Why should we reduce existing nuclear power plants instead of building more?

This article explains the problems and dangers of nuclear power in South Korea, emphasizes the need for alternative energy development and electricity conservation, and argues for the reduction of existing nuclear power plants instead of building more.

 

Human civilization has developed rapidly in the 20th century. In order to maintain such a developed civilization, a large amount of energy is required, and many power plants have been built to generate the necessary electricity. Nuclear power is one of the many ways to generate electricity. In Korea, starting with the Kori Nuclear Power Plant No. 1 in April 1978, many nuclear power plants have been built and are now a major source of electricity generation, thanks to the fact that it does not produce greenhouse gases and is cheap to generate. As of 2023, South Korea’s total electricity production was approximately 621.3 terawatt hours (TWh). Nuclear power accounted for about 32% of this, with about 199 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity generated by nuclear power. This is accomplished by 25 nuclear reactors operating in four power plants. The government is planning to build more nuclear power plants to increase electricity production. However, in my opinion, building more nuclear power plants is the wrong choice. Instead, it’s time to reduce the number of nuclear power plants. Although nuclear power accounts for a large share of Korea’s electricity supply, I believe that there is more to lose than gain by continuing nuclear power generation. Let’s take a look at how nuclear power works.
Nuclear power is generated by the energy released when atoms fission. All of Korea’s reactors are pressurized light water reactors, except for three pressurized heavy water reactors, and both types of reactors utilize the atom uranium-235. This atom becomes unstable when it absorbs a neutron and splits into two other atomic nuclei, such as cesium, rubidium, iodine, and yttrium, and a neutron. In addition, some mass is lost in the fission, which, by Einstein’s famous formula E = mc², produces energy equal to the mass lost. The mass lost, m, is very small, but the speed of light, c, is a very large constant, so the energy gained, E, is quite large. This reaction is not a one-time event. Each fission ejects an average of 2.5 neutrons, each of which is absorbed by another piece of uranium-235 and sets off a chain reaction. The result is a tremendous amount of energy as heat, which is used to generate steam to turn a turbine, which is how nuclear power plants work. Control rods and coolant are added to control the speed of the chain reaction and the temperature of the reactor. The byproducts left over after the power generation process are reprocessed and buried underground for storage.
The problem with nuclear power is the byproducts that it produces. Some people argue that nuclear power is clean energy because, unlike thermal power, it doesn’t produce carbon dioxide and therefore doesn’t contribute to global warming. However, this is not a valid argument. The byproducts are radioactive isotopes that are much more dangerous than carbon dioxide. For example, the cesium, rubidium, iodine, and yttrium produced when uranium-235 is fissioned are cesium-137, rubidium-82, iodine-131, and yttrium-90, respectively, which are unstable radioisotopes. When radioactive isotopes change from a stable state to a radioactive state, they emit radiation, which can be fatally damaging to the human body. This is called radiation exposure. Because the DNA is altered by radiation, the cells themselves become abnormally deformed or necrotic, destroying body tissue. Mild radiation can be treated and survived, but above a certain level of radiation, the lethality rate is 100%, with death occurring within a month.
Nuclear waste is usually managed safely, so it’s safe to assume that people are rarely harmed by it. However, nuclear plant managers are human and can make mistakes, and disasters can occur that are beyond human control. The most serious of these accidents is a meltdown (core meltdown), which is when the temperature of the reactor becomes too high and the inner walls melt and radioactive elements leak out. You can’t ignore the possibility of a major accident like Fukushima or Chernobyl. In the case of Chernobyl, the meltdown occurred because managers failed to control the speed of the chain reaction, and in the case of Fukushima, the tsunami stopped the cooling water supply pumps. As the Fukushima accident illustrates, once a core meltdown occurs, the radiation damage is enormous. The area around the accident site becomes uninhabitable, and the radioactive isotopes spread by the wind have a global impact. If such a thing happened in a small land like Korea, the whole country would be contaminated with radioactivity and become uninhabitable.
In this way, nuclear power generation is like having an atomic bomb that might explode. People are aware of the harmfulness of radioactive elements and the dangers of nuclear power plants, so they don’t want nuclear power plants or waste storage to be built near them. When the government planned to build a nuclear power plant in Samcheok, 85% of the residents voted against it. Not all of these people are advocates for nuclear reduction. At the very least, they know the dangers of nuclear power plants and don’t want to be near them.
