy while curbing the use of imported fossil fuels. In particular, the power generation sector accounts for 21.8 per cent of the country’s total carbon dioxide emissions, so the expansion of nuclear power generation is considered inevitable as a way to reduce this.
About 30 per cent of South Korea’s electricity comes from nuclear power plants. Without nuclear power, South Korea would face severe power shortages, as evidenced by the shutdown of a nuclear power plant a few weeks ago, which significantly reduced the amount of standby power. It is true that nuclear power plants are expensive to build, but they are more economical in the long run because the cost of electricity production is lower than thermal, wind, and hydroelectric power. The uranium used during operation is much cheaper than oil or natural gas. Nuclear power also benefits from fuel reserve, as once the reactor is loaded with uranium, it does not need to be refuelled for 12 to 18 months. In fact, South Korea’s $40 billion export value from the UAE nuclear power plant order is equivalent to exporting 2 million Hyundai NF Sonatas and 360 super tankers of 300,000 tonnes, which has a huge economic impact.
Nuclear power produces less carbon emissions than other energy sources, making it the cleanest energy source currently available to South Koreans. With fossil fuels accounting for 85 per cent of the energy consumed, nuclear power is essential for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in South Korea. And the biggest objection to nuclear power is safety. While Chernobyl and the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan are often cited as examples, Japanese and Korean nuclear power plants are not the same. This is because Japanese nuclear power plants were built primarily for efficiency in power production, while South Korean nuclear power plants were built with safety in mind. South Korean nuclear power plants have five layers of safety and are much more favourable than their Japanese counterparts because they have a very large amount of hydrogen bombs, which means that even if an accident occurs, it will be very slow. In addition, South Korea is located inside the Eurasian plate, so an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.0 or higher is highly unlikely, and even if an earthquake occurs directly under the reactor, the reactor itself will not crack because it was built to safety standards to prevent radiation and cooling water from leaking out. The Chernobyl nuclear accident was caused by researcher error, not environmental factors. In addition, the Chernobyl reactor was slow to control and was operated in a way that ignored the design principles, which further increased the damage. For these reasons, reducing the number of nuclear power plants in South Korea will increase the problem of energy reduction.