Lee administration stays course on ‘nuclear renaissance’

Posted on : 2011-03-16 13:55 KST Modified on : 2019-10-19 20:29 KST
Amid Japan’s growing nuclear crisis, many have voiced concerns about the expansion of nuclear power in S.Korea
[%%IMAGE1%%]

By Lee Soon-hyuk 

  

The Lee Myung-bak government’s policy of expanding nuclear power while boasting of South Korea as a “new power of the nuclear power Renaissance” has run into trouble. This is due to renewed to concerns that a nuclear disaster could become a reality with explosions at reactors 1 and 3 and now 2 and 4 at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant.

“The impact of the Japanese earthquake on Korean industries would not be great overall, but the problem was nuclear power,” said Kim Jeong-gwan, director of energy of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy. “Various discussions will take place regarding nuclear safety, and the problems in Japan will have a major impact on the nuclear power industry both locally and internationally.”

In 2008, the administration announced a basic national energy plan that calls for a raise in South Korea’s power generated by nuclear energy from the current 35 percent to 59 percent by 2030. In accordance with this plan, seven reactors are under construction in addition to the 21 currently in operation, while the administration plans to add 10 more by 2030. Site selection for the new plants is currently underway, too, with Samcheok in Gangwon Province and Uljin and Yeongdeok in North Gyeongsang Province applying to Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Corporation (KHNP) as potential sites. A committee to select sites also conducted on-site studies on Monday and Tuesday.

“The KHNP plans to announce a final decision on site selection in about a year and six-months or two years,” said a KHNP official. “Candidate sites will first be selected by the end of June based on potential sites’ construction suitability, site safety, public acceptance and environmental conditions, and these will be followed by a geological study.”

Amongst the residents of the local governments that have applied as potential sites, however, the mood has changed.

“Most residents had supported the construction of a nuclear plant, but thanks to the impact of the Japanese earthquake, voices of concern regarding the town’s efforts to attract a nuclear plant were spreading,” said one public official who has worked for a long period in Samcheok. “The city’s position, however, was to proceed as planned.”

This situation was similar elsewhere.

“I thought the plant would be safe thanks to solid preparations, but after seeing the explosions at the Japanese nuclear plant, I felt uncomfortable,” said Mr. Park, 61, resident of Yeongdeok county, which reportedly has the highest level of support for a nuclear power station. “Now I am even worried about the existing nuclear plant in nearby Uljin.”

Despite their puzzlement, the Lee administration and KHNP are repeating claims that the South Korean and Japanese cases are different. They say South Korean nuclear plants and Japanese nuclear plants are different models, and the possibility of earthquakes is much lower in South Korea.

Director Kim said, “Opposition to nuclear power might arise, but there will be no change in South Korea’s nuclear plans.”

Another Ministry of Knowledge Economy official said, “With fossil fuels headed towards depletion and renewable energies not yet able to make up for them, nuclear power is the only alternative.”

The mood amidst local citizens in candidate sites and environmental groups, however, is that an opposition movement will officially begin. Some also feel that at this moment the government needs to rethink its basic national energy framework.

Yang Lee Won-yeong, director of the energy change bureau of the Korean Federation For Environmental Movement, said. “The government should be setting a direction of more efficient energy use and lowering energy use rather than expanding energy supply.” Lee continued, “From a cost-benefit perspective, too, using the 3 trillion Won needed to build a single reactor would be better spent on saving energy. For example, it would be better to show interest in the buildings now common in Germany and other developed nations that require almost no cooling or heating energy.”

  

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]

Most viewed articles