Slashdot Mirror
Stung By Scandal, South Korea Weighs Up Cost of Curbing Nuclear Power
mdsolar writes in about an ongoing scandal in South Korea that has rocked their nuclear power program. "It started with a few bogus safety certificates for cables shutting a handful of South Korean nuclear reactors. Now, the scandal has snowballed, with 100 people indicted and Seoul under pressure to rethink its reliance on nuclear power. A shift away from nuclear, which generates a third of South Korea's electricity, could cost tens of billions of dollars a year by boosting imports of liquefied natural gas, oil or coal. Although helping calm safety concerns, it would also push the government into a politically sensitive debate over whether state utilities could pass on sharply higher power bills to households and companies. Gas, which makes up half of South Korea's energy bill while accounting for only a fifth of its power, would likely be the main substitute for nuclear, as it is considered cleaner than coal and plants can be built more easily near cities."
Yep.
I wouldn't be surprised if Russia is wetting themselves as more and more countries are abandoning nuclear power and switching to natural gas, which Russia has a monopoly over in Asia.
Previewing comments are for sissies!
Seriously, the scandal is less of an issue with nuclear power, it could have happened to ANY of the generating systems they want to switch to as well. Privatizing power generation doesn't work. Its been proven by TEPCO, in the US, and now in South Korea, because the companies will skirt the law anywhere they can as long as they can until they finally get caught. Don't switch to fossil fuels like Gas or Coal, keep the Nuclear and take the plants away from the corporations and put them under strict government control.
Or you could, I dunno, provide competent and effective _oversight_ to ensure the nuclear plants are being operated safely? I know - that's just crazy talk.
'On March 5, 2002, maintenance workers discovered that corrosion had eaten a football-sized hole into the reactor vessel head of the Davis-Besse plant. Although the corrosion did not lead to an accident, this was considered to be a serious nuclear safety incident.[65][66] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission kept Davis-Besse shut down until March 2004, so that FirstEnergy was able to perform all the necessary maintenance for safe operations. The NRC imposed its largest fine ever—more than $5 million—against FirstEnergy for the actions that led to the corrosion. The company paid an additional $28 million in fines under a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice.[65]'
You can't see me making the 'dick head' motion with my hand, but I'm making it.
Long term coal is not the answer, but current technology nuclear power is not either. We'd never make any progress on nuclear power itself if there is no incentive in pushing new generation technologies. Let's stop subsidizing nuclear power accident liability costs: either you manage to design it to be safe enough to be privately insureable, or it's not safe enough to get built.
Sure thing. We'll just build a few coal plants instead. They're privately insurable despite killing people and destroying the environment when operating normally, since unlike nuclear no one expects them to pay for their externalities. Or we could build a hundred large solar plants, which together equal about one reactor as long as sun shines from cloudless skies. That shouldn't require any subsidies, and if it does, it's okay because it's not nuclear. Of course, they'll still need those coal plants for backup, but that's okay because dying from microparticle-induced cancer is a lot better than dying from radiation-induced cancer, amirite?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Nobody is rebuilding TMI, Fukushima or Chernobyl yet that dam was rebuilt because they needed the flood control. It is precisely because the land is habitable that they need the flood control. Your analogy is very flawed.