In this blog post, we take an in-depth look at why nuclear energy is still important in South Korean society, as well as its economic viability, environmental friendliness, and technical feasibility.

Is nuclear energy really dangerous?

In 2009, when I was a freshman in high school, I participated in a traditional program at my school called “Advanced University Tour.” After visiting several universities, including Seoul National University, we stopped by the Kori Nuclear Power Plant on our way back to my school in Gyeongsangnam-do. At the time, I only knew that Korea used a lot of nuclear energy.
However, I was shocked to learn that nuclear power accounts for about 40% of Korea’s total electricity consumption. I was deeply impressed by the fact that nuclear power plants, developed by Korea, a country with scarce resources, to secure its right to survive based on its advanced science and technology, now play a key role in the country’s energy supply.
From that moment on, I naturally became interested in nuclear energy and began to read various articles and materials on the subject. Then, on March 11, 2011, a massive earthquake struck Fukushima, Japan, causing a nuclear power plant to explode and release large amounts of radioactive material. This incident shocked the world, and even in South Korea, a major nuclear power country, concerns and skepticism about the safety of nuclear power spread. So, is it reasonable to shut down nuclear power plants that have been in operation for over 40 years just because of the possibility of such an accident?

Nuclear power: the key to economic efficiency and energy security

The biggest advantage of nuclear power is its excellent economic efficiency. Although the initial construction costs are high, fuel costs are extremely low, making the unit price of electricity very cheap. According to the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, the cost of producing 1kWh of electricity is 162 won for oil, 122 won for LNG, and 126 won for solar power, while nuclear power is the lowest at around 57 won (as of 2023).
In addition, coal and LNG power generation are greatly affected by fluctuations in international fuel prices, as fuel costs account for more than half of the power generation cost, but nuclear power is relatively stable, with fuel costs accounting for less than 10% of the total cost. This is a huge advantage for South Korea, which is highly dependent on energy imports. In fact, over the past 30 years, prices in South Korea have risen by about 240%, but electricity prices have risen by only 18.5%. The key factor behind this stability is the commercialization of nuclear energy.

Low-carbon energy: The answer to the climate crisis

Another key advantage is its environmental friendliness. In 2021, Korea produced approximately 150 billion kWh of electricity through nuclear power, which reduced carbon dioxide emissions by more than 170 million tons. Replacing the same amount of electricity with coal would inevitably result in enormous carbon emissions.
Internationally, nuclear power is recognized as a key means of achieving carbon neutrality. The European Union (EU) included nuclear power in its “EU Taxonomy” in 2022, recognizing it as a sustainable investment target for responding to climate change. As such, nuclear power is a strategic resource that simultaneously fulfills the goals of preventing global warming and ensuring energy security.

Competitiveness of Nuclear Power Technology Exports

Nuclear power technology is not simply a power generation technology, but a complex technology that combines all of a country’s scientific and technological capabilities. In 2009, South Korea won a $20 billion contract from the UAE to build nuclear power plants, becoming the sixth country in the world to export nuclear power plants. Currently, South Korea is negotiating with Saudi Arabia, the Czech Republic, and Poland with the goal of expanding nuclear power plant exports by 2030. This means that the economic feasibility, stability, and efficiency of South Korean nuclear power plant technology are internationally recognized, and that exports can generate enormous added value and foreign currency.

Safety: South Korean nuclear power plants are different from those in Fukushima

Many people argue that nuclear power is dangerous based on the Fukushima accident, but the design and technology of nuclear power plants in Korea are fundamentally different from those in Japan. The Fukushima nuclear power plant used a boiling water reactor (BWR) system, in which the reactor and turbine were connected to the same system, posing a high risk of radioactive material leakage in the event of an accident.
On the other hand, Korean nuclear power plants use pressurized water reactors (PWR), which have separate primary and secondary cooling systems to minimize the possibility of radioactive material escaping to the outside. In addition, nuclear power plants located on the coast of Korea have reinforced their coastal barriers to a height of more than 10 meters since the Fukushima accident and have five redundant emergency power supply and cooling systems to ensure safety under any circumstances.

Spent nuclear fuel is no longer just a “hazardous material”

Spent nuclear fuel has long been a cause for concern due to environmental pollution and the possibility of conversion into nuclear weapons. However, South Korea is currently researching pyroprocessing technology. This technology involves reprocessing spent nuclear fuel through electrolysis at high temperatures to prevent the separation of pure plutonium, which can be used for nuclear weapons, and convert it into recyclable fuel.
If this technology is realized, it will reduce the amount of high-level radioactive waste, increase the resource recycling rate, and enable the establishment of a complete recycling system for nuclear power generation. This paves the way for nuclear power plants to develop into a more sustainable and environmentally friendly energy system.

Conclusion: There is no perfect technology, but there is a most reasonable choice

No technology is 100% safe. However, we must choose the “best” option rather than “perfection.” Nuclear energy is the most reasonable alternative among existing energy sources in terms of high economic efficiency, low carbon emissions, export competitiveness, and technology intensity. The argument for completely shutting down nuclear power plants because of accidents such as Fukushima is no different from arguing for banning all cars because of car accidents.
The development of renewable energy technologies must continue. However, given the current level of technological maturity and limitations such as intermittency, we should not oppose nuclear power based solely on the vague fear associated with the word “nuclear.” Nuclear power plants in South Korea continue to evolve, and the risks are gradually decreasing.
We must now make energy policy decisions based on data, science, and cold, hard judgment, not emotions. And at the center of that decision remains nuclear energy.