Why I’m in favor of nuclear energy (with a focus on South Korea)

Let’s take a look at the case of South Korea to see why they are in favor of using nuclear energy.

 

On March 11, 2011, the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami disrupted the power supply to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and caused the core cooling system to shut down, resulting in a nuclear meltdown. The accident led to skepticism and distrust of nuclear power not only in Japan, but also in neighboring South Korea and around the world. To add insult to injury, recent news of a series of nuclear plant failures in South Korea has also led to growing opposition to nuclear power in that country. So, should we really stop using nuclear energy?
South Korea has been building nuclear power plants since April 1978, starting with the Kori Nuclear Power Plant 1, and currently has 21 nuclear power plants (6 Uljin NPPs, 4 Wolseong NPPs, 5 Kori NPPs, and 6 Yeonggwang NPPs), with 6 more under construction (Shin Uljin 1 and 2, Shin Wolsung 1 and 2, and Shin Kori 2, 3, and 4). Building more reactors means that it will become increasingly difficult to meet South Korea’s electricity consumption with existing reactors alone. The dangers of nuclear power are well known from the Chernobyl disaster in the former Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the risks of building more nuclear power plants are outweighed by the many benefits of nuclear power. Nuclear power is like fire, with both benefits and losses. Moreover, South Korea is focusing on nuclear energy because it has to import most of its energy due to a lack of reserves.
According to the KEPCO’s Power Statistics Bulletin, as of February 2013, Korea generated a total of 40,589 GWh of electricity, of which nuclear power accounted for 11,301 GWh, or about 25 percent of the total, followed by 19,214 GWh from kinetic power, 9,618 GWh from combined cycle, 394 GWh from hydropower, and 62 GWh from internal combustion power. As of February 2013, the total amount of electricity sold by contract type was 41,012 GWh, of which 20,296 GWh was for industrial use, 9,541 GWh for general use, 5,910 GWh for residential use, and 5,265 GWh for others (education, agriculture, street lighting, late night). Some opponents of nuclear energy would argue that we shouldn’t use nuclear energy at all, so while it’s a bit extreme, if we didn’t use nuclear energy, we’d have to reduce our sales by 11,301 GWh, which is the nuclear share of electricity generated, and we’ll see if that’s possible without and with additional energy substitution.
Saving a quarter (2,825.25 GWh) of the 11,301 GWh of nuclear’s share of electricity generated by each contract type would mean that residential (5,910 GWh) and other (5,265 GWh) would have to save half the amount of electricity they were using, except for industrial and commercial, where usage is quite high. Other (education, agriculture, street lighting, late night) is almost impossible to save half as it is truly essential given its use. It’s possible to save on housing, but it means sacrificing a lot of personal comfort. Everyone’s comfort level is different, but what happens if you suddenly realize that you only have half of what you used to have? You can only watch half as much TV, use half as many computers, cook half as many meals, blow-dry half as much hair, charge half as many phones, keep the refrigerator off for 12 hours, and turn off the lights earlier. If we asked people to abide by these constraints without legal enforcement, a small percentage of people would comply, but the vast majority would not. In the long run, if people see someone who doesn’t follow the rules, they may think, “What’s in it for me to follow the rules,” and it’s very likely that they will eventually stop following them. Even if legal enforcement is applied to prevent this, or if KEPCO controls the amount of electricity supplied to homes, this would be a violation of individual freedom, and social problems can be expected to arise. It is virtually impossible for modern people, who are accustomed to the benefits of civilization, to observe the above half constraint.
Next, let’s assume that 1/8 of the 11,301 GWh (1412.625 GWh) of nuclear power’s share of electricity generation is saved for residential use and 7/8 is allocated to the rest. One could argue that we’re giving residential too much leeway, as it’s about one-quarter of the total amount of electricity consumed by the average household, but one-quarter is not a small number in the context of saving half of the electricity above. Now let’s look more specifically at the amount of electricity sold by use as of February 2013. The total is 41,012 GWh, with manufacturing accounting for 18,431 GWh, services for 13,237 GWh, residential for 5,747 GWh, and other (utilities, agriculture, and mining) for 3,598 GWh. We can see that manufacturing accounts for the majority of consumption in the industrial sector, services accounts for the majority of consumption in the general sector, and residential accounts for the majority of consumption in the residential sector. Now we allocate seven-eighths (9888.375 GWh) of the 11,301 GWh of nuclear power generation to manufacturing, services, and other, which, if divided by one-third, would mean that other (3,598 GWh) would have to save more than 90% of the electricity it used to use, so we end up with the conclusion that manufacturing and services would have to save most of the electricity. It is possible that the one-third division is unrealistic for convenience, and even if the division were proportionally weighted by usage, it would not be possible to estimate the exact amount of losses, but it is clear that manufacturing and services would suffer significant losses. It is important to note that the savings were made without additional substitution of other energy sources to make up for the share of nuclear power in electricity generation, which would be unrealistic to conclude without additional substitution of other energy sources.
