Korea has very low energy self-sufficiency, and much of its industry is energy-intensive. Nuclear power generation has played a crucial role as a stable and inexpensive source of electric power in the country. However, the externalities of nuclear power can be substantial due to frictions over the location of nuclear power plants and widespread public concern over their risks. In its second basic energy plan, the Korean government expressed its intent to expand nuclear power generation as a percentage of total electric power generation by 2035.
For the first time in Korea, this report examines all costs that establishment of new nuclear power plants may incur. It finds that the direct costs of nuclear power generation, including the costs of construction, operation, maintenance, and fuel, are lower than those of other power sources. It also notes that nuclear power entails many different externalities that are not reflected in such costs. Among these are the costs arising from risks of a serious accident and social conflict over the location of radioactive waste disposal plants and high-voltage transmission lines. Other costs include safety control expenses to minimize the risk of accidents and financial support for R&D and residents in the vicinity of nuclear facilities. High-level radioactive wastes created by nuclear power generation today may cause irreparable damage for generations to come, even if they are subject to disposal. The ways in which these externalities become manifest in nuclear power generation costs depend on the nature of government regulation and policy.
This study arrives at three conclusions. Firstly, nuclear power generation is the most cost-effective major power source, if only its direct costs are considered. Secondly, the sustainability of nuclear power generation relies on the degree of social concern about the possibility of a serious accident, means of disposal and the locations of spent nuclear fuel, utilization of large-scale transmission lines, the rigorousness of safety regulation, and restrictions on land use. These costs might spark societal friction, but are not reflected properly in general. Thirdly, externalities of nuclear power generation remain variable with respect to government policy and regulation. Accordingly, the economic feasibility of nuclear power generation depends on government policy to the extent that the general public accepts it, not the mode of power generation perse.
Resolution of the social discord in Korean society over nuclear power generation needs to begin with debate on the extent to which externalities will be acknowledged and who will bear them.
For the first time in Korea, this report examines all costs that establishment of new nuclear power plants may incur. It finds that the direct costs of nuclear power generation, including the costs of construction, operation, maintenance, and fuel, are lower than those of other power sources. It also notes that nuclear power entails many different externalities that are not reflected in such costs. Among these are the costs arising from risks of a serious accident and social conflict over the location of radioactive waste disposal plants and high-voltage transmission lines. Other costs include safety control expenses to minimize the risk of accidents and financial support for R&D and residents in the vicinity of nuclear facilities. High-level radioactive wastes created by nuclear power generation today may cause irreparable damage for generations to come, even if they are subject to disposal. The ways in which these externalities become manifest in nuclear power generation costs depend on the nature of government regulation and policy.
This study arrives at three conclusions. Firstly, nuclear power generation is the most cost-effective major power source, if only its direct costs are considered. Secondly, the sustainability of nuclear power generation relies on the degree of social concern about the possibility of a serious accident, means of disposal and the locations of spent nuclear fuel, utilization of large-scale transmission lines, the rigorousness of safety regulation, and restrictions on land use. These costs might spark societal friction, but are not reflected properly in general. Thirdly, externalities of nuclear power generation remain variable with respect to government policy and regulation. Accordingly, the economic feasibility of nuclear power generation depends on government policy to the extent that the general public accepts it, not the mode of power generation perse.
Resolution of the social discord in Korean society over nuclear power generation needs to begin with debate on the extent to which externalities will be acknowledged and who will bear them.