In this blog post, we will examine the importance of energy, which has sustained human life and scientific and technological progress, and consider solutions to energy issues by focusing on the potential and limitations of nuclear power, renewable energy, and nuclear fusion energy as responses to the depletion of fossil fuels, as well as the roles of the market and the government.
The film ‘Planet of the Apes’ opens with a scene featuring a space station. In the movie, the protagonist Leo Davidson explains that this space station was launched from Earth in the year 2029 and is powered by an inexhaustible source of nuclear energy. What is most important to us today? Is it money? Or is it fame? In my opinion, it is energy. Beginning with the Industrial Revolution, humanity has developed its civilization by utilizing the vast amounts of energy stored on Earth. Science and technology—which have brought human life to its current level—have also advanced on the basis of energy. In other words, without energy, the advancement of science and technology would be difficult to sustain. Therefore, Leo’s mention of “infinite energy” in the film implies that humanity would no longer need to worry about energy problems, which is truly a staggering prospect. However, in reality, an infinite energy source—that is, a perpetual motion machine—cannot exist.
Numerous scientists, including the British physicist Robert Boyle—famous for “Boyle’s Law”—and Edward Somerset, known for his research on steam engines, have long envisioned the dream of a perpetual motion machine, conducting countless studies and experiments. In most cases, however, these efforts reached their limits at the theoretical or experimental stage, and ultimately, new forms of energy must be developed to replace our dwindling energy resources. So, how is society today responding to this problem?
In the past, oil and coal accounted for a very high proportion of the energy resources consumed in South Korea. However, even today, South Korea’s energy system remains heavily dependent on fossil fuels. According to the energy outlook from the Korea Energy Economics Institute, total primary energy demand in 2024 was estimated at approximately 304.3 million metric tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe), with oil accounting for about 118.0 Mtoe and coal for about 72.5 Mtoe. Simply adding the shares of these two energy sources amounts to approximately 63%. In other words, even though the energy system is changing compared to the past, oil and coal still account for a significant portion of South Korea’s energy supply.
Some argue that the future of energy is by no means bleak, as research into alternative energy sources is accelerating in various regions around the world. In fact, renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power are expanding more rapidly than in the past, and nuclear power is also playing an important role as a low-carbon power source. In particular, nuclear power stands apart from other next-generation energy sources in that it has already been commercialized and can reliably supply electricity on a large scale. Currently, nuclear power accounts for approximately 31% of South Korea’s total electricity production, with 26 reactors in operation and 4 under construction. However, it is more accurate to understand nuclear power as a low-carbon energy source capable of replacing fossil fuels rather than classifying it as an alternative energy source in the same sense as renewable energy.
While nuclear power has the advantage of being able to reliably generate large amounts of electricity, it also faces challenges such as radioactive waste management, the risk of nuclear accidents, and ensuring the safety of power plants. The Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents demonstrated that nuclear power is by no means a technology completely free from risk. Therefore, it is inappropriate to view nuclear power as the sole solution to energy problems; rather, we need to explore combinations with other low-carbon energy sources while taking into account safety enhancements, waste management, and economic viability.
Renewable energy has also grown to an extent unimaginable in the past. Solar and wind power are expanding rapidly due to falling generation costs and technological advancements, and globally, the growth rate of renewable energy significantly outpaces the growth rate of total energy demand. Nevertheless, it is difficult to meet all current energy demand with renewable energy alone in the short term. In particular, when considering energy used in industry, transportation, and buildings, simply increasing electricity generation is not sufficient; issues such as grid stability, energy storage systems, expansion of transmission networks, and demand management must also be addressed. South Korea, too, as it pursues its energy transition, finds itself in a situation where it must simultaneously expand renewable energy while improving energy efficiency, upgrading the power grid, and expanding carbon-free power sources.
