SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea should reduce its reliance on nuclear power in view of public discontent with corruption in the industry and Japan's difficulty tackling the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster, a group weighing up the problem said on Sunday.
The Energy Ministry published the findings of a study group of 60 representatives from industry, academic institutions and civic bodies that recommended reducing to between 22 percent and 29 percent the portion of electricity that can be generated by nuclear power. That compares to 41 percent proposed in a government plan for 2030.
Asia's fourth-largest economy currently generates one third of its electricity from nuclear power as part of long-term efforts to replace imported oil and gas.
Agreement on a range of 22-29 percent was reached "based upon consensus to minimize social conflict over the proportion of nuclear power generation," the study group said in a statement released by the energy ministry.
The government will hold public hearings over the report's conclusions and plans to draw up final revisions to energy policy in December, it said.
The group also recommended keeping the proportion of renewable energy at 11 percent as planned. It suggested imposing taxes on coal-fired power stations and lowering taxes on liquefied natural gas and kerosene.
Public discontent over nuclear power has been fanned by a scandal over the use of fake certificates which, since 2012, has prompted a series of reactor shutdowns in South Korea.
The nuclear industry has been criticized for breeding a culture of secrecy that led to corrupt practices among officials involved in safety certification.
Six of 23 reactors remain off line, including three halted in May to replace cables supplied using bogus certificates. Authorities on Thursday said 100 people, including a top former state utility official, had been indicted on corruption charges.
The head of the group, Kim Chang-seob, said the figures provided were intended strictly as guidelines to take account of trends and growing discontent over the nuclear sector.
"Our suggestion is to set the direction in the policy for social consent, as there are huge social conflicts," Kim said.
Anxiety has also risen over repeated setbacks by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) in its efforts to halt radiation leaks and make safe the Fukushima plant north of Tokyo, which was crippled by an earthquake and tsunami in 2011.
Tepco last Thursday said radiation levels in seawater just outside the plant had climbed to their highest level in two years.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been criticised since he declared the problems at Fukushima "under control".
Japan's Nuclear Regulation Agency earlier this month ordered Tepco to draft in additional workers and report on its measures to tackle the clean-up.
(Reporting by Meeyoung Cho; Editing by Ron Popeski and Jason Neely)
First and foremost on a national level I can understand why South Korea would rely heavily on nuclear energy as it would want to decrease or minimize imports of fossil fuels from other countries. However I agree with the group that says reducing nuclear output to 22% to 29% by 2030. Not only is nuclear energy a fossil fuel but it has worse waste product than other fossil fuels. Yes, you can make the argument that coal, natural gas, and gasoline contribute to climate change directly each day. But the fear of radiation or the security levels in nuclear power plants makes them a much riskier and dangerous fossil fuel. By decreasing their dependence on nuclear energy, what other energy supply would they use? The article points to natural gas and kerosene replacing the energy levels. I feel that this is happening more and more in countries all around the world. As newer and efficient methods of extracting natural gas are being invented the more these countries are speeding their production of it. But I believe for South Korea and many nations, the distinction has to be made that natural gas isn't the solution for the future energy markets but rather renewable energies are.
ReplyDeleteI think the best course of action for South Korea to take is to significantly reduce nuclear power as an energy source because it is imperative that we reduce the amount of spent fuel. It is not good that one third of electricity in South Korea comes from nuclear plants, even though it is meant to replace imported oil and gas in the future. It is irrational for the government to place such high dependence on nuclear power, especially as seen by the effects of the tsunami on nuclear power plants in Japan. After the earthquake of 2011 in Japan, the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant damage produced equipment failures, nuclear meltdowns, and releases of radioactive materials. More incidences like this are catastrophic – health wise and environmentally. Radiation levels in seawater just outside the plant had climbed to their highest level in two years. The only other alternative it seems is to increase the use of fossil fuels for greenhouse gas emissions in order to keep up with the power demand of the country. I think the suggestions on imposing taxes on coal-fired power stations and lowering taxes on liquefied natural gas and kerosene are a step in the right direction to combat this reliance on nuclear power. Besides the risk that heavy dependence on nuclear power has in South Korea, the nuclear industry is filled with corruption with bogus certification seen in many. There is even more risk seen with nuclear power when guidelines and procedures aren’t taken into place. At the same time, I think the best course of action to take is to reduce the dependence on nuclear power as an energy source, but not eliminate it completely because a complete shutdown will only drastically increase the dependence on fossil fuels.
