중앙헤럴드  시작페이지설정  즐겨찾기추가
최종편집 : 2019.1.16 수 23:48
CoverControversial Issues
Government’s Anti-nuclear Facility Policy Should Be Stopped
Mo Ye-lim  |  ye3030@cau.ac.kr
폰트키우기 폰트줄이기 프린트하기 메일보내기 신고하기
승인 2018.10.07  13:55:04
트위터 페이스북 미투데이 요즘 네이버 구글 msn

          During his presidential election promises, Korean President Moon Jae-in insisted a ‘nuclear zero’ project during the presidential election promises. Since taking office, his government has stuck to its ‘anti-nuclear energy policy’ to make President Moon’s campaign pledge a reality. To make up for problems that his ‘nuclear zero’ project might have created in terms of energy shortages, the government tried to import natural gas from Russia through North Korea's oil pipelines, but this attempt has failed. Meanwhile, as the summer heat wave continues, the reserve rate of electricity supply has reached one digit in two years, which has raised concerns over the recurrence of a massive blackout like the one occurred in 2011. In response, the government, which has consistently stood by its anti-nuclear facility policy, has backpedaled and decided to restart the Hanul no.4 nuclear reactor. Maintaining nuclear power plants is inevitable in order to meet the people's need for power. Furthermore, nuclear reactors are one of Korea's few strategic energy assets. For these reasons, the current government's anti-nuclear facility policy should be abandoned.

           First, nuclear power has been the main driving force of South Korea’s economy to date. It stands to reason, therefore, that an anti-nuclear energy policy could result in a huge economic loss. According to Jung Geun-mo, the former Minister of Science and Technology Department, nuclear power has been the main force behind Korea's rise to the world's 10th largest economic power over the past three decades. Looking ahead, nuclear power is also expected to create jobs and keep the country afloat for the next few decades in the 600-trillion-won global nuclear power plant market. In addition, experts such as, Joo Han-kyu, a professor of Atomic Engineering Department at Seoul National University, say that nuclear power generation is much more economical than liquefied natural gas (LNG) or other renewable energy, even considering the cost of post treatment such as waste. That’s because nuclear power has a lower unit cost than other forms of energy, and there is little change in the price. Without careful consideration of nuclear power’s importance to the Korean economy, declaring an anti-nuclear facility policy would almost inevitably cause huge economic losses.

Secondly, the anti-nuclear facility policy will result in an increase in electricity taxes. Based on a survey by the U.S. Department of Energy, German citizens have seen a 78 percent rise in electricity costs over the decade from 2004 to 2014. That is about 3.8 times higher than Korea's electricity bill, which would be difficult for the public to afford. In addition, Korea has recently experienced a surge in the rate of air-conditioner usage due to the severe heat it has experienced. As a result, people have been forced to bear the burden of higher electric bills for months. Since there is a progressive electric rate system in Korea, which means the more electricity is used, the burden on the public’s household budgets has been even tighter. Under these circumstances, if the anti-nuclear power plant policy inevitably triggers an increase in electricity taxes, the economic pain that people will feel could be sharp.

Lastly, Korean nuclear power plants are safer than other countries. To understand nuclear power safety, we need to understand the definition of ‘containment building’. The proper name of a reactor’s containment building is ‘primary reactor containment building’, which is installed to prevent the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere beyond the allowable level in the case that an accident occurs at the reactor. The containment wall’s thickness at the Fukushima plant was 16cm. The containment wall’s thickness at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island site, where a nuclear power plant accident occurred in 1979, was 60cm. In this facility, there were no radioactive leaks or casualties, because the thick containment buildings survived the hydrogen explosion. Compared to Japan and the United States, Korea's standard nuclear power plant containment is very safe, with a thickness of 120cm. People who support an anti-nuclear facility policy will object that the Fukushima nuclear accident was caused by an earthquake-induced tsunami, not by an earthquake directly. But this is not a sufficient reason to worry about nuclear containment in Korea. Uljin and Wol-seong nuclear power plants are safely located at higher altitudes to minimize the impact of a tsunami. In addition, the nuclear power plants have 10-meter-high shield. So even in the event of a natural disaster, nuclear plants in Korea are safe.

 

Thus, the negative nature of the anti-nuclear power policy can be identified by considering the economic margin nuclear power in South Korea will generate, the secondary effects of the nuclear power plant policy, and the relative safety of the reactors themselves. For all of these reasons, which mean more jobs, less tax generation, and a reliable long-term energy supply over the life of the reactors, the government needs to revisit its nuclear power plant policies. Nuclear power plants are a major economic engine for Korea and are a material resource that directly connects to people's lives. While there may be evidence for the government's strong argument, sufficient consideration should be given to realistic conditions rather than simply insisting on opinions. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss the policy of anti-nuclear power plants again based on the advantages of maintaining various nuclear power plants.

 

 

 

< 저작권자 © 중앙헤럴드 무단전재 및 재배포금지 >
폰트키우기 폰트줄이기 프린트하기 메일보내기 신고하기
트위터 페이스북 미투데이 요즘 네이버 구글 msn 뒤로가기 위로가기
이 기사에 대한 댓글 이야기 (0)
자동등록방지용 코드를 입력하세요!   
확인
- 200자까지 쓰실 수 있습니다. (현재 0 byte / 최대 400byte)
- 욕설등 인신공격성 글은 삭제 합니다. [운영원칙]
이 기사에 대한 댓글 이야기 (0)
 
신문사소개기사제보광고문의불편신고청소년보호정책개인정보취급방침이메일무단수집거부
우)156-756 서울 동작구 흑석동 221 학생문화관 2층 언론매체부(중대신문 편집국) | 전화 02-820-6245
팩스 02-817-9347 | 인터넷총괄책임 : 방송국장 | 게시판총괄책임 : 편집국장| 청소년보호책임자 : 김다혜
Copyright 2011 중앙헤럴드. All rights reserved. mail to webmaster@cauon.net