By Dave Hazzan
On Oct. 14, a study group convened by Korea's energy ministry argued that Korea should reduce its dependence on nuclear energy. Currently, about a third of Korea's energy is produced by nuclear power plants. The government's original plan was to boost it to 41 percent by 2030. The study group, on the other hand, wants it reduced to between 22 and 28 percent.
According to Reuters, the 22 to 28 percent figure was decided on "to minimize social conflict over the proportion of nuclear power generation." It was not decided on scientifically, or based on best practices ― it was decided because people are scared of nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is scary because it contains the word "nuclear" in it. That elicits visions of mushroom clouds, decimated Japanese cities, mass death, fallout, radioactive sickness, and nutty North Korean dictators threatening to turn Seoul into a "sea of fire." But by any objective viewpoint, nuclear energy is perfectly safe, provided it is done properly. What is violently unsafe is sticking with traditional energy production methods, like oil, gas, and especially coal.
Since the Fukushima disaster, reams of paper have been printed about how unsafe nuclear power is. Fukushima has proved that it is unsafe ― when you build your reactor in an earthquake zone, next to a tsunami-prone coast. The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 also proved how unsafe nuclear energy is ― when you completely disregard normal safety standards and do the exact opposite of what you're supposed to do in the extremely rare event a reactor does malfunction.
Korea has its own problems with nuclear safety. Prosecutors have indicted over 100 people over the granting of false safety certificates, substandard parts, and similar violations. These are serious issues that need to be looked into, but they don't point to nuclear power being unsafe. They point to corruption in the nuclear industry. The answer to this corruption is to go ahead and do what the prosecutors are already doing, and clean it up. Shutting down the whole system is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
What is truly unsafe is continuing to burn fossil fuels for our energy needs. Nuclear energy is unsafe in certain circumstances but fossil fuels are unsafe all the time. The Earth is warming catastrophically thanks to the mass burning of these fossil fuels. A negligible 3 percent of scientists don't believe this.
Not just that, but air pollution caused by fossil fuel burning kills millions of people every year ― up to 7 million, according to the World Health Organization. In Korea, 6,800 people died in 2002 from air pollution. (Reliable figures for subsequent years are hard to find.)
Nuclear energy is not a perfect solution. Power plants are expensive to build and expensive to maintain. Storing radioactive waste is a serious problem. And nuclear power plants should not be built just anywhere: earthquake zones are an obvious example of where they shouldn't go. And a massive push for energy conservation would go a long way ― double paning windows, using draft excluders, introducing more stringent emission standards for cars and appliances, and subsidizing green projects are all vital steps.
But they are not enough on their own. We still need power, and current "renewable" are not yet up to the task.
Increased nuclear power is not a good short-term solution ― power plants take a long time to build. It is also not a suitable long-term solution ― uranium, used to fuel nuclear reactors, is a non-renewable resource and it will not be here forever. However, nuclear power is a good mid-term solution, good for the next 10 to 60 years, buying time for more clean energy research as well as time to phase out fossil fuel production.
Nuclear energy has a bad rap and it's taken a long time for hippies like me to come around to the conclusion that it's worth investing in. But there are no perfect solutions in this world. Nuclear power is one imperfect solution that's worth it.
If the Korean people decide they don't want nuclear power, that is their right. But the Korean government, and environmental and civic groups, should do what they can to convince Koreans that nuclear power is a much better alternative to the status quo.
Dave Hazzan is a Canadian writer living in Ilsan. He has published widely in Canada, Korea, and the U.S.
On Oct. 14, a study group convened by Korea's energy ministry argued that Korea should reduce its dependence on nuclear energy. Currently, about a third of Korea's energy is produced by nuclear power plants. The government's original plan was to boost it to 41 percent by 2030. The study group, on the other hand, wants it reduced to between 22 and 28 percent.
According to Reuters, the 22 to 28 percent figure was decided on "to minimize social conflict over the proportion of nuclear power generation." It was not decided on scientifically, or based on best practices ― it was decided because people are scared of nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is scary because it contains the word "nuclear" in it. That elicits visions of mushroom clouds, decimated Japanese cities, mass death, fallout, radioactive sickness, and nutty North Korean dictators threatening to turn Seoul into a "sea of fire." But by any objective viewpoint, nuclear energy is perfectly safe, provided it is done properly. What is violently unsafe is sticking with traditional energy production methods, like oil, gas, and especially coal.
Since the Fukushima disaster, reams of paper have been printed about how unsafe nuclear power is. Fukushima has proved that it is unsafe ― when you build your reactor in an earthquake zone, next to a tsunami-prone coast. The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 also proved how unsafe nuclear energy is ― when you completely disregard normal safety standards and do the exact opposite of what you're supposed to do in the extremely rare event a reactor does malfunction.
Korea has its own problems with nuclear safety. Prosecutors have indicted over 100 people over the granting of false safety certificates, substandard parts, and similar violations. These are serious issues that need to be looked into, but they don't point to nuclear power being unsafe. They point to corruption in the nuclear industry. The answer to this corruption is to go ahead and do what the prosecutors are already doing, and clean it up. Shutting down the whole system is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
What is truly unsafe is continuing to burn fossil fuels for our energy needs. Nuclear energy is unsafe in certain circumstances but fossil fuels are unsafe all the time. The Earth is warming catastrophically thanks to the mass burning of these fossil fuels. A negligible 3 percent of scientists don't believe this.
Not just that, but air pollution caused by fossil fuel burning kills millions of people every year ― up to 7 million, according to the World Health Organization. In Korea, 6,800 people died in 2002 from air pollution. (Reliable figures for subsequent years are hard to find.)
Nuclear energy is not a perfect solution. Power plants are expensive to build and expensive to maintain. Storing radioactive waste is a serious problem. And nuclear power plants should not be built just anywhere: earthquake zones are an obvious example of where they shouldn't go. And a massive push for energy conservation would go a long way ― double paning windows, using draft excluders, introducing more stringent emission standards for cars and appliances, and subsidizing green projects are all vital steps.
But they are not enough on their own. We still need power, and current "renewable" are not yet up to the task.
Increased nuclear power is not a good short-term solution ― power plants take a long time to build. It is also not a suitable long-term solution ― uranium, used to fuel nuclear reactors, is a non-renewable resource and it will not be here forever. However, nuclear power is a good mid-term solution, good for the next 10 to 60 years, buying time for more clean energy research as well as time to phase out fossil fuel production.
Nuclear energy has a bad rap and it's taken a long time for hippies like me to come around to the conclusion that it's worth investing in. But there are no perfect solutions in this world. Nuclear power is one imperfect solution that's worth it.
If the Korean people decide they don't want nuclear power, that is their right. But the Korean government, and environmental and civic groups, should do what they can to convince Koreans that nuclear power is a much better alternative to the status quo.
Dave Hazzan is a Canadian writer living in Ilsan. He has published widely in Canada, Korea, and the U.S.
![[ANALYSIS] Tesla, BYD's price cuts unnerve LGES, Samsung, SK](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/b1cf8ba68d474cb69352bfe7ea9d14f0.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] How ATEEZ achieved worldwide success](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/c7723b56dde94eb4b260950d368fe8fb.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
