In this blog post, I’d like to examine the advantages and risks of nuclear power, along with South Korea’s current energy supply and demand situation and the potential of renewable energy, to consider whether it is necessary to continue relying on nuclear power.
Nuclear power generation refers to a method of producing electricity by generating steam using the energy released during the fission of radioactive elements such as uranium, and then harnessing the force of that steam to turn turbines. Compared to fossil fuels like oil, which are unevenly distributed across the globe, uranium has the advantage of being found in deposits in many countries, allowing for a diversified supply. In particular, in countries like South Korea, which have virtually no fossil fuel resources, nuclear power has long played a vital role as a means of complementing thermal power generation. Furthermore, its high energy density—which allows for the production of large amounts of energy from a small amount of nuclear fuel—and its relatively low greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuel-based power generation have contributed to the widespread adoption of nuclear power around the world.
For these reasons, South Korea relies heavily on nuclear power. According to the latest statistics from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), South Korea’s nuclear power generation in 2025 amounted to approximately 184.7 TWh, accounting for about 31.0% of the total electricity supply. Furthermore, as of 2026, 26 nuclear reactors are in operation in South Korea, and additional reactors are under construction. While plans to significantly expand nuclear power capacity were proposed in the past, the 11th Basic Plan for Electricity Supply and Demand has now been finalized. It projects that the share of nuclear power will reach approximately 35.2% by 2038 and includes plans to construct two new large-scale nuclear reactors and one small modular reactor (SMR). Meanwhile, the 12th Basic Plan for Power Supply and Demand is currently being formulated; a preliminary forecast released in April 2026 projected that peak electricity demand in 2040 would reach 131.8–138.2 GW. Given this high likelihood of continued growth in electricity demand, the debate surrounding the role of nuclear power remains a critical issue.
The primary concern of those opposed to nuclear power is likely the possibility of a major accident—such as the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine or the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan—occurring again in South Korea. While nuclear power offers the advantages of high energy density and stable power generation, there is concern that even the safest power generation method can result in catastrophic damage if a major accident were to occur. In a major nuclear accident, there is a risk of a meltdown—damage to the reactor core—accompanied by the release of radioactive materials into the environment. Depending on the cause and progression of the accident, damage could include fires, explosions, and large-scale releases of radioactive materials. In particular, given South Korea’s high population density and concentration of industrial facilities relative to its land area, a major nuclear accident could result in immense socioeconomic damage. If radioactive materials are released into the environment, access to contaminated areas and land use may be restricted for long periods; furthermore, since there is a possibility that contaminants could spread through the environment and the food chain, anxiety regarding nuclear power plant accidents is high. Therefore, safety concerns should not be downplayed solely on the grounds of the economic viability and energy efficiency of nuclear power.
Some argue that damage does not necessarily occur only when an accident happens. In areas where nuclear power plants are in operation, continuous management and monitoring of radiation and radioactive materials are required, and the health of nearby residents is also a major concern. Research into the relationship between cancer incidence among residents living near nuclear power plants and radiation from those plants has been ongoing for some time. In particular, a 2012 study by Professor Joo Young-soo of Hallym University College of Medicine found that the incidence of thyroid cancer among women living near nuclear power plants was approximately 2.5 times higher than in other areas. However, another epidemiological study commissioned by the government at the time concluded that it found no evidence of a causal relationship between radiation from nuclear power plants and cancer incidence among nearby residents; therefore, it is difficult to definitively conclude, based solely on this study, that radiation around nuclear power plants increases the incidence of thyroid cancer. Ultimately, the health issues of residents living near nuclear power plants are matters that require ongoing monitoring through long-term epidemiological studies and scientific verification.
Another argument cited by opponents of nuclear power is the technology known as the “super grid.” The “super grid” refers to a concept in which renewable energy power plants—such as hydroelectric, tidal, wind, and solar facilities—are constructed across a wide area and connected via a high-voltage power grid, allowing electricity generated in various regions to be exchanged. A key characteristic of this method of energy generation is that it is highly susceptible to weather conditions. However, opponents argue that connecting power sources from various regions into a single grid can compensate for the volatility of renewable energy—even if one region cannot produce enough energy due to weather conditions, it can receive power from other regions. They contend that if renewable energy can sufficiently meet humanity’s electricity demand in this way, there is no need to maintain nuclear power while accepting the various risks mentioned earlier. However, since a supergrid also requires the construction of a large-scale transmission network, a system for cross-border electricity trade, and grid stabilization technologies, it cannot be completed simply by switching to renewable energy sources alone.
Despite these arguments, I fundamentally support nuclear power. Currently, South Korea imports most of its major fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas, from abroad, and its energy import dependency remains high, exceeding 90%. Statistics from the Korea Energy Economics Institute also confirm that South Korea’s energy import dependency has remained at a high level in the 90% range for an extended period. Due to this characteristic, external factors—such as international energy prices, geopolitical conflicts, and changes in production levels in major oil-producing countries—can have a significant impact on South Korea’s energy security and economy. Therefore, South Korea faces the challenge of securing a stable power supply while diversifying its energy sources. While nuclear power is far from achieving complete energy self-sufficiency—given the need to source uranium fuel from abroad—it offers advantages in terms of energy security because it can generate large amounts of electricity over long periods using only a small amount of fuel, and fuel cost fluctuations are relatively minor compared to fossil fuel-based power generation. Therefore, it is difficult to resolve energy issues simply by reducing nuclear power generation. For South Korea to strengthen its energy security, a comprehensive approach is needed that takes into account nuclear power, renewable energy, and improvements in energy efficiency.
