Election in South Korea; bad news for clean energy.

[miniboes]

Yesterday, South Korea elected Moon Jae-in. Now, I don't know much about korean politics, but just as with France the positions of the candidates on nuclear energy particularly concen me with Korea.You see, Korea is currently the world leader in nuclear power plant construction; they do it faster and cheaper than anyone else. Aside from China and Korea no country is very good at building nuclear plants. Without their help, if any country opts to go the nuclear route in energy it will need to get through a long period of learning how to construct plants cheaply and quickly (for Sweden back in the late 20th century the ramp-up period was ~10 years).

However, every major candidate in this election was anti-nuclear. Moon Jae-in has promised to cancel construction plans for two additional nuclear plants in Korea and wants to phase out all existing reactors in 40 years. That's very worrying. The only hope is the fact that KEPCO has been building nuclear plants abroad. If they continue to do so even though there is no demand for new plants back home they may keep up their short construction times and low costs. If not, the future of clean energy seems increasingly bleak.

I can't believe how world leaders all around the world pay lip service to climate change but then continue to close nuclear plants before closing coal and gas plants, so the new renewable energy they invest in doesn't even make up for the clean energy they lost by closing nuclear plants. First phase out biomass (wood) and coal. Then oil, gas and hydro. Then, if you really want, you could look at phasing out nuclear. Don't screw up that order.

More info:
http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2017/05/371_228046.html

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

On the upside, he wishes to break free of U.S. influence and establish good relations with the DPRK.

[brimstoneSalad]

That's pretty terrible. I'm not sure how much longer this hypocrisy and fear mongering can stand. Sensible people are starting to realize it. We can only hope for an intellectual revolution to change public perception, but most people are very ignorant and vulnerable to fear mongering over nuclear.

[At least wood is close to carbon neutral if it's from sustainable forestry, even if it does give people cancer]

On the upside, he wishes to break free of U.S. influence and establish good relations with the DPRK.

I guess at least the DPRK is pro-nuclear, right?
Or is that just weapons?

[miniboes]

https://atomicinsights.com/south-koreas-president-elect-pledges-nuclear-zero-2060-actions-already-begun/

"South Korean president-elect pledges 'nuclear zero' by 2060."

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

https://atomicinsights.com/south-koreas-president-elect-pledges-nuclear-zero-2060-actions-already-begun/

"South Korean president-elect pledges 'nuclear zero' by 2060."

When Korea is reunified, Kim Jong-un will make sure that the South uses nuclear power.

[brimstoneSalad]

https://atomicinsights.com/south-koreas-president-elect-pledges-nuclear-zero-2060-actions-already-begun/

"South Korean president-elect pledges 'nuclear zero' by 2060."

When Korea is reunified, Kim Jong-un will make sure that the South uses nuclear power.

Is he pro-nuclear power?

[Jamie in Chile]

Yesterday, South Korea elected Moon Jae-in. Now, I don't know much about korean politics, but just as with France the positions of the candidates on nuclear energy particularly concen me with Korea.You see, Korea is currently the world leader in nuclear power plant construction; they do it faster and cheaper than anyone else. Aside from China and Korea no country is very good at building nuclear plants. Without their help, if any country opts to go the nuclear route in energy it will need to get through a long period of learning how to construct plants cheaply and quickly (for Sweden back in the late 20th century the ramp-up period was ~10 years).

However, every major candidate in this election was anti-nuclear. Moon Jae-in has promised to cancel construction plans for two additional nuclear plants in Korea and wants to phase out all existing reactors in 40 years. That's very worrying. The only hope is the fact that KEPCO has been building nuclear plants abroad. If they continue to do so even though there is no demand for new plants back home they may keep up their short construction times and low costs. If not, the future of clean energy seems increasingly bleak.

I can't believe how world leaders all around the world pay lip service to climate change but then continue to close nuclear plants before closing coal and gas plants, so the new renewable energy they invest in doesn't even make up for the clean energy they lost by closing nuclear plants. First phase out biomass (wood) and coal. Then oil, gas and hydro. Then, if you really want, you could look at phasing out nuclear. Don't screw up that order.

More info:
http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2017/05/371_228046.html

I agree with the order of coal, oil, gas, nuclear.

