Nuclear power, a safe and efficient source of energy or a risky choice?

While the public has become fearful of nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the reality is that nuclear power is safer, more efficient, and better for the environment than other energy sources, and in the absence of a suitable alternative, we need to work to understand and accept its safety and efficiency.

 

The public’s intuitive feelings about nuclear power plants are more favorable than unfavorable. The majority find nuclear power unsafe and frightening. A major factor that has influenced this thinking is the disaster in Fukushima, Japan. The Fukushima nuclear power plant, which exploded after the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011, is still in a critical state of repair. As the aftermath of this event reverberated in Korea, the public’s opposition to nuclear power has grown stronger.
The media is constantly reporting on the damage caused by nuclear power accidents, often with sensationalized images of deformed babies and ecosystem changes. Because of the damage caused by nuclear power, there are growing calls to stop nuclear power in Korea. However, what opponents of nuclear power overlook is that the news doesn’t sensationalize how safe nuclear power is. Shinkori 1 was shut down, but it wasn’t because of a problem with the reactor, but because of a problem with the transmission system. It’s a logical fallacy to argue for reducing nuclear power plants because we’re worried they’re going to fail when they haven’t yet. The truth is that nuclear power is safer than you might think, and there are no substitutes for it.
This may seem like a strange claim to make. However, experts who are familiar with the safety of nuclear power don’t worry about it. The structure of a nuclear power plant is divided into two main parts. The NSSS, which is the equipment that supplies steam to the reactor and other turbine generators, and the BOP, which is everything else. After the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and the Fukushima disaster in 2011, nuclear power plant designers further strengthened the core safety functions of the NSSS. They are systematically equipped with protective facilities to remove the decay heat of the core and isolate radioactive materials, and they are systematically incorporating ergonomics into the design of the plant from the early stages. In Korea, only pressurized light water reactor and pressurized heavy water reactor nuclear power plants, which have larger and stronger containment structures than boiling water reactor plants, are built to minimize leakage of radioactive materials.
Despite the safety of Korea’s nuclear power plants, if we were to eliminate nuclear power, we would have to find an energy source to replace them. This will be difficult. Nuclear fission is a very efficient source of energy. If we were to cut nuclear power plants, we would have to use oil or coal energy instead. However, the energy that takes three tons of coal and nine drums of oil to produce can be made from just one gram of uranium-235 (U235). The difference in power generation efficiency is staggering. It costs about $0.03 to generate 1 kW of energy from nuclear power, compared to about $0.05 from lignite. Replacing nuclear power plants with coal-fired power plants would cost an additional $11.4 billion per year, or about $730 per household per year.
Nuclear power is also environmentally favorable. Nuclear waste is far less than that of coal power. Nuclear waste is about the volume of a soda can and weighs about 1 kilogram. In contrast, coal power generation produces 19,000 tons of carbon dioxide from just one day’s worth of coal. That’s a lot compared to nuclear waste. For 1 GW of electricity produced in a year, nuclear waste is only 20 tons, while coal waste produces 8 million tons of carbon dioxide. This poses a serious climate crisis problem. Replacing nuclear power with coal power would result in about 147.25 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year.
Some argue that radioactive waste from nuclear power plants is harmful to health. However, this is only true when the amount of radioactivity is high. Only the spent fuel in the reactors inside a nuclear power plant is high-level waste with a high concentration of radioactivity, and all radioactive waste is disposed of in special, secure containers in underground repositories. Some people believe that renewable energy can replace nuclear power. However, Korea’s small land area and dense population mean that there is not enough space for renewable energy. Wind power requires about 2,100 square meters of space to generate 1 GW, and solar power requires 1,650 square meters of land to generate 1 GW. Renewable energy is not yet ready to replace nuclear power.
In 2023, Korea’s per capita electricity consumption ranks 12th in the world, but its energy independence is only 2%. To improve Korea’s energy independence, we need a more energy-dense form of power generation. Therefore, nuclear power is the Korean version of electricity generation. Korea has no oil or coal production, so it is forced to rely on imports from the Middle East, and it is difficult to supply enough electricity through renewable energy alone due to its vast open spaces. Therefore, Korea’s energy security depends on nuclear power. In fact, there has been a lack of communication to help people understand nuclear power. If the public understood and accepted the safety and efficiency of nuclear power, there would be no need to reduce the number of nuclear power plants. Rather, countries need to further strengthen safety requirements to ensure safe operation of nuclear power plants. People need to understand and accept nuclear power, not just reject it based on sensationalized news.