Let’s consider “super grid” technology, which was raised earlier as one of the grounds for opposition. Of course, the fact that it carries a lower risk of accidents compared to nuclear power and can generate electricity using renewable energy derived from nature makes it a theoretically excellent solution. However, to expand renewable energy on a large scale, not only power generation facilities but also transmission grids, energy storage systems, and power system operation technologies must be expanded in tandem. Furthermore, since solar and wind power generation fluctuates depending on weather and time of day, complementary measures such as other power sources, storage systems, and demand management are necessary to ensure a stable power supply. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that renewable energy will be able to completely replace nuclear power in the short term, even as it continues to expand. Currently, South Korea is pursuing an energy policy that promotes the expansion of renewable energy while simultaneously utilizing nuclear power as a key carbon-free energy source. The 11th Basic Plan for Electricity Supply and Demand also outlines a strategy to expand both nuclear power and renewable energy, and the 12th Basic Plan is currently re-examining electricity demand and the energy mix through 2040. Therefore, rather than unconditionally relying on fossil fuels until eco-friendly technologies advance sufficiently—or, conversely, immediately phasing out all nuclear power—I believe a realistic approach is to gradually transition the power supply system while considering the strengths and weaknesses of each energy source.
The risk of nuclear accidents also needs to be carefully assessed in light of South Korea’s specific circumstances. While there was a strong perception in the past that South Korea was an earthquake-safe zone, the 2016 Gyeongju earthquake, the 2017 Pohang earthquake, and the 2024 Buan earthquake (magnitude 4.8) have heightened awareness that South Korea is not entirely free from seismic risk. Therefore, it is inappropriate to assume that the risk of a nuclear power plant accident is significantly low simply because South Korea is located in an earthquake-safe zone. Nuclear power plants are designed with various potential accidents in mind, including natural disasters such as earthquakes. In fact, to ensure the safety of nuclear power plants, it is crucial not only to meet design standards but also to conduct continuous inspections, improve facilities, secure emergency power sources, maintain cooling functions, and conduct emergency response drills. In particular, as demonstrated by the Fukushima nuclear accident, it is crucial to prepare for situations where both power and cooling functions are lost simultaneously due to large-scale natural disasters. Therefore, thoroughly analyzing the causes of past nuclear accidents and incorporating those findings into safety equipment and emergency response systems will help reduce the likelihood of such accidents and minimize potential damage. Meanwhile, it is also important to secure emergency power equipment, such as mobile power generators, in preparation for nuclear accidents, and to establish multi-tiered safety measures capable of responding to emergency situations where cooling functions are lost. In fact, emergency response drills simulating scenarios such as the loss of on-site and off-site power are being conducted at nuclear power plant sites in South Korea.
Finally, I would like to point out that South Korea’s nuclear power plant technology is at a very high level, making it a national asset in its own right. South Korea’s nuclear power technology has been successfully exported overseas through the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant project in the UAE, and the country has demonstrated its competitiveness in the global nuclear power market, as evidenced by Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power being selected as the preferred bidder for the new nuclear power plant construction project in the Czech Republic. This signifies that the country’s capabilities extend beyond simply operating nuclear power plants domestically to encompass the competitiveness of the entire related industry, including nuclear power plant design, construction, equipment supply, operation, and maintenance. In particular, the export of nuclear power plants is of significant importance to the national economy because it connects not only to the construction of the plants themselves but also to various industrial sectors, including long-term operation, maintenance, and equipment supply. I believe that if South Korea continues to develop its advanced technological capabilities and safety management skills and demonstrates safety in actual nuclear power plant operations, it will be able to further enhance its competitiveness in the global nuclear power market.
Nuclear power is a double-edged sword. While it can support South Korea’s industrial and economic development based on its high energy density and stable power generation capacity, it can also cause serious damage due to major accidents if thorough safety management and preparedness are lacking. In South Korea’s case, nuclear power technology is at a high level, and given the reality of limited energy resources and high dependence on energy imports, it is not easy to completely replace nuclear power in the short term. At the same time, renewable energy and power grid technologies are advancing rapidly, and the current government is designing the power supply system to utilize both nuclear power and renewable energy in tandem. Therefore, while we must continue to rely on nuclear power stably for a certain period, we must also make every effort to enhance the safety of nuclear power plants. At the same time, we must not neglect investments in improving the generation efficiency of renewable energy, expanding the power grid, and developing energy storage systems and power system operation technologies so that renewable energy can complement and eventually replace nuclear power in the long term. Ultimately, I believe the key is not to unconditionally expand or abolish nuclear power, but to create the most realistic and sustainable energy system by comprehensively considering South Korea’s energy security, power supply and demand, economic feasibility, environmental impact, and safety.