Given the enormous risks involved, nuclear power plants need to be closely supervised and managed, but Korea’s management system is far from perfect. There have been cases of defective parts being delivered to nuclear power plants. Because of people who abandoned their morals for personal gain, our nuclear power plants were operating with defective parts until they were discovered. Another big problem is the unreasonable extension of the lifespan of nuclear power plants. The oldest ones, the Kori 1 and Wolseong 1, are already beyond their design life. However, the government is still operating them through continuous repairs and life extension. With minor accidents such as the January 2012 power outage at Kori 1 already occurring, keeping old reactors running at risk without taking any measures increases the risk of a major accident.
Opponents of reducing nuclear power generation argue that there is currently a shortage of power supply when demand for electricity is at its peak, and that we need more nuclear power to supplement the supply. However, in my opinion, the best solution to this problem is not to build more nuclear power plants. Developed countries like Germany and Japan have recently shown that society can function with fewer nuclear power plants. Japan overcame the absence of nuclear power through massive conservation. Japan has been shutting down all of its nuclear power plants since May 2012 after the Fukushima disaster, but thanks to joint government and private efforts to conserve energy, the country has been able to get by. However, Korea’s situation is far from conservation. As of 2023, South Korea’s electricity consumption was about 530 TWh (terawatt hours). Per capita electricity consumption was about 11 MWh (megawatt hours), which is 50% higher than the OECD average. Among OECD countries, South Korea ranks among the highest in terms of electricity consumption. South Korea has one of the highest electricity consumption rates among OECD countries, and its consumption has been steadily increasing. The main reason for the high consumption is the large share of industrial power consumption. However, Korea’s electricity prices are so cheap compared to other countries that people don’t feel the need to conserve energy. In fact, GDP/kWh, or Korea’s gross domestic product divided by total electricity use, is projected to be $3.45 in 2023. Furthermore, industrial electricity, which accounts for more than 50% of Korea’s electricity consumption, is further discounted, making it easier for businesses to use electricity without hesitation. Reasonable electricity pricing should drive home the need to conserve. In response, companies should strive to develop technologies that allow for low-energy production, and households should strive to reduce the amount of electricity wasted in their daily lives. In Germany, the country realized the dangers of nuclear power after Chernobyl, and in April 2023, it shut down its last nuclear power plants – Isa 2, Emsland, and Neckarwestheim 2 – to completely phase out nuclear energy. The decision was part of a policy initiated after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, aimed at shifting to renewable energy under Germany’s Energiewende plan. Currently, the level of power generation from alternative energy sources accounts for 57% of total electricity production. (As of 2023) This development has made Germany the first country where renewable energy is a major part of the economy.
However, the examples of Germany and Japan do not provide a perfect solution to Korea’s situation. No matter how much we conserve, we will eventually run out of electricity, given the increasing consumption as our economy grows. If we start developing alternative energy sources now and shut down nuclear power plants, we will have to fill the energy gap until alternative energy sources are sufficiently commercialized. Germany is overcoming this problem to some extent with thermal power generation through its abundant lignite reserves, but Korea, with its poor underground resources, will need to spend a lot of capital on importing fossil fuels to fill the energy gap. Instead of thermal power generation, we should try to eliminate the gap by building additional wind power plants or tidal power plants that are suitable for Korea’s environment.
Taking lessons from the examples of Germany and Japan, and considering the current state of Korea, we can set a goal that Korea should aim for. The ultimate goal is to retire all nuclear power plants and replace them with alternative energy sources. I’m not suggesting that all nuclear power plants should be retired immediately. No country in the world would be able to handle the aftermath of shutting down all nuclear power plants right now. The idea is to stop building more nuclear power plants, and to commercialize alternative energy developments like Germany’s to generate enough electricity to replace nuclear power plants before they reach the end of their useful life. However, nuclear power plants that have reached the end of their design life and are increasingly dangerous due to frequent failures should be decommissioned as soon as possible to put the public’s minds at ease.
However, the government does not currently have any plans to decommission nuclear power plants. Decommissioning a single reactor would require removing the remaining radioactive material, which would take an enormous amount of time and money to make it habitable. But the government is only concerned with building more nuclear reactors, not decommissioning them. Over time, more and more nuclear power plants will reach the end of their lifespan, and the risk of an accident will increase. One of the causes of this year’s Sewol ferry disaster was the overuse of a 20-year-old ship whose hull was beyond its design life. Therefore, we should stop extending the lifespan of nuclear power plants and prepare to decommission them one by one, starting with those that have already reached their end of life. It is also necessary to develop alternative energy to secure the amount of electricity that will be lost due to the decommissioning of nuclear power plants, and to improve systems and civic awareness to prevent electricity waste.