|
|
| Fig. 1: Total costs per unit of final energy consumption by scenario type. (Image source: A. Krishnamoorthi, after Hong et al. [6]) |
The trajectory of nuclear energy in South Korea is marked by ambitious growth, significant public support, and recent policy shifts that reflect a nation at a crossroads. Initiated in response to the energy crises of the 1970s, South Korea's nuclear program has grown to comprise 24 reactors that generate around 30% of the country's total electricity demand, positioning South Korea as a major player in the global nuclear sector. [1] Some efforts though, such as the Greenpeace program, were proposed in the early 2010s to thwart the development of nuclear power. The Moon Jae-in administration initially supported the shift in the nation's energy policy, advocating for a low-carbon, sustainable energy transition. In fact, it was proposed that South Korea's nuclear power generation would observe a decrease from 29.4% in 2017 to 23.9% by 2030. [2]
However, public sentiment and following administrations stood strong in their support of nuclear power. In Feburary of 2013, in stark contrast to the Greenpeace plan, the Sixth National Electricity Generation Plan was unveiled, which underscored the country's strategic proposal of bolstering its nuclear power infrastructure. With schemes to harbor an additional 15 GW of nuclear power by 2027, the plan not only affirms nuclear energy's pivotal role in South Korea's future energy mix but also highlights its commitment to a stable, sustainable, and low-carbon energy future.
Naturally, the decision to move forward with nuclear power has sparked debates over energy sustainability, along with simultaneous efforts to shift to other renewable energies. As it stands though, South Korea's current dedication towards nuclear energy is firm. Current adminstration sees potential from NP's economic efficiency in long-term cost, and scalability to keep up with South Korean energy demands amidst a growing population. [3]
South Korea's nuclear energy sector significantly contributes to the country's electricity supply, with 26 reactors providing about 28% (25.83 GWe) of the national electricity mix as of 2023. Efforts to continue building and upkeep domestic reactors, along with UAE's first nuclear power plant (Barakah) under a $20 billion contract, illustrate South Korea's clear interest in NP. [4] The total electricity generation for South Korea in 2022 was reported at 638 TWh, with the nuclear sector contributing 176 TWh (28%), closely following coal (33%) and natural gas (29%) in the generation mix. [1] NP's environmental impact can't be understated as well, as studies reveal its significant role in reducing CO2 emissions and economic growth, particularly during the 1997 Asian crisis. This is because South Korea has developed and seen increased load capacity factors for NP, a crucial indicator for environmental sustainability. [3] This underscores the strategic importance of nuclear power in South Korea's energy policy, especially under President Yoon Suk-yeol's administration, which aims for nuclear energy to provide a minimum of 30% of electricity by 2030, signaling a continued reliance on nuclear power for energy security and environmental benefits. [5]
Both the Electricity and Greenpeace plans advocate different visions for the future of South Korea's energy infrastructure. The Sixth National Electricity Generation Plan aims for a substantial increase in nuclear power capacity, planning an additional 15 GW by 2027, acknowledging not only nuclear energy's critical role in meeting the country's growing energy needs, but also its efforts towards better air quality. as well. Nuclear power has engendered decreases in CO2 emissions and ecological footprint by 0.22% and 0.19%, respectively, for every 1% increase in nuclear energy consumption), which has been a pushing point for NP's development in SK. [6]
Despite these efforts, the nuclear-focused scenarios present a more economically viable path, with lower external ($0.40-$0.55 GJ-1 vs. $1.54 GJ-1 for Greenpeace) and additional costs, and a more stable total cost per unit of final energy consumption ($14.37 GJ-1) compared to the Greenpeace scenario, which exhibits the highest uncertainty and cost. Along with this, nuclear-intensive scenarios deliver a lower overall external cost ($0.40 GJ-1 and $0.55 GJ-1, respectively) by 2050, compared to Greenpeace proposals which require more than three times higher external costs ($1.54 GJ-1). Overall, the environmentally conscious nuclear scenario emits 73 Mt year-1 of greenhouse gasses (13.0% of the 2010 emissions) in 2050, whereas the Greenpeace scenario results in more than twice that amount (189 Mt year-1). [6]
Considering these revelations regarding the viability of nuclear power South Korea, current President Yoon Suk-yeol withdrew the nuclear phase-out policy, and has since promised intense development of NP. This was recently outlined in the 10th Electricity Plan (2022-2036), which sets a progressive course for increasing nuclear energy's contribution to 34.6% of the national energy mix by 2033. [7] This initiative involves launching six new reactors, notably Shin Hanul 1-4 and Shin Kori 5 and 6, aiming to boost nuclear capacity from 24.7 GWe in 2022 to 31.7 GWe by 2036. This expansion not only underlines South Korea's commitment to energy security and reducing carbon emissions but also to positioning itself as a leader in nuclear technology on the global stage, particularly through the development and export of Korean small modular reactors. [3]
Empirical data highlight the environmental and economic advantages of this approach, with significant reductions in CO2 emissions and ecological footprint anticipated per increase in nuclear energy use. [3] Still though, research suggests that diversifying the South Korean energy portfolio will yield significant long-term benefits. Because of this, Yoon Suk-yeol has pushed to slowly integrate other renewable energy sources while maintaining a strong nuclear foundation. This balanced energy strategy aims to secure the nation's energy future, foster economic stability, and ensure environmental sustainability. [7]
© Arnav Krishnamoorthi. The author warrants that the work is the author's own and that Stanford University provided no input other than typesetting and referencing guidelines. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.
[1] H. Kim and E.-C. Jeon, "Structural Changes to Nuclear Energy Industries and the Economic Effects Resulting from Energy Transition Policies in South Korea," Energies 13, 1806 (2020).
[2] Y.-K. Lee, "Sustainability of Nuclear Energy in Korea: From the Users' Perspective," Energy Policy 147, 111761 (2020).
[3] G. Zimon et al., "The Impact of Fossil Fuels, Renewable Energy, and Nuclear Energy on South Korea's Environment Based on the STIRPAT Model: ARDL, FMOLS, and CCR Approaches," Energies 16, 6198 (2023).
[4] J.-H. Kim and S.-H. Yoo, "Comparison of the Economic Effects of Nuclear Power and Renewable Energy Deployment in South Korea," Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 135, 110236 (2021).
[5] U. K. Pata and M. T. Kartal, "Impact of Nuclear and Renewable Energy Sources on Environment Quality: Testing the EKC and LCC Hypotheses for South Korea," Nucl. Eng. Technol. 55, 587 (2023).
[6] S. Hong, C. J. A. Bradshaw, and B. W. Brook, "South Korean Energy Scenarios Show How Nuclear Power Can Reduce Future Energy and Environmental Costs," Energy Policy 74, 569 (2014).
[7] J.-H. Kim and S.-H. Yoo, "Comparison of the Economic Effects of Nuclear Power and Renewable Energy Deployment in South Korea," Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 135, 110236 (2021).