hankyoreh

By Hwangbo Yeon, staff reporter

The South Korean government had originally planned to increase nuclear energy’s portion of the country’s total power production to 41% by 2030, but it is now trying to reduce this figure to 222-29%.

Critics are questioning whether this can really be regarded as a reduction of nuclear power. Not only are government projections about demand for electricity higher than previous estimates, it is also still unclear whether or not construction will resume on new nuclear reactors. At the moment, construction plans for some reactors are frozen.

The joint public and private sector working group for the 2nd basic energy plan created a policy proposal, as it announced on Oct. 13.

The working group’s proposal advises that the proportion of nuclear power in the national energy mix (in terms of generation capacity) be lowered from the 41% target advocated in the 1st basic energy plan (2008-2030) to the 22-29% range.

The final version of the government proposal for the basic energy plan, which is produced every five years, will be finalized in December, after a public hearing scheduled for mid-October.

In the past, the government took the lead in developing these energy plans. This time, though, the policy proposal was drafted by a working group composed of around 60 experts from academia, civil society, and industry. The group worked on the proposal for five months.

The original energy goal of 41% was set in 2008 at the beginning of former president Lee Myung-bak’s term.

At the time, the Lee administration was pushing for the additional construction of nuclear power plants. The government pointed to the fact that nuclear power was more affordable than other kinds of power and argued that it would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In terms of the production cost of various kinds of power generation, coal and liquid natural gas (LNG) cost 61.9 won (about US$.06) and 117.8 won (US$.11) per kWh, respectively. In comparison, nuclear power costs only 42.06 won per kWh.

But concerns about the safety of nuclear power became widespread after the nuclear accident at Fukushima, Japan in 2011. In addition, there is intensifying social conflict in South Korea today about the process of building power lines.

Taking these factors into account, the government reversed its position and decided instead to reduce the role of nuclear power.

The problem, however, is that the plan to reduce dependence on nuclear power might prove to be little more than simply declaratory phrase with little substance. This depends on projections for electricity demand and on the operation rate of nuclear power facilities.

Despite this, the working group and the government have declined to make public their forecast for energy demand, explaining that deliberations are still underway between the relevant government agencies.

But a draft report for the second basic energy plan that was prepared by the Ministry of Trade, Energy, and Industry intended for internal purposes shows energy demand increasing from 39.1 million TOE (tonne of oil equivalent) in 2011 to 70.2 million TOE in 2035. According to this draft, the share of total energy generated at nuclear plants is projected to move up from 19% to 28.1%.

One interesting point is that the slowdown in GDP growth means that the average yearly rate of increase in overall energy consumption will decrease from the 1.4% estimate in the first basic energy plan to 0.8%. Despite this, it is predicted that the consumption of electricity will accelerate, with the average yearly growth rate rising from 2.2% to 2.5%.

This forecast is grounded on the fact that power consumption increased from 2009 to 2012 as a result of greater investment in industries that consume large quantities of power, such as the steel and petrochemical industries.

Justice Party lawmaker Kim Je-nam used these projections to calculate the number of nuclear generators that would be needed. According to Kim’s analysis, 41 reactors would be required for nuclear power to cover 29% of the total energy load. If this proportion were set at 22%, 35 reactors would be needed.

That means that at least 12-18 new nuclear reactors would have to be built in addition to South Korea’s 23 existing reactors.

This estimate takes into account the goal of reducing demand for electricity by at least 15% by 2035 as recommended by the working group.

Kim explained that if we also took into account the aging reactors that would have to be mothballed when they get too old, the number of new reactors needing to be built could increase even more.

“We could find ourselves in a worst-case scenario where the currently planned Sinkori reactors 5-8 and Sinuljin 3-4 would begin operations, and six reactors would be built at Samcheok and Yeongdeok on land that has been set aside in those areas,” said Lee Hyun-seok, president of Energy Justice Actions, expressing his concern. “This would be moving in the opposite direction from a nuclear-free society.”

Germany was once regarded as a nuclear powerhouse. But after the accident at Fukushima, the country announced that it would be completely suspending operations at eight aging reactors that had been built before 1990 and shutting down the remaining 17 reactors by 2022.

Even some members of the working group are disinclined to regard the recently released policy proposal as representing actual progress toward freedom from nuclear power.

“We have not even managed to decide what to do about the four new nuclear reactors that the government decided to add to the second basic energy plan,” said one key member of the working group who spoke on condition of anonymity. “This is evidence that it is still too soon to expect any big changes in the government‘s policy framework.”

In the 6th plan of power supply and demand that was released in February, the government indicated it would move ahead with the 11 reactors that are scheduled to be constructed by 2024 but delayed making a decision about the four reactors scheduled to be built between 2025 to 2027 (Daejin reactors 1-3 in Samcheok and Cheonji reactor 3 in Yeongdeok) until after the approval of the 2nd basic energy plan.

Not only is the decision closely connected with the issue of the power transmission network but it also appears to have been motivated by negative public sentiment about nuclear power since the accident at Fukushima.

In this plan, unlike the first plan, there is some flexibility in the percentage of total energy accounted for by nuclear power, ranging from 22-29%. This ambiguity appears to be connected with the government’s uncertainty.

As of last year, nuclear power generators accounted for 26% of total power generating capacity.

Experts believe that if the plan to build four nuclear reactors - currently on hold - is scrapped, the share of nuclear power in the total mix will decrease to 22%.

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