ReplyDeleteJane Han
I am glad that the South Korean government is acknowledging their heavy dependency on Nuclear energy compared to other countries around the world. They seem unable to regulate this industry, which has extreme risk, if not done so properly. The Energy Ministry talked to 60 different representatives, both within the industry, academic institutions, and civil bodies. They found that the results were all fairly similar and they said that South Korea should reduce energy created from Nuclear power plants to 22-29 percent. The USA currently produces about 20 percent of its energy form the use of Nuclear power plants. The government proposed 41% by 2030 and that isn’t enough of a reduction because of the un-regulation within the industry. I am thrilled that the government wants to tax coal fired power plants because that means we are stepping in the direction to eliminate green house gases and climate change. A huge flaw I see in the governments plan however is to keep renewable energy at 11%. This number should be drastically increased so that this world can continue to prosper. South Korea should deeply consider trying to replace oil and gas imports with renewable energy. They could utilize solar panels and wind turbines to come up with more energy than they are now. The ultimate goal for not only South Korea, but for the U.S. and the world as a whole is to reduce oil and gas and increase renewable resources, which should be able to produce almost all of the energy we need. Again this brings us back to the point that we want to have our cake and eat it too. We need to give up on some of the luxuries in life so that the future can experience some of them as well. People need to start realizing this emergency. South Korea seems to be moving in the right direction, but they are lacking a path to follow therefore they are going about it the wrong way. Although Nuclear energy is much cleaner than coal fired plants, they need t understand that it still produces toxic waste that must be disposed of. I think that is what the Energy Ministry is trying to do and I applaud them for that.
ReplyDeleteNicholas Brodeur
Pace Pleasantville
Perhaps the most fundamental statement made in this entire article is the following: "the nuclear industry has been criticized for breeding a culture of secrecy that led to corrupt practices among officials involved in safety certification.". This is the primary issue to our climate changes and environmental issues. Unfortunately the nuclear industry is also financial revenue for our world, leading us to repeat its destructive cycle to all three of our sustainable area needs. The amount of electricity nuclear use recommended be reduced between 22 to 29 percent is rather reasonable. In addition it does show signs of improvement, however it isn’t as important as reevaluating the government role in the nuclear industry. The usual agendas placed by government are “public hearings”. These hearings most likely never draw up sensible conclusions. Furthermore, the fact that false certifications are the reasons for prompt shutdowns in South Korea demonstrates that the lack of regulation in nuclear industry is rarely non-existent. I do see the hope in regulation when the article mentions imposing taxes on coal-fired power stations as well as lowering those also placed on liquefied natural gases. Yet only six of 23 reactors remain off-line proving my point that economics is the primary factor to the nuclear industry. The lives and safety take a back seat to this on going conflict. It is thus extremely saddening and frustrating to see officials, government and corporations sustain the well being of banks rather than us, human beings.
ReplyDeleteThe article based on South Korea decreasing reliance on nuclear power, is a very controversial topic in many countries. Nuclear plants contaminate water with radioactive substances, and exposure to radioactive materials can be deadly. The Energy Ministry suggests reducing 22%-29% of electricity that comes from nuclear power plants in South Korea. If the government has already proposed a plan to eliminate 40% of the current electricity from these plants by 2030, then why not get a jump start now? Though an energy policy in South Korea is to be drawn up and revised in December, changes should begin to start occurring now. When such an industry so harming to the environment, gets so out of control that people attempt corrupt practices, immediate action needs to be taken. If the president of the United States lied about having radiation levels under control, like their Prime Minister did, there would be outrage amongst millions. Even though this nuclear plant seems economically beneficial now, it is ruining everything it has around it. Hopefully the public hearings that the government plans on holding, will be finalized in December, so widespread radioactive materials stop polluting the earth.
ReplyDeleteNuclear power has been known to be one of the cheapest sources of energy to date, however as seen before there are significant side effects. It was with the movie titled The China Syndrome in which many of us saw the implications a nuclear power plant could have and thus as a result the United States has erred from using nuclear power. With Korea still using nuclear power as a prominent energy source we can only assume that a possible catastrophe is on the horizon. With that being said it is important for people like The Energy Ministry to help dissuade the usage of nuclear power and pose counter stance to the proposed 40+ percentage of nuclear energy for Korea in the years to come. The pros just don't outweigh the cons when it comes to using nuclear energy.
ReplyDeleteNicholas Maier.
.It couldn't be clearer that Asia's huge dependency on nuclear power is having a negative impact. There's a positive to the matter though, which is lessened oil and gas importation. Because it was a public consensus to "minimize social conflict over the proportion of nuclear power generation," it is definitely an issue which is heavily affecting a large group of people. "Lowering the taxes on coal-fired power stations and gas and kerosene," like the group suggests can help lower that nuclear power dependency. I feel that it's the taxing that's making Asia resort to nuclear power because they don't have to pay as much in taxes. The issues that arise out of concern should be clear evidence of the effect that nuclear power usage is having on society, especially after the governor claimed to have it "under control."
