In this blog post, we will look at the present and future of nuclear power by examining the reasons why we still have to choose nuclear power, its economic feasibility and safety, and comparing it with alternative energy sources.
Introduction – The Age of Energy
The 21st century is truly the “age of energy.” Countries with energy resources secure strategic advantages in the international community, and companies with energy technologies create enormous added value. Accordingly, efforts to develop high-efficiency, eco-friendly energy sources and improve existing energy systems are ongoing. Amidst these trends, one topic has been at the center of heated debate recently: nuclear power.
Nuclear Power Generation and Its Risks
Nuclear power generation is basically similar to thermal power generation. Both generate electricity by boiling water to produce steam that turns a turbine. However, thermal power generation uses coal, oil, and natural gas as energy sources, while nuclear power generation uses uranium.
The type of reactor mainly used in Korea is the pressurized water reactor (PWR). This reactor uses enriched uranium as fuel and releases enormous amounts of energy through a nuclear fission reaction with neutrons. The energy generated heats high-pressure water in the primary cooling system, and this hot water transfers heat to the water in the secondary system to generate steam. This steam turns turbines to generate electricity, and since the primary and secondary cooling water do not mix, the possibility of radioactive material leakage is low. Thanks to this structure, pressurized water reactors are considered to be relatively safe.
According to Korea Electric Power Corporation’s 2023 standards, nuclear power accounts for approximately 29.6% of Korea’s total power generation. This proves that nuclear power is still a major source of energy, and its importance is expected to grow as fossil fuel-based thermal power generation gradually reaches the end of its life cycle.
The need to reduce nuclear power
Nuclear power is clearly considered an efficient and environmentally friendly energy source, but at the same time, it has an inherent safety issue. The principle of nuclear power is fundamentally the same as that of nuclear weapons, and equipment failure, human error, or natural disasters can lead to fatal consequences. In fact, humanity has experienced three major nuclear accidents. Examples include the Three Mile Island accident in the United States in 1979, the Chernobyl accident in 1986, and the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan in 2011. These incidents triggered a movement to abandon nuclear power and caused the entire world to question the future of nuclear power generation.
There are three main arguments for reducing nuclear power.
The emergence of alternative energy
In the past, many argued that there were no alternatives to nuclear power. However, various alternative energy sources are now being put into practical use. Renewable energy technologies such as solar, wind, and geothermal energy are rapidly advancing, and their efficiency and storage technologies are also improving. In particular, the share of renewable energy in South Korea’s energy mix expanded to 9.2% in 2022, and the government has announced plans to increase this to over 30% by 2036.
Unconventional resources such as shale gas have entered the commercialization stage, and research and investment in next-generation energy sources such as carbon capture and storage (CCUS) and hydrogen energy are actively underway. The argument that “there is no alternative to nuclear power” is no longer convincing.
Reexamining economic feasibility
Traditionally, nuclear power has been widely regarded as highly economical due to its low fuel costs. However, the situation is different when the costs of decommissioning (closure and dismantling) and long-term radioactive waste management are included.
According to a 2022 report by Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power, it costs more than 1.2 trillion won to decommission a 1GW nuclear power plant, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recommends an average cost of 2 trillion won. Furthermore, securing a site for a high-level radioactive waste disposal facility remains an unresolved issue. Considering all these factors, it is difficult to determine the total cost of nuclear power generation based solely on the unit price of power generation.
The importance of energy demand management
Energy demand may increase, but it is possible to control the rate of increase or improve efficiency. Demand can be reduced or leveled through smart grids, improved energy efficiency, and energy conservation campaigns. In fact, Japan has succeeded in reducing the share of nuclear power to less than half through energy conservation policies and industrial restructuring after the Fukushima nuclear accident. South Korea will also be able to achieve similar results through the advancement of demand forecasting technology and the expansion of energy storage systems (ESS).
Conclusion – Choosing safety and sustainability
I am not completely opposed to nuclear power. However, from the perspective of sustainability, I believe that the current energy structure, which relies entirely on nuclear power, must change. The gradual reduction of nuclear power is inevitable, and we must prepare for this and develop alternative technologies and systems.
Rather than immediately shutting down nuclear power plants, it is desirable to gradually reduce their share and fill the gap with renewable energy. Policies that take into account energy supply stability, carbon neutrality, and public safety are necessary. Should we use safer energy even if it is a little more expensive, or should we take uncertain risks for economic gain? We are now at a crossroads.
