Building more nuclear power plants, a solution to climate change or a dangerous challenge?

In the modern world, where power and energy are essential, nuclear power plants are seen as an efficient and low-carbon source of energy. However, radioactive waste disposal and safety concerns have led to ongoing debate about building more. When considering climate change and energy security, nuclear power plants have many advantages, but the risks cannot be overlooked.

 

We have reached an age where we cannot live without power and energy. Energy is created in power plants. In Korea, thermal, nuclear, hydropower, renewable energy, pumped hydro, and solar power plants supply electricity to nearly 55 million people. Of these, nuclear, hydropower, pumped storage, and solar have only been utilized since the 50s and 60s. As more people learned about nuclear power in the 20th century, some people said that nuclear power is the new beginning of the future. This is because nuclear power is clean. It emits very little carbon dioxide. Nuclear energy is produced by nuclear fusion or fission, the latter of which is used in power plants. The energy from the splitting of atomic nuclei is used to create water vapor. This steam is then turned in a turbine to generate electricity. There are no carbon dioxide emissions anywhere in this process. In addition, nuclear power plants provide more electricity efficiently than hydroelectric, solar, and thermal power plants. This is due to the small number of nuclear power plants.
The Seventh National Electricity Supply and Demand Plan calls for the construction of two new nuclear power plants, which has led to a debate about the need for additional nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants do not emit nearly as much carbon dioxide as thermal power plants, so it makes sense to build more nuclear power plants in the context of the current need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. However, some argue that nuclear power plants are dangerous. Nuclear power plants use uranium, so you should always be careful. The biggest danger of nuclear power plants is radiation.
Some people think that nuclear power plants are necessary because they’re good for energy security. As long as people seek convenience, electricity use will only increase. With more and more electronic devices, electricity will be used more and more. As electricity usage increases, production must increase to keep up with demand. When demand is high and supply is low, blackouts occur. In the last three years, many people have been affected by power shortages. In such a situation, it is necessary to build additional power plants, but why should they be nuclear?
Nuclear power is more expensive to build than other forms of power generation, but its fuel costs are very low compared to other forms of power generation, making it the least expensive option when considering the timeframe of the plant. In 2013, nuclear energy cost $0.036 per kWh to produce. Lignite, anthracite, and hydro were $0.064, $0.120, and $0.143, respectively. When looking at the cost of energy production alone, nuclear energy is much less expensive than other energy sources. For example, to produce 1 million kWh of energy, nuclear energy costs $36,000 to produce. Lignite, anthracite, and hydropower cost $64,000, $120,000, and $143,000, respectively. The larger the production capacity, the higher the cost. This is why nuclear power plants are more cost-effective than other sources.
According to the Korea Atomic Energy Culture Foundation, “nuclear energy can produce a huge amount of energy with a very small amount of fuel. The energy obtained from the fission of 1 gram of uranium is equivalent to the energy obtained from burning 9 drums of oil and 3 tons of coal. If uranium is currently $36 per lb, that’s $0.079 per gram. Meanwhile, a drum of oil costs $50 and a ton of coal costs $49. To get the same energy from 1 gram of uranium, it would cost $450 for oil and $147 for coal. The cost difference is a whopping 1:5696:1860.
In addition, greenhouse gas emissions have become a problem these days, and carbon dioxide (CO2), the main cause of climate change, is produced by burning fossil fuels. To solve this problem globally, we need to generate “clean” energy, and one of the answers is nuclear power. There are other sources of energy such as hydroelectricity, solar power, and renewable energy, but they are not as energy efficient as nuclear power, so they are not included in this argument. As mentioned above, nuclear power is a process of nuclear fission. It produces very little carbon dioxide. Therefore, nuclear power is a solution to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions and is the most realistic way to combat climate change. In addition, due to the cap-and-trade system that was implemented this year, carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced. If we don’t reduce our emissions, we will have to buy credits from other countries, which is not cheap.
Another advantage is the “security of supply” of uranium, the raw material for nuclear power generation, which is found in large deposits around the world. Uranium is not concentrated in the Middle East like oil, but is widely distributed around the world, so there is no need to worry about price spikes or supply disruptions. In short, uranium’s global distribution makes it immune to energy fluctuations. It is also very easy to transport and store compared to oil. All in all, uranium, the raw material for nuclear power, has a stable supply and import.
However, as with anything, there are disadvantages. Nuclear power is no different. Nuclear power plants provide energy and power, but they also inevitably produce radioactive waste. Radioactive waste is not like food waste or trash that you can throw away. Radioactive waste is difficult to dispose of and has a long half-life, meaning that the entire uranium must wait a long time to decay. Uranium-235 has a half-life of 703 million years. If the half-life of uranium is 703 million years, which is almost 4.5 billion years since the earth was born, it is difficult to dispose of, and the next question is where to put all this waste. Countries like the United States and Russia bury the radioactive waste generated from power plants deep in the ground because the land is so wide, but Korea does not have such a wide land. Even if we were to build a facility to store the waste, it would probably cost more than the cost of the power plant. Not only the construction cost, but also the maintenance cost would be enormous. So far, none of these facilities have lasted a thousand years. Any trace of a radioactive waste storage facility is a sign of a possible leak, and the cost of checking and maintaining the facility almost every year is not to be taken lightly.
Another disadvantage is the risk of nuclear power generation, as radioactive waste has the potential to contaminate the surrounding area and the damage it can cause is enormous. As mentioned above, radioactive contamination can be incredibly toxic and cause great damage. The TMI nuclear disaster in the United States in 1979 and the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the former Soviet Union in 1986 are two prime examples. And more recently, the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 resulted in many deaths, and the area is still off-limits due to radioactive contamination. The cause of the Chernobyl accident was that the reactor building (containment) was never built. The Fukushima nuclear accident was caused by a tsunami that was triggered by a massive earthquake. The magnitude of the earthquake was 9.0. Even though Korea is not near a geological tectonic plate, we shouldn’t let our guard down. The tsunami that caused the Fukushima nuclear disaster was 15 meters high, and if the magnitude of a major earthquake is greater than 9.0, it will damage not only an island country like Japan but also the Korean peninsula. We should always be careful in this regard, and nuclear power plants should be built for the possibility of earthquakes.
If we build more nuclear power plants, we must continue to develop technologies to manage accidents and nuclear power plants safely, and we must be able to safely handle and manage radioactive waste. We don’t know how long we will be able to use thermal power plants because of climate change. When we run out of oil and coal, what will we use to run power plants and generate electricity to keep people supplied with electricity? We can get energy from hydropower, renewable energy, or solar, but the amount of energy we get is still too small to be efficient. Nuclear power could be the answer to this problem. Nuclear power plants have their disadvantages, but there are alternatives that can be made more reliable with further technological advances, as we have been doing. There are countries like Germany and Italy that have shut down their nuclear power plants after the Fukushima disaster, but there are also countries like the United Kingdom, which planned to build eight new nuclear reactors in 2013. Of course, nothing is more important than life and safety. As Albert Einstein once said, “A ship is always safe at the shore, but that is NOT what it is built for”. If you don’t progress because you are always in danger, you will eventually fall behind. This quote should make us think twice about whether the path we are on is the right one.