South Korea to push ahead with nuclear power plants

October 20, 2017
South Korea relies on nuclear power for about 30 percent of its energy needs
South Korea relies on nuclear power for about 30 percent of its energy needs

South Korea on Friday decided to push ahead with the construction of two new nuclear reactors after months of heated debate over whether the country should start weaning itself off atomic energy.

A state commission, based on a survey of 471 jurors selected across the country, recommended finishing construction of the Shin Kori-5 and Shin Kori-6 reactors near the southeastern city of Ulsan.

"We recommend the resumption of the two reactors", commission chairman Kim Ji-Hyung said in a press statement.

Construction was suspended in July with 30 percent complete amid controversy whether the country should shift away from because of safety concerns.

The government has already said it would accept whatever the jury recommended regarding the fate of the two reactors.

Scrapping the project was one of President Moon Jae-In's campaign promises.

After taking office in May, however, he took a backstep in the face of strong protests and decided to determine the reactors' fate according to public opinion.

He ordered the establishment of the independent state commission charged with collecting public views and making a recommendation.

About 1.6 trillion won ($1.4 billion) has already been spent on the reactors.

South Korea relies on nuclear power for about 30 percent of its energy needs.

Aside from the two reactors, the country has another four that are near completion and 24 existing reactors.

Explore further: S. Korea to scrap all plans to build new nuclear reactors

Related Stories

Japan commission supports nuclear power despite Fukushima

September 14, 2017

Japan's nuclear policy-setting Atomic Energy Commission called Thursday for nuclear power to remain a key component of the country's energy supply despite broad public support for a less nuclear-reliant society.

Recommended for you

Google braces for huge EU fine over Android

July 18, 2018

Google prepared Wednesday to be hit with huge EU fine for freezing out rivals of its Android mobile phone system in a ruling that could spark new tensions between Brussels and Washington.

EU set to fine Google billions over Android: sources

July 17, 2018

The EU is set to fine US internet giant Google several billion euros this week for freezing out rivals of its Android mobile phone system, sources said, in a ruling that risks fresh tensions with Washington.

14 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 20, 2017
Environuts and faux-greens are now part of the problem, they are ever fighting vigorously to replace perfectly safe sources of carbon-free energy by intermittent renewables backed up by fossil fuels to compensate intermittencies which air pollution kills millions of people every year while no one has died from radiation exposure at Fukushima power plant.
Their actions have nothing to do with saving the planet or fighting Climate Change, or protecting the environment. Their actions have only served to favor coal and gas(fracking) and to destroy natural landscapes and wildlife habitats with their ecologically hypocritical means of energy production(wind/solar(bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers)). Their actions are moved by ideology and irrational hate, or vested interests.
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2017
How irrational is that? Countering fears from the devastating effects of foreign atomic weapons hitting the territory by seeking the gracious installation of atomic weaponry on and around the own land. Knowing that nuclear energy is an already abundantly proven unsafe, irresponsible way for generating power, adding more plants as points of human/tech failure and target for hits by manmade and natural strikes.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2017
Nuclear energy is proven the safest and the most environmentally responsible way of generating electricity. No one has died from radiation exposure at Fukushima, the tsunami was the real killer together with fearmongers and sensationalist mass media that induced stresses/anxieties/heart-attacks, abortions, and suicides; Chernobyl is now a tourist zone. Even including the worst-case scenarios, carbon-free nuclear power is much safer per unit of energy produced and much more ecologically friendly than intermittent renewables(fossil-addicted parasites).
Edenlegaia
3.3 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2017
Chernobyl is now a tourist zone.


Even though i'm not that opposed to nuclear power, you won't drag me there for tourism. Man, are you alright in your head?
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2017
...you won't drag me there for tourism.
You are exposed to more radiation during a commercial flight(up to 65mSv) or in Kerala/Ramsar/Guarapari(natural radiation up to 800mSv) than in Chernobyl(5mSv) or in Fukushima(20mSv).
https://blogs.agu...-levels/
Nick Gotts
3.8 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2017
Ah, the nuclear fanbois have arrived.
"No one has died from radiation exposure at Fukushima, the tsunami was the real killer"
At a time of national emergency, the Japanese government was obliged to devote vast resources to dealing with the critical situation at Fukushima, and was unable to send aid to the areas worst affected by the tsunami by the most direct route because Fukushima was in the way. We have no way of knowing how many additional deaths that caused. Clearing up the mess will take decades and cost $188 billion (Japanese government estimate). That amount could save tens of millions of lives if well spent.
Nick Gotts
4 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2017
Chernobyl cleanup costs also run into hundreds of billions of dollars, decades or even centuries of further work on dealing with the mess are anticipated, and there is as yet no coherent plan for dealing with the waste. Around 4,000 deaths are expected to result from radiation from the accident - this does not include premature deaths due to the disruption of people's lives, which are impossible to calculate, because of the effects of the concurrent effects of the breakup of the USSR and subsequent economic crisis.
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2017
No one has died from radiation exposure at Fukushima

No one has died from coal powerplants, either, right? Yet the WHO calculates the related deaths from all pollution (of which burning and fossil fuels is a big part) to 12.6 million a year.

