By Jang Daul
The 20th presidential election in South Korea is coming. One of the two most popular candidates, Yoon Suk-yeol from the main opposition People Power Party (PPP), recently announced that if elected, he will make South Korea "the strongest nuclear power country."
The nuclear power generation issue has been one of the major focuses of political confrontation since 2017, when President Moon Jae-in was elected with the pledge to phase out nuclear power.
The establishment of the nuclear phase-out policy in 2017 was a natural response to prevailing public opinion. After the Fukushima accident in 2011, a chain of events occurred in Korea up until 2017 that essentially pushed political leaders to be in favor of supporting a phase-out of nuclear power generation.
Such events include the complete station blackout of the Kori-1 reactor in 2012, a series of nuclear corruption scandals over safety in 2012 and 2013, local referendum victories against new nuclear plants in 2014 and 2015, and finally the alarming Gyeongju earthquake not far from nuclear power plants in 2016.
Therefore, it was not surprising that four out of the five major candidates ― Moon Jae-in, Yoo Seong-min, Ahn Cheol-soo and Sim Sang-jung ― in the 2017 election all agreed on no more nuclear power plant construction. Even Hong Jun-pyo mentioned that he would decrease nuclear power generation.
However, the positions of the major candidates on nuclear power in 2022 have changed somewhat.
The Justice Party's candidate, Sim, stayed unchanged, with a clear aim to reach a nuclear phase-out by 2040. The ruling Democratic Party of Korea's candidate, Lee Jae-myung, generally stayed the same too with his nuclear phase-out position. The People's Party's candidate, Ahn, changed from his nuclear phase-out position in 2017 and promised to discard such a policy. Lastly, the PPP's candidate, Yoon, also pledged to scrap the nuclear phase-out policy.
Korea began generating nuclear power in 1977. Since then, there have been two reactors permanently shut down. Currently, there are 25 nuclear reactors in operation and three under construction.
Globally, out of the world's 196 countries, 32 are running with nuclear energy. With a total installed capacity of 24.7 gigawatts, Korea is the world's sixth-largest nuclear energy power.
The current nuclear phase-out policy consists of continuing the reactors already under construction but not building new ones, and to run these reactors for their designated lifespans. Nuclear reactors recently built and under construction have a lifespan of 60 years.
Therefore, according to the current policy, Korea will achieve a complete nuclear phase-out just before 2085. Compared to other nations, for instance, Germany, who aims to phase out nuclear by 2022, and Taiwan, who plans to phase it out by 2025, the Korean plan is too far away.
Under the current policy, nuclear power will still play a role towards the goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. It is expected that the total installed capacity in 2050 will be 11.4 gigawatts from nine reactors. Furthermore, with roughly 50-percent reduced capacity, it is very likely that Korea will maintain its world's six-largest nuclear power status even in 2050.
Therefore, it is simply not logical for Ahn to say, "Carbon neutrality without nuclear power is a fiction," or for Yoon to say, "It is inconsistent to pursue carbon neutrality while phasing out nuclear power," as criticism of Lee, whose plan is to follow the current roadmap.
The share of different energy sources in Korea's power generation ― in other words, the power mix ― in 2021 were as follows: 64 percent coal and gas (fossil fuels), 27 percent nuclear, 8 percent new and renewable energy (RE) and 2 percent others.
The key for tackling the climate emergency is to decrease the 64-percent share of fossil fuel power generation and replace it with zero-carbon energies.
For the 2030 power mix, Lee is following the current government plan, which is 42 percent fossil fuels, 30 percent RE, and 24 percent nuclear. Sim aims for 25 percent fossil fuels, 50 percent RE, and 23 percent nuclear. Yoon aims for 40 to 45 percent fossil fuels, 20 to 25 percent RE, and 30 to 35 percent nuclear. Ahn plans to have 45 to 50 percent fossil fuels, 20 percent RE, and 30 to 35 percent nuclear.
Except for Sim, the shares of fossil fuels in the power mix of Lee, Yoon and Ahn are not very different. The difference is in which plan uses more renewable energy than nuclear, and vice versa.
The more pro-nuclear 2030 power mix plans of Yoon and Ahn could be achieved by extending the designated lifespans of the 10 reactors and building the Shin Hanul 3 and 4 reactors.
However, maintaining a 35-percent share of nuclear in 2050 is a very different story.
For goals by 2050, Sim aims for 100-percent renewable energy. Lee follows the current government plan (the 2050 carbon neutrality scenario A), which is 71 percent renewable energy, 6 percent nuclear and 21 percent zero-carbon hydrogen turbine.
Yoon and Ahn have not introduced a clear 2050 power mix, making it difficult for voters to judge them.
Let's assume that the 35-percent share of nuclear power will be maintained in 2050. Such a scenario means ― with the assumption that the lifespans of all the existing nuclear reactors are extended for 20 more years and that Shin Hanul 3 and 4 are built ― that at least more than 20 additional big (1500 MW) nuclear reactors will still need to be built, or, if available, more than 300 small (110 MW) modular reactors will need to be deployed.
At the completion ceremony of the first nuclear reactor, Kori-1, in 1978, President Park Chung-hee said that since Korea had become one of the nuclear power countries, it was also time to put more effort into developing new energies such as solar, wind and geothermal.
More than 40 years have already passed since then. Now, Korea is the world's six-largest nuclear power with the highest nuclear density, and it is likely that Korea will still hold this title in 2050, even under the current nuclear phase-out plan by the Moon administration. In terms of the share of renewable energy in its power generation, Korea is ranked last among the OECD member countries.
What will the choice of Korea's voters be in the forthcoming presidential election in this era of climate emergency? We will see in a few more weeks.
