Moon's perilous energy policy

By Sah Dong-seok

It is not news that Korea is devoid of any viable energy resources except coal. After being liberated from Japan's colonial rule in 1945, South Korea managed to survive on electricity transmitted from North Korea.

The North's electric power situation was relatively good at the time thanks to Japan's massive construction of hydroelectric power plants there. As the inter-Korean confrontation heated up, the then-communist North cut off its power supply to the South. This left South Korea struggling with a chronic power shortage before nuclear power began to come on line in the late 1970s.

In fact, Korea is a globally rare success story when it comes to nuclear energy. It has the sixth-largest number of nuclear reactors in the world, generating about one-third of its energy needs from 24 reactors. Korea is building four reactors in the United Arab Emirates under a $20 billion contract. Its rags-to-riches industrialization would not have been possible without the government's successful nuclear energy development.

So it comes as a surprise that Moon Jae-in, the new liberal president, has vowed to phase out nuclear power over the next 40 years. Of course, he promised a nuclear-free era in Korea during his campaign, but few had expected him to announce his zero nuclear policy so swiftly.

His anti-nuclear policy direction is not basically wrong. As he said in a ceremony marking the closure of the country's first and oldest nuclear reactor in mid-June, there is a growing need to put top priority on public safety and the environment in drawing up energy policy. Given Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 and a major earthquake that hit the southeastern city of Gyeongju and its nearby areas last year, the importance of nuclear safety cannot be overemphasized enough.

The problem is that the new head of state may be too hasty, dismissing possible serious problems.

First and foremost, energy security could be threatened, considering that Korea imports nearly 97 percent of its energy needs. Moon vowed to increase the portion of renewable energy to 20 percent by 2030 and increase LNG-fired power production to replace riskier nuclear energy and dirty coal power.

As far as renewable energy is concerned, however, Korea has a long way to go. Renewables are estimated to account for about 5 percent of electricity demand at the moment. To be more precise, however, the portion of eco-friendly renewable resources such as wind and solar power is less than 1 percent. Skeptics see the 20-percent goal as unattainable, noting that power plants with solar panels and wind turbines require lots of land and that municipal governments are picky about such facilities.

The Moon administration hopes that LNG-fueled power plants will replace nuclear power as a primary energy source. But this will disturb the country's commitment to the Paris climate agreement on reducing carbon emissions.

Electricity bills will inevitably go up if coal and nuclear energy are replaced by the more expensive LNG and renewable resources. Estimates for higher energy costs range from a low of 20 percent to a high of 79 percent, but what is certain is that households as well as businesses will have to foot higher electricity bills. If LNG prices soar along with crude oil prices after many nuclear reactors are phased out, the consequences will be disastrous.

Ditching nuclear power domestically will toll the death knell for the country's laboriously nurtured atomic industry. When it comes to commercial nuclear technology, Korea is actually unbeatable, with related jobs numbering more than 100,000.

Moon's anti-nuclear policy will also undermine the country's ambitious plan to export more reactors abroad. Given that the state-run Korea Electric Power Corp. has boasted its continuous development of domestic nuclear capacity, going nuclear-free will send a negative signal to foreign countries looking to buy reactors from Korea. Would any country be willing to buy reactors that are not built domestically?

Germany is often cited as a good example Korea should follow in shedding nuclear power. The country vowed to shut down 17 reactors within 11 years in May 2011, two months after the Fukushima meltdown. Eight of Germany's decrepit reactors were closed immediately and the remaining nine will be phased out gradually through 2022.

With the portion of atomic energy falling and that of renewable energy rising, however, Germans have been bearing higher energy costs. Electricity rates applied to German households are the second highest in the European Union.

What clearly sets Germany apart from Korea is the difference in natural environment. Germany is rich in available renewable resources such as wind, whereas Korea has few options. For example, Korea has a weak and baffling wind capability as a whole.

Most decisively, Germany can obtain electric power from its neighboring countries in the case of an emergency because their power grids are connected. But Korea has no such last resort.

What is most embarrassing is that the new administration is faithfully carrying out half-baked pledges drawn up hurriedly in the run-up to the election, with prominent energy experts excluded. In June, the government surprised the public by ordering a temporary halt to the building of two partially completed reactors and stating that whether their construction should continue will be determined after gathering public opinion just for three months.

All of this suggests that the government may be taking perfunctory measures after concluding that nuclear power should go. It's certainly putting the cart before the horse.

Moon's perilous pursuit of a purely idealistic energy agenda may throw the nation into turmoil. Even now, he should make a decision on nuclear power after an in-depth debate and review involving top energy experts.

The writer is the executive editor of The Korea Times. Contact him at sahds@ktimes.com.