"The energy mix scenario for 2050 released today does not include how much the burden of electricity bills will increase. We need scenarios, even if they turn out to be wrong, that show how much electricity bills will rise. What is being discussed now is effectively a phaseout-of-nuclear scenario. The United States and China, which lead the global economy, are reviving nuclear power to bolster industrial competitiveness, but only Korea is going in the opposite direction. Can Korea survive while doing carbon neutrality alone? If the direction is wrong, we need to change course." (Jeong Yong-hun, KAIST professor of nuclear and quantum engineering)
"Nuclear power has the drawbacks of large scale and inability to adjust output in real time. When a nuclear plant is temporarily halted, expensive gas-fired generation keeps filling the power gap. In effect, solar power, which has virtually no fuel cost, is replacing gas-fired generation. We must first discuss the economics and safety of currently operating nuclear plants. Building more new large-scale nuclear plants does not fit Korea's circumstances." (Seok Gwang-hun, senior expert member at Energy Transition Forum)
On the 30th, at the 1st policy forum hosted by the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul, under the theme "Carbon neutrality and a desirable energy mix," a heated debate unfolded over whether to add new nuclear plants and the phaseout of coal-fired power plants. The forum was held to discuss mid- to long-term energy mix directions premised on achieving carbon neutrality and ways to stabilize power supply and demand.
Before the forum began, Minister Kim Seong-hwan laid out his views on nuclear power in a keynote speech. The Minister said, "Nuclear power was an important baseload source, but the country with the most nuclear plants per unit area in the world is Korea," adding, "There is no doubt nuclear power is a very dangerous energy source that can have accidents, and it also has the problem of not being able to operate flexibly."
However, the Minister said, "If the most pressing issue in human history is responding to the climate crisis, then coal-fired and gas-fired power plants should also be removed from the energy mix, and we ultimately need a grand energy transition that combines renewable energy and nuclear power, which do not emit carbon," adding, "How to actually implement this is Korea's challenge."
The remarks by the Minister were on the chopping block throughout the forum. Some panelists and attendees pushed back strongly, saying the Minister had convened a forum to phase out nuclear power. During the discussion, Professor Jeong criticized, "Korea is not only the country with the most nuclear plants per unit area, but also the country with the most solar panels installed."
◇ "Hard to protect industry with renewables" vs. "Nuclear wastes power through output curtailment"
After three presenters gave their talks, the policy forum moved to a panel discussion. The first presentation, by Sin Him-cheol, research fellow at the Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI), was on "Energy demand outlook for '50." Next, Lee Ji-ung, professor at Pukyong National University, presented on "Carbon neutrality and the transition direction for coal-fired power," and Ok Gi-yeol, head of the Energy System Innovation Division at the Korea Power Exchange (KPX), presented on "Energy mix plans of major foreign countries and Korea's policy direction." All were analyses based on the government's policy line to expand renewable energy.
The forum was chaired by Jang Gil-su, professor at Korea University. Panelists included Professor Jeong; Oh Hyeong-na, professor at Kyung Hee University; Song Yong-hyeon, deputy representative of the incorporated association Next; Seok, senior expert member; Nam Tae-seop, Secretary-General of the Federation of Electric Power Industry Trade Unions under the Federation of Korean Trade Unions; and Choi Hyeok-jun, head of the Gongju Construction Division at Korea Western Power (KOWEPO).
Professor Jeong said, "Among today's presentations, all content on how much future electricity prices would be if renewables were increased through 2050, and what effects would appear if we built new nuclear plants, was omitted," adding, "If renewables are expanded as in the government plan, about 200 gigawatts (GW) of batteries would be needed to offset renewable volatility, which would cost 100 trillion won at current unit prices, and if it rains and solar cannot generate, 300 trillion won worth of ESS would be needed."
Professor Jeong said, "Renewables cannot protect Korea's industry," adding, "How can we stop Korean corporations from going to the United States in search of stable electricity, and in the end, how can we explain that industry will disappear and there will be no place for our children to work? I am worried."
Seok, who has been active as an anti-nuclear activist, argued that safety and economics suffer as domestic nuclear plants experience "output curtailment" (a measure to forcibly lower output and reduce generation) about five times a year on average. As the share of solar generation increases, power authorities curtail output from baseload nuclear plants to prevent grid overload.
Commissioner Seok said, "Even France, which operates nuclear power more flexibly than Korea, curtails nuclear output 365 days a year and ultimately wastes electricity," adding, "Korea is an isolated grid (a power system operated independently without interconnection to external grids), so the shock the grid must absorb from renewable expansion is greater than in other countries, and talking about building new nuclear plants does not fit the situation."
There were also calls for in-depth discussions on ways to phase out coal-fired power plants in stages.
Deputy Representative Song said, "We can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions with coal phaseout alone, so we need a firm timetable for whether our society will decisively move to coal phaseout." Secretary-General Nam said, "The disappearance of coal plants ultimately ties to jobs and local economies, so we need discussions on how to compensate."
The forum was scheduled to run from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., but it ended about 30 minutes past the planned time as a flood of questions came from attendees. Participants proposed that ample time be allocated for questions at the second forum. The second forum is scheduled for the first week of next month.