[Energy-topia] Energy Policy Should Not Be Subject to Ideology

After Nuclear Phase-Out, Germany Faces Energy Challenges
South Korea's Geography Limits Solar and Wind Power
Nuclear Energy Essential for Achieving Carbon Neutrality

Germany is a representative country that the previous government benchmarked while pursuing a nuclear phase-out policy. In 2011, German Chancellor Angela Merkel formed the “Ethics Commission on a Safe Energy Supply” (commonly known as the 17-person Ethics Commission), composed of 17 intellectuals, and decided to phase out nuclear power plants. The Shin-Gori Units 5 and 6 Public Deliberation Committee, formed by the Moon Jae-in administration in 2017, was modeled after this. Although the composition of the two committees differs slightly, they share one commonality: they did not include nuclear scientists. They excluded science from energy policy and approached it solely from an ethical perspective.

The consequences are now fully borne by future generations. After one extension, Germany became a complete nuclear phase-out country by shutting down the last three remaining nuclear power plants on April 15. This was 62 years after starting nuclear power operations in 1961. Germany plans to realize a carbon-neutral country by increasing the share of renewable energy such as solar and wind power.

However, reality is unfolding differently from ideals. Amid the already precarious energy security situation in Europe due to the Russia-Ukraine war, the disappearance of nuclear power has caused electricity prices to soar. Especially, German manufacturing companies are suffering severely. The German government is also considering providing energy subsidies to companies. As electricity became scarce, Germany has been importing electricity from neighboring France. France is the country with the highest share of nuclear power in Europe. It is an ironic situation where Germany, despite phasing out nuclear power, buys electricity from a nuclear power country.

Controversy is growing within Germany. The Free Democratic Party (FDP), which forms the ruling coalition with the Social Democratic Party (SPD) to which Chancellor Olaf Scholz belongs, and the Green Party adopted a statement last month calling for a halt to nuclear power plant decommissioning. Friedrich Merz, leader of the largest opposition party, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), also declared, “If we come to power, we will operate nuclear power plants again.” Chancellor Scholz appeared on a radio broadcast on the 2nd and likened nuclear power to a “dead horse,” implying it is now irreversible.

Germany’s situation does not feel like someone else’s problem. It is something South Korea would have had to face someday if it had continued its nuclear phase-out policy. Under the Yoon Suk-yeol administration, South Korea is restoring the nuclear power ecosystem by restarting nuclear plants that had been halted. On the 20th, newly appointed Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Visit Kyu visited a nuclear power equipment export company in Changwon City as his first official schedule.

Globally, nuclear power is recognized as an important energy source for achieving carbon neutrality. BloombergNEF forecasted that even if a carbon-zero society is achieved by 2050, 9% of the necessary electricity will still be generated from nuclear power. While solar and wind power will account for 75% of global electricity, nuclear power will play an important role as a baseload power source. Research and development (R&D) on new technologies such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which enhance safety compared to existing nuclear power plants, is also actively underway. Expectations are also high for nuclear hydrogen production through SMRs.

As the world enters a new Cold War era, countries prioritize energy security above all else. South Korea imports 100% of its crude oil. Geographically, it is disadvantageous to rely on solar or wind power. Therefore, the share of nuclear power must be high. On the other hand, nuclear power is a good topic for political exploitation by leveraging public anxiety. As a result, energy policy has swung back and forth with each change of government. Energy policy related to the nation’s survival should no longer be swayed by ideology.