Korea should promptly recognize the need to increase the use of nuclear energy, the only viable alternative to unstable and costly renewables prone to extreme volatility due to weather conditions and geopolitical risks, energy experts said Sunday.
The affordable and stable source of energy, demonized largely for political objectives under the Moon Jae-in administration, is the only answer to soaring energy costs, certain to fall on the public in the form of higher utility bills once the presidential election is over next month.
Further anchoring the view is escalating tensions in Ukraine, a geopolitical uncertainty that the global investment banking sector says could send crude oil prices to as high as $150 (179,000 won) per barrel in the first quarter of this year in a full-fledged energy crisis.
Also to be factored in is a recent move by the European Commission (EC) to recognize nuclear and natural gas as green energy sources, an indication that even the European Union countries are acknowledging that the use of nuclear power and natural gas as essential for the time being.
Not if but when
“It is not a matter of if but when,” Seoul National University economist Lee In-ho said.
Solar energy is unreliable, with the power output swinging extremely when faced with snowfall and shortened sunlight hours in winter, the season when energy supply stability is especially critical for heating, he said.
“Government policy seeking to rely more on solar energy, in that sense, means people being asked to risk not having a house with a heating system working in the cold,” he said.
“It might sound a bit exaggerated at this point, but this is not completely out of the question with surging liquefied natural gas (LNG) prices factored in. Korea will have to increase the much-blasted energy source, or brace for an energy crisis similar to the one in Europe, if Ukraine tension intensifies and triggers a supply shock.”
Years of railroading the nuclear phase-out policy, a key green growth initiative under the Moon administration, has failed to achieve any material improvement in environmental conditions, all the while living expenses are surging, compounded by rising inflation brought on by pandemic-induced liquidity, according to another expert.
“No current energy sources can fully replace nuclear power,” Korea University professor of Resources and Energy Economics Park Ho-Jeong said.
Korea has until recently pushed further the carbon-neutrality initiative, a grand objective without any means to make it happen, in his view.
The Korean Resource Economics Association said the government seems adamant about meeting the net-zero emissions goal, as illustrated by revisions to a slew of relevant laws to make it binding for the private sector. “But how high the cost will become and at whose expense remains undiscussed, a responsibility to be borne by the next administration.”
The EU announced its plan Feb. 2 (local time) to classify natural gas and nuclear power as green investments, despite fierce protests from Germany and four other nations. This prompted the Korea Economic Research Institute to recommend that Korea revise its K-Taxonomy, the Korean version of the EU Taxonomy, to follow suit. The Taxonomy is a set of guidelines for green and sustainable investments outlining eligibility for state grants.