Jang Daul (daul.jang@greenpeace.org) is a government relations and advocacy specialist at the Greenpeace East Asia Seoul Office.
 |
The nuclear power generation issue has been one of the major focuses of political confrontation since 2017, when President Moon Jae-in was elected with the pledge to phase out nuclear power.
The establishment of the nuclear phase-out policy in 2017 was a natural response to prevailing public opinion. After the Fukushima accident in 2011, a chain of events occurred in Korea up until 2017 that essentially pushed political leaders to be in favor of supporting a phase-out of nuclear power generation.
Such events include the complete station blackout of the Kori-1 reactor in 2012, a series of nuclear corruption scandals over safety in 2012 and 2013, local referendum victories against new nuclear plants in 2014 and 2015, and finally the alarming Gyeongju earthquake not far from nuclear power plants in 2016.
Therefore, it was not surprising that four out of the five major candidates ― Moon Jae-in, Yoo Seong-min, Ahn Cheol-soo and Sim Sang-jung ― in the 2017 election all agreed on no more nuclear power plant construction. Even Hong Jun-pyo mentioned that he would decrease nuclear power generation.
However, the positions of the major candidates on nuclear power in 2022 have changed somewhat.
The Justice Party's candidate, Sim, stayed unchanged, with a clear aim to reach a nuclear phase-out by 2040. The ruling Democratic Party of Korea's candidate, Lee Jae-myung, generally stayed the same too with his nuclear phase-out position. The People's Party's candidate, Ahn, changed from his nuclear phase-out position in 2017 and promised to discard such a policy. Lastly, the PPP's candidate, Yoon, also pledged to scrap the nuclear phase-out policy.
Korea began generating nuclear power in 1977. Since then, there have been two reactors permanently shut down. Currently, there are 25 nuclear reactors in operation and three under construction.
Globally, out of the world's 196 countries, 32 are running with nuclear energy. With a total installed capacity of 24.7 gigawatts, Korea is the world's sixth-largest nuclear energy power.
The current nuclear phase-out policy consists of continuing the reactors already under construction but not building new ones, and to run these reactors for their designated lifespans. Nuclear reactors recently built and under construction have a lifespan of 60 years.
Therefore, according to the current policy, Korea will achieve a complete nuclear phase-out just before 2085. Compared to other nations, for instance, Germany, who aims to phase out nuclear by 2022, and Taiwan, who plans to phase it out by 2025, the Korean plan is too far away.
Under the current policy, nuclear power will still play a role towards the goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. It is expected that the total installed capacity in 2050 will be 11.4 gigawatts from nine reactors. Furthermore, with roughly 50-percent reduced capacity, it is very likely that Korea will maintain its world's six-largest nuclear power status even in 2050.
Therefore, it is simply not logical for Ahn to say, "Carbon neutrality without nuclear power is a fiction," or for Yoon to say, "It is inconsistent to pursue carbon neutrality while phasing out nuclear power," as criticism of Lee, whose plan is to follow the current roadmap.
The share of different energy sources in Korea's power generation ― in other words, the power mix ― in 2021 were as follows: 64 percent coal and gas (fossil fuels), 27 percent nuclear, 8 percent new and renewable energy (RE) and 2 percent others.
The key for tackling the climate emergency is to decrease the 64-percent share of fossil fuel power generation and replace it with zero-carbon energies.
For the 2030 power mix, Lee is following the current government plan, which is 42 percent fossil fuels, 30 percent RE, and 24 percent nuclear. Sim aims for 25 percent fossil fuels, 50 percent RE, and 23 percent nuclear. Yoon aims for 40 to 45 percent fossil fuels, 20 to 25 percent RE, and 30 to 35 percent nuclear. Ahn plans to have 45 to 50 percent fossil fuels, 20 percent RE, and 30 to 35 percent nuclear.
Except for Sim, the shares of fossil fuels in the power mix of Lee, Yoon and Ahn are not very different. The difference is in which plan uses more renewable energy than nuclear, and vice versa.
The more pro-nuclear 2030 power mix plans of Yoon and Ahn could be achieved by extending the designated lifespans of the 10 reactors and building the Shin Hanul 3 and 4 reactors.
However, maintaining a 35-percent share of nuclear in 2050 is a very different story.
For goals by 2050, Sim aims for 100-percent renewable energy. Lee follows the current government plan (the 2050 carbon neutrality scenario A), which is 71 percent renewable energy, 6 percent nuclear and 21 percent zero-carbon hydrogen turbine.
Yoon and Ahn have not introduced a clear 2050 power mix, making it difficult for voters to judge them.
Let's assume that the 35-percent share of nuclear power will be maintained in 2050. Such a scenario means ― with the assumption that the lifespans of all the existing nuclear reactors are extended for 20 more years and that Shin Hanul 3 and 4 are built ― that at least more than 20 additional big (1500 MW) nuclear reactors will still need to be built, or, if available, more than 300 small (110 MW) modular reactors will need to be deployed.
At the completion ceremony of the first nuclear reactor, Kori-1, in 1978, President Park Chung-hee said that since Korea had become one of the nuclear power countries, it was also time to put more effort into developing new energies such as solar, wind and geothermal.
More than 40 years have already passed since then. Now, Korea is the world's six-largest nuclear power with the highest nuclear density, and it is likely that Korea will still hold this title in 2050, even under the current nuclear phase-out plan by the Moon administration. In terms of the share of renewable energy in its power generation, Korea is ranked last among the OECD member countries.
What will the choice of Korea's voters be in the forthcoming presidential election in this era of climate emergency? We will see in a few more weeks.
Jang Daul (daul.jang@greenpeace.org) is a government relations and advocacy specialist at the Greenpeace East Asia Seoul Office.