ReplyDeleteIn South Korea's defense, lowering imports means less money the country has to spend, even though importing may positively contribute to the global economy.
Gabriella Matsotso
The obvious dependency on nuclear energy worldwide should be cause for alarm. It is refreshing to see South Korea taking the step to discuss what they view as a problem. They (S. Korea) are in an awkward predicament as in order to lessen their dependency on importing natural gas they must rely on Nuclear Power. Energy independence is definitely something to strive for, and as technological advances become available I predict this will be a possibility. Nuclear power as we have witnessed in Fukushima and Chernobyl,the worst nuclear disaster in history, its usage is dangerous. The world cannot afford another disaster like the ones we've witness, nor can the we continue to stand by while our planet is slowly poisoned. South Korea's Energy Ministry has taken the first of many important steps to ensure sustainability.
ReplyDeleteOne can argue that if country wants to use the nuclear power, it should be able to do so. America relies on nuclear power, why should other countries be restricted? It was demonstrated that nuclear plants are not polluting the environment as much as fossil plants. And we need to produce energy somehow. But with nuclear power comes responsibility. If the state is corrupted, it can have devastated results if nuclear power gets to wrong hands. I saw that first hand when Chernobyl exploded. Living in Europe at that time, I saw what kind of impact radioactivity had on environment. Government didn’t alarm neighborhood countries and instead was trying to hide the accident. It wasn’t until weeks later, that the president publicly announced it. If repeat of just incident can be avoided, other countries should be able to restrict the use. It will give other countries surrounding South Korea a piece of mind. I also believe South Korea should put in place stricter regulations. But it is hard to get rid of corruption, especially if it starts at government level.
ReplyDeleteI think South Korea reducing its reliance on Nuclear Power would not serve sustainable development because they would then have to increase their reliance on fossil fuels, which are far more harmful to people and the environment, not to mention far less efficient. And fossil fuels are much more dangerous than nuclear power, which is actually incredibly clean in comparison. Much of the distrust and fear of nuclear power is due to the availability heuristic due to the few catastrophic examples of nuclear power gone awry; Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island. Its the same fallacy that would lead one to believe that air travel is less safe than driving a car, which is also untrue.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, South Korea should focus more on enforcing its laws and rooting out corruption and incompetence rather than reducing its reliance on nuclear power, if sustainability is what's at stake here. Human error and corruption is really the most dangerous complement to nuclear power (See Chernobyl and Three Mile Island). The power supply lost through reduction of nuclear capability will be replaced by fossil fuels such as oil and coal, which will do much more to damage the environment and harm the population, and not clean sources.
South Korean using more nuclear energy as its main source of power in understandable, because they would want to decrease the use and import of fossil fuels from any of the other countries. It would be wonderful to see the use of nuclear energy to decrease to 29% by 2030. Both fossil fuel and nuclear energy are harmful for the environment but in my opinion, it seems that nuclear energy is far worst. The fact that radiation is an issue that goes hand in hand with using nuclear power is pretty frightening. A nuclear power plant alone can create a dangerous situation for the area surrounding it. Although the idea of eliminating nuclear energy altogether would be wonderful, we have to be realistic in thinking about what kind of energy would South Korea or even other countries begin to use? Natural gases and kerosene are a better alternative. Countries around the world are finding effective ways to harness energy from natural gases and to use it, which shows that we are taking steps in the right direction. If countries like South Korea are able to reduce their dependence on nuclear power, then it would only benefit as that is one less energy source that can harm the planet.
ReplyDeleteI like the ideal of reducing nuclear energy to 22 to 29 percent by the year 2030, but my concern is can Korea be trusted to follow through with this policy after the scandal over use of fake certificates. We all know and have seen first hand the negative impact that nuclear power plants can have when not well maintain or because of a natural disaster, you would think they would want to use less because of this.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder like some of my classmates if they use be pushing for more than the required 11 percent use of renewable energy.
South Korea has access to information on renewable energy, technology, and liquefied natural gas and its up to then what they do with it to advance their nation for the greater good of the environment. I also know the nuclear power is a big business with the money to buy political power to keep them rich and the country in a state of crisis as seen with the scandal of the certificates. Using other resources will benefit their country, but only time will tell what they chose to do despite the world leaders objections and suggestion.
Reducing the amount of Nuclear energy by 2030 would be a great thing. Nuclear energy has it's pro and cons but I believe it has more cons. There are a lot of bad possibilities that could happen with nuclear power plant. The world would love to reduce the amount of nuclear in the next 15 years and I think with more research and development we can find better and more environment friendly ways reduce energy consumption and also more efficient type of energy. I believe it will be tough to tell countries that have to bring in fossil fuel for other type of energy that they will need to change the way of their own county. I think this is a really tough topic to discuss because this countries are unpredictable at times.
ReplyDelete