 |
| The Shin Hanul Nuclear Plant units 1 and 2 are seen in this photo. Construction of units 3 and 4 was stopped following the Moon administration introducing a nuclear phase-out plan. Korea Times file |
Some countries choosing to temporarily increase nuclear energy along path to carbon neutrality
By Yoon Ja-young
With 24 reactors in operation, Korea ranks as the world's sixth-largest producer of energy from nuclear power. But the country began losing its luster as a leader in the industry after President Moon Jae-in introduced his plan to phase out the energy source when he took office in 2017, citing safety concerns.
However, the Moon administration is facing a major dilemma, as the phase-out plan is emerging as a major stumbling block in its ambitious goal of achieving net-zero in carbon emissions. The presidential committee on carbon neutrality recently unveiled a new road map, according to which, Korea, the world's ninth-largest carbon emitter as of 2019, will cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 2018 levels by 2030, and achieve net-zero by 2050.
To meet the target, coal-fired power plants, which accounted for 35.6 percent of total energy generation last year, will be closed down by 2050, with the government explaining that it will increase renewable energy sources to compensate for this.
Experts, however, criticize the plan as taking a rosy outlook on renewable energy, which will lack competitiveness in Korea for a considerable time.
"The output from solar panels in Korea is around 55 percent that of Chile. It can produce electricity for an average of 3.5 hours a day. Korea's offshore wind power, which is superior to onshore wind, also has only 20 to 30 percent of wind energy density, compared with the U.K. or Denmark," notes the "Guidebook for the President on Energy Policy," a book co-authored by a number of energy experts. They added that Korea lacks not only fossil fuel energy but is also short on renewable energy sources.
"It is evident that we should be expanding renewable energy in the mid- to long-term. However, we need a strategic approach, taking into account our particular geography," said Cho Gyeong-lyeob, director of the economic research department at the Korea Economic Research Institute (KERI).
He said the social and economic costs are estimated to be greater than expected if the government hastily expands the ratio of renewable energy, which still lacks a competitive economic edge.
Many other countries are also still finding their feet in the implementation of renewable energy plans. Spain, for instance, increased renewable sources of energy in its power generation mix while decreasing that from coal-fired power plants to 5 percent in 2019, from 36 percent in 2000. However, an unexpected steep decline in wind this summer decreased the country's energy production by 20 percent. Accompanied by soaring natural gas prices, Spanish consumers are facing power rates that have tripled from last year.
Role of nuclear energy
 |
In the short term, however, some countries have chosen nuclear power on their path to carbon neutrality. France had decided to lower the ratio of nuclear power to 50 percent by 2035 from 75 percent, but recently announced a plan to invest 1 billion euro in nuclear energy research and development, including the production of small modular reactors (SMRs).
The U.K., which plans to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, is also building nuclear power plants. Japan, which has its ratio of nuclear energy at 6 percent following the Fukushima nuclear disaster, decided to raise the ratio to between 20 percent and 22 percent by 2030.
The Moon administration is now facing pressure, especially from the business community, for Korea to take a similar direction along the path to achieving carbon neutrality.
"According to the government's envisioned carbon neutrality scenario, Korea should completely cease use of coal-fired power plants by 2050 and make an energy transition to expand renewables, but there is a restriction when considering Korea's geography and climate," Korea Enterprises Federation Executive Vice Chairman Lee Dong-geun said in a seminar.
"As the government is curtailing nuclear energy, a crisis in electricity power supply and rate hikes seem inevitable," he said, reflecting concern from the business circle that the measure could deal a blow to energy consuming manufacturers, particularly the semiconductor, automobile and steel industries.
Rising gas prices are adding to concerns over the country's energy security. Experts stress that Korea, in terms of energy supply, is virtually an island that can't share electricity with neighboring countries, as European countries do. Yoo Seung-hoon, a professor in the Department of Energy Policy at Seoul National University of Science and Technology, pointed to the California and Texas blackout incidents.
"The point is securing enough backup power. Abolishing both coal and nuclear power will seriously undermine stability in the power supply and result in the eventual failure of the energy transition," he said.
Korea has 24 nuclear reactors in operation. Two have been shut down and four are currently under construction. At the center of the controversy are units 3 and 4 of the Shin Hanul Nuclear Power Plant. The construction of the two reactors was stopped following the administration's introduction of its nuclear phase-out policy, despite the 790 billion won that had already been poured into the project.
Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power President & CEO Chung Jae-hoon said in a recent National Assembly audit that he personally hopes the construction of the two plants will be resumed. The remark drew attention, as he was at the forefront of the administration's nuclear phase-out policy.
When asked whether carbon neutrality can be achieved without nuclear power, he said that he doesn't think this will be attainable. "With the technology we currently have, it is very difficult to achieve net zero by 2050," he said. He added that he suggested to the government that SMRs are of greater utility than "uncertain (renewable energy) technology" in order to achieve the government's goal.
Experts say that the government should control the pace and reach a social consensus, since whichever path it chooses costs will follow. While more people are aware of the need for change, with their lives at risk under global warming, society needs more discussions over how to share the burden. Electricity rates, for instance, are expected to be raised by 25.8 percent in 2030 and 33 percent in 2040 compared to 2017 if the nuclear phase-out continues, according to KERI.
"There should be enough consultation with consumers ― both industries and households ― before establishing mid- to long-term plans, with the nation's ability to maintain a competitive edge also being taken into account," Cho said.