Looking solely at past statistics, the share of renewable energy in the energy supply was very low. At that time, renewable energy accounted for only a few percent of total energy, and the rate of increase was also modest. Consequently, even though the media and scientists had long claimed that alternative resources capable of producing large amounts of energy had been secured, one could not help but wonder why their share in the actual energy system remained so low. However, the situation has now changed. Renewable energy is no longer a technology confined to laboratories or select pilot projects; it has grown into an energy source that accounts for a significant portion of actual electricity generation. However, this growth does not mean that all energy problems have been solved. Globally, in 2024, renewable energy—including hydropower—accounted for about 32% of the total electricity supply; however, when measured against total energy demand, the share of renewable energy remains much lower.
Have you ever heard of biomass? What about nuclear fusion power? Biomass is a method of generating energy using various organic resources such as wood, grains, plants, agricultural waste, and food waste. It can be used to produce energy—such as fuel, gas, and electricity—to power diesel engines or generators, and it is also possible to obtain liquid fuels like methanol or ethanol, as well as gaseous fuels like hydrogen or methane. In the past, biomass garnered attention as a method capable of simultaneously solving environmental and energy problems by converting resources that were previously discarded into energy. However, it cannot be assumed that biomass is unconditionally eco-friendly. This is because energy is consumed during the production and transportation of raw materials, and the environmental impact can vary depending on how forests or farmland are utilized. Therefore, biomass must also be utilized with consideration for securing sustainable raw materials and its entire life cycle.
Unlike conventional nuclear power, which uses fission energy, nuclear fusion power utilizes the energy released when light atomic nuclei fuse. Theoretically, nuclear fusion has the potential to become a large-scale energy source with virtually zero carbon emissions, and it has the advantage that deuterium—a component of its fuel—is abundant in seawater. However, nuclear fusion power cannot yet be considered a commercialized power source. Technical challenges remain to be addressed, such as maintaining stable fusion reactions, controlling plasma, developing materials capable of withstanding high temperatures and high-energy neutrons, and securing a fuel cycle. In particular, for deuterium-tritium fusion—the primary focus of current research—tritium is not abundant in nature; therefore, ensuring a stable fuel supply and developing tritium breeding technology are critical challenges. The U.S. Department of Energy has also identified, as of 2026, the resolution of scientific and technical gaps in research aimed at the commercialization of nuclear fusion, as well as the process leading from demonstration plants to commercial power generation, as key tasks.
Therefore, it is difficult to say that nuclear fusion will immediately free humanity from energy concerns. In the past, projections were made suggesting that the deuterium contained in seawater alone could provide humanity with energy for hundreds of millions of years; however, numerous engineering challenges exist that cannot be resolved by fuel abundance alone for actual commercialization. While nuclear fusion is undoubtedly a technology with tremendous potential, it is essential to clearly recognize that it remains a future energy source that must still undergo research and demonstration.
So why haven’t these energy sources been commercialized sooner, and why haven’t they yet solved all our energy problems? It is no exaggeration to say that modern society is dominated by capitalism. From the author’s perspective, capitalism is a socioeconomic system that ensures the capitalist and entrepreneurial class—who own the means of production—engage in productive activities to pursue profit. One of the key priorities in such a society is profit generation. Investment occurs only when it is possible to generate value equal to or greater than the amount invested. Therefore, the direction of alternative energy development also depends on the investment costs incurred for the technology and the value that can be derived from it in the future. Ultimately, from the perspective of a market economy, development support that disregards economic viability can incur enormous costs over the long term and may place a burden on the economy, which serves as the foundation of society. Here, efficiency does not refer solely to mechanical efficiency. No matter how outstanding a technology may be, if its development requires long-term, sustained investment and time, it may be evaluated as an inefficient choice from an economic perspective. Thus, excessive investment in sectors with low economic viability may act as a stumbling block that hinders economic growth in other sectors.
In my personal opinion, the development of alternative energy is ultimately nothing more than an economic choice. Even if we are on the verge of resource depletion and there is an urgent need to replace fossil fuels—which account for the bulk of energy consumption—the most economically viable choice in the market right now may be to maintain the existing energy system. However, this choice comes with significant problems. This is because market prices may not fully reflect future costs such as environmental pollution, the damages caused by climate change, risks to energy security, and the social costs resulting from resource depletion. Therefore, if energy sources are selected based solely on a comparison of current prices, there is a possibility that society as a whole will bear greater costs in the long run.
