Can nuclear power be the solution to global warming? Amidst environmental, economic and political controversy, what choice do we have?

Nuclear power is often presented as a solution to reducing carbon emissions, but it comes with many problems, including risks, high economic costs, environmental impacts, and political controversy, as demonstrated by the Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters. We need to look for safer and more sustainable alternatives.

 

Nuclear power is increasingly being used around the world as it reduces the consumption of fossil fuels and curbs the rise in electricity prices. In recent years, nuclear power has also been increasingly discussed as a way to reduce carbon emissions. This is because the world is working to reduce carbon emissions as environmental issues such as global warming become more serious. While many countries are embracing renewable energy, the current state of technology makes nuclear power an alternative for reliable power supply.
However, nuclear power is risky, as the aftermath of nuclear accidents, such as the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011 or the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986, can be very serious. According to recent reports, stricter regulations are needed to ensure the safety of nuclear power plants, which will increase costs. Countries around the world are working on ways to deal with nuclear accidents, but there is still no perfect solution.
The economics of nuclear power are also debated. The hidden costs of nuclear power make it less economical than other forms of electricity generation, and the costs of construction, operation, and decommissioning are considerable. In addition, the generation of spent nuclear fuel requires storage facilities, which are also costly. Japan has shut down 51 of the 54 nuclear reactors it operated after the Fukushima disaster, and said at the World Energy Outlook presentation that it plans to close all of them by 2050. According to the latest data, the country is planning to restart nine reactors by 2023 and phase out the rest. This shows that economic evaluations need to consider not only the construction, operating, and fuel costs of a plant, but also the costs of decommissioning and waste disposal for an accurate assessment.
According to MIT’s ‘The Future of Nuclear Power’ report, nuclear power is more expensive per kWh than coal, oil, and gas combined cycle power generation. The post-processing costs of nuclear power generation include the cost of demolishing nuclear power plants, radioactive waste disposal, and nuclear fuel disposal, and as of 2023, the cost of post-processing alone amounted to KRW 20 trillion. When considering the economics of building, operating, and decommissioning nuclear power plants, nuclear power is not economical.
In addition, nuclear power has a significant negative impact on the environment. It produces a lot of nuclear waste and has a low thermal efficiency. Hiroaki Koide’s book The Hidden Truth About Nuclear Power debunks the myth that nuclear power is not only unsafe, but also produces a lot of waste. According to recent studies, nuclear power emits large amounts of carbon dioxide and fission products, and nuclear power plants are thermally inefficient, dumping two-thirds of their energy into the ocean, raising ocean temperatures by an average of 7 degrees. This leads to increased carbon dioxide production.
In addition, the need for a spent nuclear fuel disposal facility is highly risky, and this aspect is not economically favorable. Korea currently operates 25 nuclear power plants, and as the amount of spent nuclear fuel increases, storage facilities are needed. As of 2023, the storage space for spent nuclear fuel is saturated and some nuclear power plants are at risk of being shut down. To address this, the country plans to build and operate a spent fuel disposal facility by 2050.
Some countries have abandoned nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster in Japan, while others oppose it for political reasons. Germany was the first OECD country to abandon nuclear power, closing all of its nuclear power plants by 2022. Eight of Germany’s 17 nuclear reactors have already been permanently shut down, and the remaining nine are scheduled to close by the end of 2022. The closure of nuclear power plants, which accounted for 20% of the country’s electricity generation, has led to an increased reliance on renewable energy and natural gas. Merkel’s decision to abandon nuclear power was prompted by the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. Germany’s political landscape has become more anti-nuclear since the Fukushima disaster, so for political reasons, the country as a whole tends to stay away from nuclear power.
This is not the only controversy surrounding nuclear power. One of the biggest problems is local opposition during the siting process. Power plants are often built in sparsely populated and economically disadvantaged areas, which puts a lot of pressure on the local population. They resent the fact that their living conditions are degraded and their health is threatened. In many cases, the economic benefits of power plant construction do not directly benefit the local population, leading to resentment. These issues undermine trust in the transparency and fairness of the plant construction process and contribute to negative perceptions of nuclear power.
For these reasons, nuclear power has many economic, environmental, and political problems. We need to rethink our use of nuclear power and explore safer and more sustainable alternatives. To do this, it is important that governments, businesses, and civil society work together to formulate and implement new energy policies. We must not forget that reducing the use of nuclear power and increasing the share of renewable energy is essential for our future.