[Open Forum] The Nuclear Phase-Out Policy Needs a Course Correction

Major countries around the world that once led the nuclear phase-out are now turning back to nuclear power. This is because nuclear energy has proven to be the most efficient energy source at this transitional stage from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Countries around the world, including the United Kingdom and France, have also declared nuclear power to be a key energy source for future energy security and are reexamining nuclear power projects.

Despite this situation, the Korean government has gone against the global trend by taking a different path of phasing out nuclear power, and it still stubbornly insists on denuclearization. However, the shutdown of Wolsong Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 is a clear example of the contradictions in the nuclear phase-out policy. The losses from Wolsong Unit 1, which was permanently shut down due to insufficient economic feasibility, are reportedly to be compensated through the electric power fund. Does this not ultimately amount to acknowledging the economic viability of nuclear power?

Because the nuclear phase-out was pushed through so hastily, pressure to raise electricity rates has intensified, and KEPCO’s massive deficits can only end up being passed on to the public as a heavier burden. If low-cost nuclear power is not used, generation costs rise, and electricity rates naturally go up as well. As criticism mounted over the resulting power shortage, the government has simply denied that the cause is the nuclear phase-out. Moreover, it is unclear what should be done for workers in the industry who have lost their jobs as the workforce has shrunk. This is not a policy for anyone.

It is difficult to achieve carbon neutrality through renewable energy alone, and for that, the role of nuclear power is essential. In particular, South Korea’s territory consists largely of mountainous terrain, and its intermittent and variable climate conditions inevitably reduce productivity and efficiency. Given these climate conditions, a nuclear phase-out is an unrealistic and unstable policy even in the eyes of a child. At present, demands for carbon neutrality are growing around the world. To cooperate with this global effort, now is not the time to phase out nuclear power; rather, it is a time when the nuclear industry is becoming even more important. Carbon neutrality and a nuclear phase-out cannot coexist, and nuclear power must not be abandoned if a stable energy supply is to be maintained.

Another reason nuclear power must be maintained is international. Nuclear power serves as a strategic guarantee of survival against North Korea and as a means of strengthening relations with other countries. At a time when North Korea is completing its nuclear armament, we need strategic measures for survival that preserve our nuclear infrastructure. In addition, nuclear power exports are a means of building close ties with importing countries. One example is how the construction of the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant helped establish friendly relations with the United Arab Emirates, thereby facilitating diplomacy in the Middle East.

There are also calls for improvements to nuclear power generation, but alternatives based on technological innovation have already been prepared for that as well. One of them is the small modular reactor (SMR). To exclude SMRs from carbon neutrality technology and use them only for export is no different from dismantling all of Korea’s nuclear infrastructure. It is necessary to move beyond this narrow perspective on energy policy and instead focus on advancing domestic technology and pursuing alternatives grounded in technological solutions.

The direction of the nuclear phase-out policy must be readjusted. Forcing renewable energy forward despite technological limitations and enormous costs is, in reality, an absurd policy direction. We must take another step toward carbon neutrality by resuming economically viable and stable nuclear power generation. The role of nuclear power as a baseload energy source is absolutely essential.

Jojeong-eun, Intern Researcher, Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

---

Original title: [자유발언대] 탈원전 정책, 방향 재조정이 필요

Author: Jeong-eun Jo

Date: 2021-12-24

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=free_opinion&pn=9&idx=24449