Selecting energy sources rationally according to the pricing principles of capitalism is an important principle. However, this is where the “tragedy of the commons”—often cited as one of capitalism’s greatest blind spots—can come to the fore. As mentioned earlier, one of the fundamental characteristics of market participants is that they prioritize their own interests. The problem arises when this behavior is applied to resources used in common. As explained in the “tragedy of the commons,” if each individual overexploits a finite, shared resource for their own benefit, the resource may eventually be depleted. In the process, much like the income disparity that is currently a problem in society, an unequal situation may arise in which the class with greater access to resources enjoys far more benefits than those without.
So, should capitalism be rejected because it could lead to such a pessimistic outcome? Clearly, capitalism has the advantage of encouraging creative thinking through free competition, driving the production of better goods in abundance and at affordable prices. If this competition were applied to energy development, companies and research institutions would compete to develop more efficient and superior energy technologies, and the likelihood of securing new resources would increase in the process. The challenge lies in how to minimize side effects—such as the “tragedy of the commons” mentioned earlier—while fostering this competition.
Professor Elinor Ostrom, the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in Economics, explained that while it is commonly believed that humans act solely to pursue short-term gains, a closer look at people’s lives reveals many instances where they voluntarily cooperate to solve shared problems from a long-term perspective. Ostrom studied various real-world examples in which users created their own rules and managed resources themselves, demonstrating that commonly used resources do not necessarily have to be managed solely through central government control or complete privatization. Through this research, she showed that autonomous cooperation and institutional mechanisms can play a crucial role in the management of common-pool resources. Ostrom was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics for these contributions, becoming the first woman in the history of the prize to receive it.
One example cited is from California, where, as groundwater faced the threat of depletion due to unregulated extraction, several groundwater developers formed a committee and established rules autonomously to manage the resource. However, it is not only the autonomous efforts of the community but also government involvement that can play a part in solving problems. Through this, Ostrom demonstrated that even when the government introduces regulations, if it takes into account the autonomous rules that have long been established in the region and listens to the voices of local residents, people will perceive the legitimacy of government policies, and the actual institutions will function more effectively.
Currently, many countries are supporting the research and dissemination of various alternative and low-carbon energy technologies at the government level. As seen in the examples above, if the government intervenes in the market to improve the efficiency of resource allocation and the equity of income distribution—and maintains that framework appropriately—capitalism can evolve in a more desirable direction through free competition within the institutional framework established by the government. In fact, the government plays a crucial role in the energy sector because social costs—such as carbon emissions and environmental pollution—cannot be fully reflected by market prices alone. Additionally, in fields requiring long-term research and development—such as renewable energy, nuclear power, energy storage systems, power grids, hydrogen, and nuclear fusion—it may be difficult to secure sufficient funding through private investment alone, making government support for R&D and institutional backing essential.
However, there is clearly a possibility that government intervention could undermine the essence of the market economy through subjective biases, the desire to secure authority, or political constraints. Therefore, before intervening in the market, the government must clearly define the objectives and scope of its policies, as well as the criteria for support, and take proactive measures to prevent potential long-term adverse effects. In particular, since energy policies—once decided—affect large-scale infrastructure such as power plants and transmission grids for decades, they must take into account long-term economic viability, environmental sustainability, stability, and energy security, rather than short-term political considerations.
I believe that the most desirable approach in a modern society based on a market economy is to create a process where the market itself identifies the most efficient energy sources—by comparing investment costs and returns within a clear framework provided by the government and the market, while simultaneously taking into account the social costs associated with the environment and energy security. The energy problem cannot be solved simply by developing a single new energy source. We must reduce the use of fossil fuels while simultaneously advancing new technologies such as nuclear power, renewable energy, energy storage systems, power grids, and energy efficiency improvements—and, in the long term, nuclear fusion. Ultimately, the future of energy is more likely to be shaped not by a single technology completely replacing existing energy sources, but rather through a process in which various energy sources and technologies complement each other’s strengths, and market innovation and government institutional support strike a balance.
