[Insight & Opinion] Essential Elements for the 12th Basic Plan for Electricity Supply and Demand

The Ministry of Climate and Energy has begun work on the 12th Basic Plan for Electricity Supply and Demand. This is a fundamental plan that will design the configuration of power facilities and energy sources from next year through 2040. It is extremely late to only now begin formulating a plan that will be implemented as early as next year. It remains to be seen how swiftly and rationally the Ministry of Climate and Energy can establish this unfamiliar plan.

The core of the Basic Plan for Electricity Supply and Demand is the projection of electricity demand 15 years into the future. Electricity demand can vary greatly due to a wide range of factors, including changes in population, the economy, weather, the emergence of new technologies, and shifts in industrial structure. However, since its inception in 2000, the demand forecasts in the Basic Plan have consistently fallen far short. In particular, the 2020 demand forecast in the 3rd Basic Plan in 2006 underestimated demand by as much as 17.3 GW. This was likely due to painful memories of the public criticism over excessive investment experienced during the People’s Government.

The demand forecast in the 11th Basic Plan, which projected demand in 2038 to be 129.3 GW, is no different. It is clear that the forecast will not be able to accommodate the increased power demand driven by the government’s strong commitment to investment in artificial intelligence (AI) and the semiconductor industry. Underestimating power demand out of fear of waste will inevitably lead to a catastrophic power shortage, as was clearly experienced during the rolling blackouts of 2011.

The configuration of energy sources is also a difficult issue. A sober social consensus is needed regarding coal, nuclear power, natural gas, and renewables. Simply rejecting coal because it is dirty or nuclear power because it is dangerous is not a persuasive stance. Even with dirty and dangerous technologies, there must be the determination and effort to use ‘technology’ and ‘institutions’ to make them as clean and safe as possible. Automobiles and airplanes were originally technologies that were considered unacceptably dirty and dangerous.

The claim that hydrogen, solar, and wind will realize ‘energy justice’ is also an unrealistic fantasy. Clean (blue) hydrogen remains technologically incomplete, and solar and wind are still ‘future technologies’ burdened by issues of economic viability and intermittency. No one knows whether steel produced by hydrogen reduction using hydrogen instead of coke will meet the quality standards required for various applications.

The environmental and economic aspects of solar and wind power cannot be taken for granted. We must not forget that the power generation efficiency of solar and wind is only around 20%. No matter how just an energy source may be, if it is too expensive, it will remain out of reach-a harsh reality. Furthermore, for solar and wind installations, not only ‘energy highways’ but also a network of ‘energy national and local roads’ must be built. There must also be consideration of the high-cost energy storage systems (ESS), which have yet to overcome the risk of fire.

It is unethical for the president and the Minister of Climate and Energy to reject ‘nuclear technology’ for domestic use on the grounds that it takes 15 years to build and may be dangerous, while at the same time promoting its use for submarines and export. Technologies deemed dangerous for us are also dangerous for soldiers and citizens of other countries. We cannot continue the shameful contradiction of advocating nuclear phase-out domestically while calling the nuclear power plant we built in the UAE ‘Barakah’ (a blessing from God).

The 12th Basic Plan for Electricity Supply and Demand must also thoroughly address the feasibility of the 2035 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) for greenhouse gas reduction and the coal phase-out alliance, which the Minister of Climate and Energy hastily reported to the international community. Calling for environmental and climate crisis responses while recklessly shutting down perfectly usable nuclear and coal power plants is deceptive.

Lee Deokhwan, Professor Emeritus at Sogang University, Chemistry and Science Communication