[The Editors' Verdict] Carbon Neutrality Scenario Should Be Left to the Next Administration

Last August, the Carbon Neutrality Committee (CNC) presented three scenarios: a 2050 carbon net-zero emissions scenario, a plan allowing partial coal power generation and carbon emissions, among others. They stated that after gathering opinions from various sectors, they aim to finalize the plan within this month. Modern society is carbon-based. Despite the economic slowdown last year due to COVID-19, our society emitted 650 million tons of carbon. Escaping a carbon society is extremely difficult. The carbon neutrality scenario serves as a guide through this challenging path. Even experts find it difficult to understand the methods and impacts of carbon neutrality. Such a complex issue cannot be decided through just two months of opinion gathering.

Moreover, the scenarios proposed by the CNC are too absurd to choose from. The first reason is that the plan asks not to question the costs. For example, energy storage costs alone are estimated to be between 787 trillion and 1,248 trillion KRW. This money is to compensate for the intermittency of renewable energy. Last year, the national budget was 512 trillion KRW. Energy storage costs alone are 1.5 to 2.5 times higher than that. The costs required for expanding renewable energy and other needs are enormous. To judge whether the plan is reasonable, at least an approximate amount of money that will come out of the public’s pockets must be disclosed.

The second reason is the plan to make hydrogen and ammonia power generation one of the main power sources. The CNC states that hydrogen and ammonia will supply 14-21% of electricity demand by 2050. They claim that hydrogen turbines and ammonia power generation can supply 177-270 TWh (terawatt-hours, 1000 GWh) by 2050. Last year, South Korea’s total power generation was 552 TWh. It is hard not to ask what basis there is for supplying electricity equivalent to at least one-third to nearly half of 2020’s power generation with hydrogen and ammonia by 2050. Hydrogen and ammonia power generation are technologies still under research. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that hydrogen, ammonia, and similar sources will supply about 2% of the electricity needed by 2050.

The third reason is the hydrogen supply scenario. Hydrogen is important as a carbon-free energy source, and green hydrogen that does not produce carbon is necessary. The CNC estimates that 27 million tons of hydrogen will be needed by 2050. However, they plan to import 80% of it. Currently, about 70 million tons of hydrogen are produced worldwide. Green hydrogen accounts for less than 1%. There is no explanation for the basis of importing as much as 22 million tons of green hydrogen by 2050, when less than 700,000 tons of green hydrogen are produced today.

The fourth reason is the power grid connection with China and Russia. According to the CNC scenario, electricity imports through the Northeast Asia power grid will account for at most 2.7% of electricity demand. At this level, it is better to manage through electricity savings. However, the important issue is that if there is excessive reliance on renewable energy, surplus electricity during the day would be sent to China and Russia, and electricity shortages at night would require imports. This means our power grid must be connected with China and Russia 24 hours a day. This scenario is difficult to realize without considerable trust between countries.

The fifth reason is the CNC’s attitude of ignoring nuclear power despite the difficulty of achieving carbon neutrality even when using all available means. Overseas, there are cases where clean energy subsidies are provided to maintain nuclear power. Small modular reactors are recognized worldwide as a core technology for carbon neutrality. It is absurd that the CNC is optimistic that hydrogen and ammonia power generation, which have no commercialized cases, will grow to replace current coal power within 30 years, yet is cold toward the future of nuclear power. If we are concerned about future generations facing climate change, the carbon neutrality scenario should be developed with sufficient time in the next government.

Jung Dong-wook, Professor, Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Chung-Ang University