Safety and security are essential to nuclear power plants…The idea of a DMZ nuclear power plant is absurd
Editor’s Note: It is no exaggeration to say that there are no more controversial sources of energy than nuclear energy. It is a low-cost energy source compared to other energy sources, but at the same time it’s the most potentially hazardous and requires the most intensive technology. Views on nuclear energy are often based on ideology rather than focused on objective facts and data, so a special Q&A session was held to talk about the reality of the reduction of nuclear power generation. NPK’s executive director Maeng Ju-sung will be asking the questions and Professor Lee Jae-ki will be answering.
Maeng Ju-sung: There are so many issues under the current administration that we have to raise questions about, but I think the two most important ones are the April 15 general elections and the issue of nuclear energy. It was recently revealed that there were plans to support the building of a nuclear power plant for North Korea, so today we are speaking with Professor Lee Jae-ki, who is uniquely qualified in the field of nuclear power. Professor Lee has 18 years of experience working at the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute and the Korea Nuclear Safety and Technology Institute and is an authority on both practical and theoretical work. Since we have a lot to discuss, I will cut to the chase. First of all, I would like to know about the NPT and the IAEA, both international nuclear-related topics.
Lee Jae-ki: The IAEA is the International Atomic Energy Agency. President Eisenhower had the vision of not only weaponizing nuclear power, but also to use it for peaceful purposes so that it would become a means of sharing technology with developing countries. It was originally an organization that shared nuclear technology, but the proliferation of nuclear weapons led to the need for an organization to contain nuclear proliferation. So, within the IAEA, a program was created to contain the proliferation of nuclear weapons for military purposes and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was created. Many countries involved in nuclear weapons research and development signed the treaty, and our country was one of them.
Maeng: And we divide the types of reactors into light water and heavy water; what is the difference?
Lee: A nuclear reactor is a nuclear fuel system in a nuclear fuel tank and it’s where neutrons and uranium are nuclearized to get energy. In order to continue to generate energy, a nuclear chain reaction must take place. Nuclear fission must be continuous and in order to do that and the number of neutrons in the reactor vessel should be maintained. But in order to maintain it, the number of neutrons that come into being and the number of neutrons that are absorbed to disappear or disperse from the reactor must be balanced. There are two ways to create the balance, and one of the ways is to make a lot of neutrons. In other words, it’s a way to enrich uranium and cause a lot of fission reactions. Another way, although it may produce a small amount and might be a loss, is to create the balance it by reducing the amount of dispersion.
Heavy water uses natural uranium as fuel because uranium enrichment is technically difficult and expensive. But if you use natural uranium to make nuclear fuel, you have to reduce the loss because the neutron production is small. In order to do that, we need to get rid of neutron-eating substances, which are much more effective in heavy water than in light water. Heavy water is a type of water that is about 10 percent heavier. Our country uses both types—the one in Kori is a light water reactor and the power plants in Wolseong are Canadian-designed heavy water reactors. There’s no big difference in terms of risk or safety.
Nuclear-free policy of the Moon government and North Korea’s refusal to give up its nuclear weapons
Maeng: What’s at stake right now is aid to North Korea, so this story goes back to when we were trying to build a light-water reactor in North Korea in 2001?
Lee: I have prepared a “Timeline of North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons”. It was in the late 1980s that North Korea’s Yongbyon area was tapped to build various atomic facilities. That was why in the early 1990s, there was pressure internationally for denuclearization, so North Korea left the IAEA in 1994, stating it was a matter of sovereignty. Although there were negotiations between the U.S. and North Korea that year, North Korea demanded compensation and began plans to build a nuclear power plant in 1995. However, North Korea created an incident involving a submarine in the East Sea which then led to the first Yeonpyeong naval skirmish, which worsened the inter-Korean relationship. Then in 2000, the so-called first inter-Korean summit was held, and they attempted to talk about North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons program, but it wasn’t successful. After that, three-party talks in Beijing were held in 2003 and several six-party talks were held in 2004 and 2005, but due to lack of results, plans for North Korea’s nuclear power plants were suspended in 2005. With all this international pressure, they put on shows like dismantling the cooling tower in 2008 and having their second nuclear weapons test.
| Timeline of North Korea’s Nuclear WeaponsLate 1980s: Became aware of the growing nuclear activities in North Korea1991~1992: Pressure for denuclearization1994: North Korea withdraws from the IAEA, North Korea-U.S. nuclear negotiations1995: Launch of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO)September 1996: East Sea submarine incidentJune 1999: Yeonpyeong naval incidentFebruary 2000: Inter-Korea SummitJune 2000: West Sea incident, calls for non-aggression treaty between North Korea and U.S. |
Looking at this process, it can be seen that it was North Korea’s strategy to buy time to complete its nuclear program. So, if pressure from outside forces was strong, they came to the negotiation table and negotiated a lot of things, then would put on a demonstration, backed out of the non-proliferation treaty, then would come back, participate in the inter-Korean summit, dismantle the cooling tower and destroy nuclear power tunnels, all while developing their nuclear weapons. And if they thought it would be difficult to make progress, then they would engage in military provocations and would buy time, and in the end, for 30 years from 1990 until now, efforts for denuclearization have been fruitless. I can only say that I don’t think that North Korea will be giving up its nuclear weapons program any time soon.
