Irrational immersion

Long-term alternatives to nuclear energy needed

The earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster that hit Fukushima, Japan, a year ago Sunday brought about great misfortune to a large number of people. One of the unexpected victims was President Lee Myung-bak.

Nothing could be more disappointing for Lee and his energy policy aides, who were about to fly to United Arab Emirates to sign the nation’s first nuclear plant export deal. It was definitely a wet blanket, a perfectly-timed one at that.

Still, it is shocking to hear the nation’s intelligence agency muzzle the Korea Institute of Environmental Research, which wrote a report warning against possible inflows of radioactive material. No doubt the move was aimed to stop the Fukushima incident from dashing cold water on Seoul’s self-celebration for becoming a global ``nuclear energy power.”

Law enforcement authorities must find out the truth behind state agencies’ systematic cover-up of information about public health.

A more serious problem is nothing, not even the unprecedented disaster in neighboring Japan, appears able to stop the Lee administration’s blind adherence to the nuclear power industry as a new growth engine. True, resource-poor Korea has few good alternatives to atomic energy to move its vast industrial machine ― at least in the short run. Renewable energy seems still beyond reach, considering its cost and technology.

If the government’s policymakers expand their horizon a little longer and wider, however, they will realize that nuclear energy is neither the only nor a good alternative to fossil fuel for Korea. Above all, nuclear plants are far from safe. The lesson of Fukushima shows the combination of technological imperfection and human error, including conceit and corruption, can shatter any myth about accident-free power plants. Korea is relatively free from earthquakes but not from terrorism and war.

Nuclear waste, even if the nation can find sufficient spots to bury it, will remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. Add to this the enormous cost of scrapping outdated power plants then one can understand why scientists say nuclear power stations drop huge burdens on future generations for both health and financial reasons.

And this is why most European countries are moving toward denuclearizing energy policy portfolios. Yes, the United States is weighing up building new atomic power plants, and France still heavily relies on nuclear power. Since Fukushima, however, 64 percent of Americans and 57 percent of French people have turned against the nuclear option. The International Atomic Energy Agency predicts the nuclear capacity in Western Europe could fall by up to a third by 2030. It is mostly in Asia, including China, the capacity will increase.

Lee has boasted and emphasized Korea is now an advanced country. Why make an exception in energy policy?

Reports say if Korea increases the price of electricity by 21 percent, it won’t have to build any more nuclear plants except the six already under construction. Koreans currently spend more energy per person than Japan, France and Britain, countries where the per capita income is nearly twice as high. Japan succeeded in drastic energy conservation this summer and shut 52 of its 54 atomic power plants. It is still sufficiently humming along.

It’s up to Koreans to choose between safe, sustainable lives and richer but risky, restless ones.