As of February 2013, the breakdown of electricity generation by energy source is 11,301 GWh for nuclear, 16,128 GWh for coal, 7,533 GWh for gas, 2,589 GWh for oil, 394 GWh for hydro, and 2,644 GWh for combined and alternative. Looking at the trend from February 2012 to February 2013, oil, hydro, and combined and alternatives are not only little fluctuating, but also small, while coal, nuclear, and gas are fluctuating frequently and large, so the amount of coal and gas must be increased to cover the amount of electricity generated by nuclear. Electric power includes coal (anthracite, lignite), heavy oil, and LNG, and when the electric power is 19,214 GWh, coal accounts for 16,128 GWh, of which lignite accounts for 15,461 GWh, so it can be seen that lignite accounts for most of the electric power. When looking at the fuel consumption of thermal power plants, 99 thousand tons of anthracite coal and 6,110 thousand tons of lignite coal are used. However, according to the Energy Economics Research Institute’s Energy Supply and Demand Trends No. 12, as of December 2012, the import volume of flexible coal was 9,091 thousand tons and the import volume of anthracite coal was 392 thousand tons, and the domestic production of coal was 162 thousand tons, including only anthracite coal. What we can see from this is that lignite has to be imported, and in order to cover the amount of electricity generated by nuclear power, the amount of coal and gas has to be increased, which in turn increases the amount of coal and gas imported. This would not be a problem if we could freely mine coal and gas domestically, but since we have limited reserves, we need to import more coal to generate power, let alone gas. For reference, energy prices in the international market were 99.5 US$/ton for coal and 43.7 US$/lb for uranium as of December 2012, with 1 ton equal to 2204.62262 pounds (lb). At first glance, it seems like it’s cheaper to import coal because it’s cheaper per pound, but when you consider that the energy produced by fissioning 1 gram of uranium is the same as the energy produced by burning 3 tons of coal, it’s hard to say which is more economical. You can see that any additional substitution of other energy sources is not economically feasible. In addition, the price of oil is very unstable, not only on the international market, but also depending on the situation in the Middle East, so the supply is also unstable, whereas uranium, which is the raw material for nuclear energy, is not as sensitive to external circumstances as oil, and its production is not biased like oil, and its supply is stable.
The main argument against using nuclear energy is that it is risky, as evidenced by the consequences of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. While it’s true that the risks are high, it’s by no means true that we lack the technology to prevent them. Furthermore, the direct cause of the Fukushima meltdowns was not a defect in the reactors themselves or a lack of technology, but rather an unpredictable external factor, such as the tsunami caused by the Great East Japan Earthquake, that caused the reactors to shut down. However, South Korea does not experience unpredictable external factors such as earthquakes and tsunamis as often as Japan, and South Korea, which already exports nuclear power plants to the Middle East, does not lack the technology to build nuclear power plants.
Another argument against using nuclear energy is the problem of radioactive waste. First of all, radioactive waste is divided into high-level radioactive waste and low-level radioactive waste depending on the level of radioactivity. High-level radioactive waste is the waste from nuclear fuel (enriched uranium) or its reprocessing, which requires advanced technology to enrich uranium industrially, and only Japan, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom, France, and China, which are nuclear powers, can do this. Therefore, Korea does not produce high-level radioactive waste, so we do not need to worry about high-level radioactive waste. Low-level radioactive waste includes clothing used by nuclear power plant employees and waste from industrial companies, hospitals, and research institutes, which must be cemented in radioactive waste drums and stored in a waste disposal center. Waste dumps need to be built on solid rock or geologically stable areas with no risk of earthquakes and no groundwater flow, and since South Korea has little risk of earthquakes and is geologically stable, this shouldn’t be a problem as long as you can find an area with few people around.
Although there have been a number of recent nuclear power plant shutdowns in South Korea, which has increased opposition to the use of nuclear energy, it was recently revealed that parts used in nuclear power plants were counterfeit due to corruption. This is due to problems with the parts, not a lack of technology, so if the parts are replaced and operated in perfect condition, the risk prevention potential will be eliminated. Considering the economics, security of supply, and risk prevention potential, I am in favor of using nuclear energy.