Is Going Nuclear Really “Going Nuclear”?

Whether to phase out nuclear energy is always a hot potato in most countries around the world. While securing electricity from cleaner sources is what everyone desires, operating nuclear power plants evokes unpleasant public sentiments that drive policy makers to declare a nuclear-free energy mix. My home country South Korea also envisions an energy future without a nuclear option, regardless how realistic it is.

Concerns are usually two-pronged; one is the cost to build a plant and the other is fear for what might happen–what might “go nuclear.” According to an article [1], the cost issue can be addressed with standardization and repetition–just like what is done in a factory. Indeed, China and South Korea can build reactors at 1/6 the current cost in the U.S., partly owing to less customization and repeated building experience.

The more complex issue is the widespread concerns about safety. General public is extremely sensitive to the well-known incidents in Chernobyl (1986) or Fukushima (2011). According to the same article [1], however, nuclear waste is surprisingly compact; the total waste for 60 years in the U.S. would fit in a Walmart. Meanwhile, other types of waste, i.e. from coal, can be often laden with toxic arsenic, mercury and heat that can last forever. The long-term impacts of nuclear accidents, of course, cannot be downplayed because the health risks involve a much longer time frame.

Skeptics of nuclear phase-out say that it is not even clear whether going nuke free will guarantee cleaner future. For example, Germany, a country that invested massive amount of money in PV despite its gloomy weather and decided to go nuclear free, has seen little reduction in carbon emissions. Germans are now complaining about their ever more expensive electricity rates.

At any rate, whether to include nuclear energy in a country’s energy plan depends on its energy availability. If energy needs are mostly sustained by imports and the infrastructure for renewables is not sufficient yet, it would be a haste decision to pipe dream about energy independence and renewable goals. Nuclear energy is at least one of the most realistic options that we have.

[1] Nuclear Power Can Save the World, by Johns S. Goldstein, Staffan A. Qvist, and Steven Pinker, April 6, 2019, The New York Times.