Just because people don't keel over in the streets 5 minutes after a nuclear incident doesn't mean that the resulting number of deaths is zero.

The world is a tiiiiny bit more complex than you think.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2017
Most of deaths(heart-attacks, abortions, suicides) are caused by irrational fear of radiation induced by fearmongers.
Around 4,000 deaths are expected to result from radiation
The long life expectancy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, with no increase in leukemia/cancer, is an incontestable evidence that LNT is wrong that it's a "politically motivated" science.
"What happened to the radiation that was supposed to last thousands of years in Hiroshima (1945)?"
https://www.quora...Hardwick
"The rise of LNT theory was really the result of a political motivation by a group of radiation geneticists."
http://thebreakth...too-much
"Remedy for Radiation Fear — Discard the Politicized Science"
https://www.ncbi....4036393/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2017
Yet the WHO calculates the related deaths from all pollution (of which burning and fossil fuels is a big part) to 12.6 million a year.
The anti-nuclear/pro-fossil-fuel "fanbois" applaud when perfectly safe sources of carbon-free energy is replaced by intermittent renewables backed up by coal(Germany) and/or natural gas/fracking (U.S.) to compensate intermittencies. Wind and solar are nothing except fossil-addicted parasites, a trillion-dollar fiasco worldwide in terms of reduction of emissions, just Trojan horses for the fossil fuel industry.
Just in direct events, refineries/pipelines/tanks explosions, the fossil fuels have caused several times more deaths(real/confirmed) in a year than the imaginary(not-confirmed) 4000 deaths from Chernobyl.
katesisco
1 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2017
The radiation from current fiascoes will continue to contribute to the 'background' radiation science claims is world- wide. http://www.lindap...ncreases
Recall the US public was famously unaware of radon exposure until a nuke plant worker scanned at his job site revealed the problem. An Irish county has the highest radon level in all of Europe. All of these exposures are stresses lowing our IQ and longevity. Perhaps you have noticed that tv ads are centering around child bearing?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2017
Environuts and faux-greens have no option except to use lies and "double standards" to fight carbon-free nuclear power.
Nuclear power produces few waste per terawatt-hour generated. More than 95% of the waste is uranium-238 which is a naturally-occurring element.
https://qph.ec.qu...2b59ca-c
Fracking liberates much more Radon to extract natural gas(backup for intermittent renewables).
https://www.usato...5466893/
In a single eruption, volcanoes release hundreds of tons of radioactive materials: protactinium-231(equivalent to plutonium-239 in terms of toxicity), radium-226, uranium-235/234/238, thorium, potassium-40, rubidium-87, etc.
https://uploads.d...2bbf.jpg
Cognitive Dissonance: Radon baths
https://uploads.d...c1d8.jpg
aksdad
3 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2017
You're doing great, WillieWard. Keep supplying the facts and the links. It probably won't convince the commenters arguing with you, but you're right about nuclear fission. Despite the high profile accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima, it is still far and away the safest, most efficient, lowest environmental impact form of reliable base load power yet invented. The waste generated is nasty, but it's an incredibly small amount compared to coal slag and emissions from fossil-fueled power plants. And almost all of it can be recycled as France and Japan have done. Next-generation plants will be even safer, more efficient and produce virtually no waste.

And no one died at Fukushima. Since the first nuclear power plant went online in 1954, around 60 people have died in accidents and almost all of them (45) were at Chernobyl. Hundreds have died in fossil fuel and hydroelectric power plant accidents in that time.
aksdad
3.3 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2017
Hundreds have died in fossil fuel and hydroelectric power plant accidents in that time.

Sorry, I was wrong. Tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands have died. Look at the list of hydroelectric dam failures and accidents, never mind coal and gas plant explosions.

Sure tens of thousands were displaced by the accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima, but they didn't die, like the 26,000 who drowned in the Banqio Dam accident in 1975. Just a few months ago 180,000 were displaced by the Oroville, California dam failure.

Fukushima Daiichi was an older Generation II reactor which required active safety measures (electricity or backup generators) to power down safely. Generation III and newer power plants are designed with passive safety measures so if there's a power failure they shut down automatically.

Here's a list that puts nuclear power plant safety in perspective:

https://en.wikipe...ccidents

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.