Approach Decarbonization Through Depoliticization and Eco-Friendly Power Sources Rather Than Nuclear Phase-Out [Collapsed Nuclear Ecosystem ④]

Nuclear Power Utilization Rate Increased from 65.9% in 2018 to 74.5% Last Year
Result of 'Political Rhetoric'

Early Shutdown Decision of Wolseong Unit 1
Also Sparked Controversy Over Economic Manipulation

Need to Review Pros and Cons of Nuclear and Carbon Neutrality Policies
Overseas Attention on 'Nuclear Reinforcement' U-Turn

[Asia Economy Sejong=Reporters Kwon Haeyoung and Lee Dongwoo] Energy experts unanimously agree that the Moon Jae-in administration's energy policy over the past five years was excessively ideological and politicized. Instead of scientifically approaching nuclear power plants, which are cheap and stable baseload power sources, the administration stoked fear and pushed for their phase-out, but nuclear power is just one of many power supply sources like coal, oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG), solar, and wind. Especially as the importance of 'energy security' grows, experts point out that actions undermining the foundation of energy policy?which should be prepared with a long-term view spanning decades regardless of regime or ideology?must no longer be repeated.

Is Nuclear Phase-Out Political Rhetoric?

According to Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power on the 24th, the nuclear power utilization rate dropped to 65.9% in 2018, the year after President Moon took office, but then rose significantly to 70.6% in 2019, 75.3% in 2020, and 74.5% in 2021. President Moon declared a 'nuclear phase-out' at the permanent shutdown ceremony of Kori Unit 1 in June 2017, shortly after his inauguration, stating, "Until now, the lives and safety of the people were secondary. We will recognize nuclear safety as a national security issue critical to the country's survival and respond accordingly." However, nuclear utilization actually increased during his term. The government explained that the utilization rate was low due to maintenance but later rose again, yet the significant increase despite the phase-out declaration clearly shows that the Moon administration's neglect of nuclear power was merely 'political rhetoric' disconnected from reality.

The Moon administration also appointed pro-phase-out figures to positions influencing national energy policy. Representative pro-phase-out figures include Yoon Soon-jin, the private chairman of the Carbon Neutrality Committee that set carbon reduction targets for 2030 and 2050 amid social interest last year, and Kim Je-nam, former Blue House Senior Secretary for Civil Society, appointed last month as chairman of the Korea Nuclear Safety Foundation. Notably, while nuclear power is rapidly emerging as an alternative for carbon neutrality overseas, such as in the European Union (EU), the Blue House did not include a single nuclear expert among the 77 government and private members of the Carbon Neutrality Committee.

Procedural flaws and contradictions were also exposed throughout the nuclear phase-out process. The current government pushed the 'Energy Transition Roadmap'?which included halting new nuclear plant construction and banning life extension of aging plants?through a Cabinet meeting in October 2017 without legal grounds, drawing criticism for pushing phase-out solely by Cabinet resolution. The early closure of Wolseong Unit 1 sparked controversy over manipulated economic feasibility, leading to the arrest of two Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy officials. While the government unilaterally pushed phase-out domestically, it paradoxically cooperated in exporting nuclear technology to the U.S. and third countries and engaged in nuclear sales abroad, revealing inconsistent policies.

Hanbit Nuclear Power Plant

Nuclear Power as One of the Power Supply Sources... The Priority Task is 'De-politicization'

Experts emphasize that the nuclear industry should be approached not as a political ideology but as one of the eco-friendly power supply sources. To respond to climate change phenomena such as heatwaves, droughts, and abnormal weather worldwide, the pros and cons of nuclear and carbon neutrality policies must be objectively assessed before deciding on their use. In fact, nuclear power is the cheapest and lowest carbon-emitting eco-friendly energy source. According to the National Assembly Budget Office, the cost of producing electricity from nuclear power is 54 won per kilowatt-hour (kWh), only one-fifth of renewable energy (264.6 won) and less than half the cost of liquefied natural gas (126.0 won). The energy produced from 1 kg of uranium, the main fuel for nuclear power, exceeds that from 1,500 tons of coal, demonstrating overwhelming productivity.

The global trend of reversing from 'nuclear phase-out' to 'nuclear reinforcement' is also noteworthy. French President Emmanuel Macron recently announced plans to build up to 14 new nuclear reactors by 2050. Japan, as part of its energy mix policy, plans to increase the share of nuclear power in total electricity supply from 2% in 2018 to up to 22% by 2030. The United States, which operates the most nuclear reactors worldwide, is extending the lifespan of some reactors from 60 to 80 years and adding two new reactors with a capacity of 2,230 megawatts (MW), expanding the nuclear industry's scope.

Professor Jung Yong-hoon of KAIST's Department of Nuclear and Quantum Engineering said, "In areas like energy policy, the correct approach is to let experts take the wheel and operate well," adding, "If the policy direction is judged wrong, healthy criticism can be made in the social movement sphere," cautioning against ideological interference in the nuclear industry. Professor Jung Dong-wook of Chung-Ang University's Department of Energy Systems Engineering also said, "Energy is a major issue that affects the nation's industry and economy over a long period," and "Approaching energy with political ideology rather than practical principles is problematic."