Maeng: I can fully understand your conclusion just by looking at the trend you explained. Next, as soon as the current administration came in, they cried for nuclear power because they offered three things: safety, economy, and it was environmentally friendly. What are your thoughts on this?
Lee: There are pros and cons to whatever means we use to produce energy, whether it’s coal, oil, gas, or renewable energy. But for economic purposes, the cost of power generation is the most important indicator. The unit price of power generation is how much it costs to make 1 kwh of electricity and it depends on who estimates this unit price and when it is estimated. What I have noted is actually the unit price that KEPCO (Korean Electric Power Corporation) paid in 2018 by purchasing power from various power sources. If you look, nuclear power is 61 won, coal is 85 won, LNG (liquefied natural gas) is 118 won, and renewable energy is 173 won. Nuclear power costs a third of renewable energy, that’s how cheap it is.
The data I’ve shown on environmental issues is from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and it shows how many grams of greenhouse gases (carbon) are emitted when 1 kwh of power is generated. There is, of course, a lot of coal-fired power. Wind and nuclear power are pretty much the same and hydraulic power is twice that of nuclear power. So, if global warming determines the future of mankind, and because President Moon Jae-in announced plans to be carbon neutral by 2050, in order to achieve the goal for carbon neutrality, I believe that nuclear power will be needed to play a role before we get a new breakthrough energy source.
Maeng: The safety concerns about nuclear power plants are very complex. In fact, weren’t there actual accidents at TMI in the U.S., at the Chernobyl nuclear plant, and even in nearby Fukushima, Japan?
Lee: With nearly 500 nuclear power plants operating worldwide, accidents can happen, but the probability of such an accident is very low, in our estimation. If it does happen, the damage is great, but if the frequency of the damage is low enough, then we have to weigh the costs versus the benefits. Lack of energy threatens our lives right now. International statistics show the amount of energy consumed by a country is proportional to the life expectancy of the people in that country. That’s how important energy is. There are pros and cons regarding how we get this important energy. Many people fail to understand that an earthquake will never directly cause a nuclear accident. The Fukushima accident wasn’t caused by the earthquake. When an earthquake occurs, the nuclear power plant automatically stops and then enters into safety mode, but in the case of Fukushima, a massive tsunami unexpectedly flooded the power plant and there was a total black-out. And because the pumps weren’t running, it couldn’t be cooled down, which caused the accident. We can’t deny that the possibility of another nuclear accident exists. But since modern nuclear power plants are so well-designed to withstand events, we may have a good chance of largely avoiding them in the future.
A policy made to buy time for North Korea to develop nuclear weapons
Maeng: Recently, our government was caught trying to provide nuclear power to North Korea. What are your thoughts on this?
Lee: Germany or Sweden can decide as a matter of national policy that they’re not going to produce nuclear power anymore. However, policy decisions don’t seem to be a matter of one or two discussions at a cabinet meeting. Because it’s a very important national issue, we must vote on it like Sweden or go through the process of making it public, like Germany, followed by going through the process in the National Assembly. A report written by the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy included the words “nuclear power plant.” The results of the audit revealed three things: building a plant in Sinpo, Hamgyongnam-do, building it at the DMZ, and how to transfer power generated after Shin Hanul Units 3 and 4 are completed. First of all, we need international cooperation to build a nuclear power plant in North Korea. But I don’t think we can in the current situation if North Korea doesn’t give up its nuclear weapons program.
In a certain respect, even if there is international cooperation, I think it would be really odd to build a nuclear power plant in the DMZ under current conditions. There’s safety in building a nuclear power plant, but one thing you can’t ignore is security. That’s why we need to be clear about the physical protection measures for nuclear facilities. Under these circumstances, the proposal to build nuclear power plants in the DMZ is unlikely to be agreed to by the international community.
The best source of energy is nuclear energy
Maeng: Let’s get to the conclusion. You spent your entire life working in the field of and learning about nuclear power and you’ve done your research; are we able to continue this domestic denuclearization policy?
Lee: If we’re going to provide energy sources to our people at a reasonable price and there is a means by which we can supply it safely, we can replace the nuclear fission reactor we’re using. However, when considering the climate change issue we’re facing right now, until we get a lot of other energy sources, I don’t think it’s right to sacrifice a decent source of energy for any purely political considerations. In order to replace nuclear energy, the current administration promoted solar and renewable energy at first, but as I’ve said before, our country is not well-suited for developing solar energy due to a lack of solar radiation. Besides, renewable energy isn’t very mature in scope, so it’s normal to go with nuclear power plants and other energy sources and it is wrong to replace nuclear energy. As I have mentioned, without an alternative energy source, nuclear energy is the best option we have right now.