Can you explain why you put biomass as as bad as coal? I don't really know about biomass so much, so you may have to enlighten me here? At my home here in Chile, I have a wood burning stove, a parafin heater, an electric heater (too expensive to use as the main source for the whole house), and a heater using portable gas bottles? Do you have any opinion about which is the more ethical choice?

And why would you rank hydro as worse than nuclear? The risks of nuclear power stations include proliferation of nuclear technology, accidents, and then there's the fact of radioactive material being left someone for someone to find and poison themselves a thousand years later. So, how can hydro be worse?

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

https://atomicinsights.com/south-koreas-president-elect-pledges-nuclear-zero-2060-actions-already-begun/

"South Korean president-elect pledges 'nuclear zero' by 2060."

When Korea is reunified, Kim Jong-un will make sure that the South uses nuclear power.

Is he pro-nuclear power?

I think so.

[brimstoneSalad]

Can you explain why you put biomass as as bad as coal? I don't really know about biomass so much, so you may have to enlighten me here? At my home here in Chile, I have a wood burning stove, a parafin heater, an electric heater (too expensive to use as the main source for the whole house), and a heater using portable gas bottles? Do you have any opinion about which is the more ethical choice?

Burning biomass, as long as the biomass is from a sustainable source with little input, is close to carbon neutral with respect to global warming, but it's very very dirty and pollutes the local environment causing cancer and other respiratory diseases.
Might as well burn a case of cigarettes.

The most ethical choice for an immediate solution is wearing long sleeve shirts inside and using a small portable heater to keep the area around you warm if necessary.
Aside from that, more long term solutions are improving your insulation, and using passive solar heating, as well as solar heating for your hot water (which is VERY efficient, unlike solar panels that produce electricity). These are infrastructure investments that pay off long term.

And why would you rank hydro as worse than nuclear?

Hydroelectric is great when it's readily available in areas with plenty of water. There aren't always good options for that, though.
There are sometimes environmental questions in building dams and creating the lakes needed to run a power plant. It's also a source of water loss through evaporation if not done right, which can be a problem in areas with limited water.

The risks of nuclear power stations include proliferation of nuclear technology,

What's wrong with that?
The technology to build a bomb is radically different from that required to run a power plant. Most of the technology is in refinement and safety, and we can sell adequately refined uranium to developing countries (which they can not use for weapons), and then pretty easily supervise their power plants to make sure they aren't running breeders, and collect waste after.

accidents,

Are very rare and not particularly dangerous. The death toll for nuclear from accidents is less than that from solar when you look at harm per unit of power produced (manufacturing, falling off roofs, etc.)

and then there's the fact of radioactive material being left someone for someone to find and poison themselves a thousand years later.

That's not really how radiation works.
The dangerous isotopes, which are highly radioactive, only have half-lives of a few years. The radioactive material becomes safer and safer the longer it's stored, leaving only the more stable isotopes.
Those isotopes can largely be reprocessed and used again as fuel, though. Nuclear waste is very recyclable for fuel use, so we would not need to store it for very long until it became economically viable as a fuel source (due to depletion of unwanted isotopes, and depletion of other supplies making reprocessing more viable).

That said, storing waste for thousands of years is pretty trivial. There are geologically stable areas where things could be easily buried for that long without being disturbed unless somebody intentionally digs them up. Think about how old some mummies and tombs are that we find.
Nuclear fuel is no longer hard to store once the quickly decaying isotopes are gone; those are what make it hot and require a water bath.

[Jamie in Chile]

Thank you some good insights there.

I think the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation is often understated because people forget to balance the low probability of something bad happening with the high magnitude of the effects.

Yes, it's unlikely that terrorists working within the UK for example would somehow inflitrate a nuclear power station and get material and use it to make a bomb, but how unlikely are we talking here? Say there's a 1 in 1 thousand chance that they could do this and kill 1 million people, in assessing risk that could be considered the same as 1000 people certainly dying.

Yes I know the nuclear processes and materials in power stations and weapons are quite different but it's really no coincidence that the UK and US built nuclear weapons and then opened power stations later. Also, we have countries like Iran that have nuclear power stations and great worry about what that means for weapons development. So, there is obviously some correlation.