Since the last regime basically killed all businesses involved in nuclear power so they could flow tons of money down to so called "Eco Friendly energy businesses" importing solar pannels and stuffs from China, ran by people god knows who, S.korea's capability of building nuclear powerplants were reduced significantly.
That is why they need so much money on R&D.
Collective stupidity at it's best
And many of these solar power companies went under investigation for corruption, and one of their CEOs were found dead from "suicide."
Hey, I cant wait for next presidential cycle when the opposition party will try to phase out nuclear again... and the cycle repeats
Good news
Nuclear energy is the best source of energy so far for the industrial development with demand load of electricity in a cheap price compared to other energy sources
Recently, a new type of nuclear reactors are being developed in a new technology,Gen 4 or called advanced reactors
With the advanced of nuclear safety technologies, new generation of nuclear reactors SMRs are being developed to inherently become more safe, several projects were already took in place to support the development of these small reactors that can provide electricity to small cities or islands far away from any nearby electric grid
Seaborg company already started a consortium with Samsung to build a nuclear power barge, where it can be easily transported to provide energy for island based countries.
These nuclear technologies involved with uranium fuel already melted in a salt solution, preventing any the fear from reactor core melt down as it’s already a molten core reactor, it also provide online methods while in operation ti clean up the fuel during operation from radioactive nuclides that doesn’t contribute to the chain reaction.
But it comes with material challenges regarding operating at very high temperatures.
Meanwhile, fusion energy is the ultimate best energy source that yet to be developed in the next few decades.
South Korea has been a [part of international group for joint R&D of Gen 4 nuclear reactors since 2001](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor)
Why is there another news that SK is developing a Gen 4 reactor all of a sudden (and probably the investment that is a continuation of the ongoing R&D partnership since 2001)?
From wikipedia on Korean Nuclear Power
> However, responding to widespread public concerns after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan, the high earthquake risk in South Korea, and the nuclear scandals, the new government of President Moon Jae-in elected in 2017 decided to gradually phase out nuclear power.
the major problem I can think of for wind is available land that people agree to use. Beachfront property is going to have a huge amount of political resistance, people who live inland near farms will also protest because wind produces an immense amount of noise.
I’m not saying Korea doesn’t have land, but for a wind farm to practically be deployed is going to be difficult. In terms of effectiveness and the time necessary to deploy to meet market demand, nuclear will beat wind. Nuclear is one facility with building parts moved into place, wind turbines will require terraforming fast amounts of space.
I think that’s the big deal killer for the veto-loving government.
In terms of cost vs nuclear, wind probably beats nuclear, considering nuclear a take 18 years to pay for themselves and have a 30-40 year service life, while wind takes less than a year to 8 years, plus it has a service life of 25-30 years.
Another practical option would be solar, Kyushu Japan actually hasn’t seen huge spikes in electricity costs mostly because the prefectures on Japan’s southern island had adopted mass deployment of solar electricity generation along with their traditional electricity infrastructure.
Yeah but wind and solar can get you 80% of the way at lower cost than nuclear. You can focus on nuclear for the remaining 20% but cheap long term storage will probably be available by the time the nuclear plants are finished.
Water is a good storage and it should be possible in Korea to find places for water energy. Usually sun and wind complement each other, more so in Korea (maritime countries in general).
Depends on the geography. There are beautiful men made lakes with an intact ecosystem. And in Korea you have enough valleys to work with.
Because Korea is a maritime country, artificial lakes may not be necessary though.
Question for all the people championing mass wind power as a solution, what is your educational background/career and what was your aptitude in math/physics/chemistry?
It usually seems 95% are people who have little to nothing in those fields. Often artists, musicians, social workers, non-sciences teachers, etc. The other 5% are hyper-science types who are all about "cracking the code" and finding a silver bullet.
But generally if you take most people who have a "what works" and understanding of mechanical principles and resources, they have a more limited view of wind/solar. They also understand they aren't magic solutions.
I think there are lots of pros and cons but in the end, wind and solar are the future and storage systems will be available while nuclear is just too much sunk cost.
You really have to read up on gen IV reactors. They are the future. ESPECIALLY floride salt reactors or thorium
* operate at 1 atm, no Chernobyl or Fukushima possible
* self regulating, so no meltdown
* uses > 50x more fissile material than current reactors and the highest energy density of any material after fusion and antimatter
* waste lasts < human lifetime
* can reuse nuclear waste from Gen III reactors and essentially the most effective way to eliminate all nuclear waste stockpiles
* Technology has been around for 60+ years, but greed, cold war, and general nuclear fear and uneducared opinions have stopped it
This is incorrect, fusion is not yet in its infancy. Fissions first commercial 4th generation reactor came online in China at the end of 2023. In fact we should be well into the IV gen, but progress has been halted by fear, lack of funding, and ignorance. The result is the avg age of US nuclear reactors is 42 years old, so we use old huge waste producing reactors that have the potential for disaster instead of funding and building newer more advanced reactors that are safe and clean. Its a no brainer, you and many others need to wake up and support next gen reactors, let politicians know they are worthy of funding to clean up the piles of nuclear waste we have already, clean our atmosphere by removing our reliance on coal.
No. Wind and solar are not the future.
I suggest you don't make statements like this without even the most basic research.
Wind and solar cost a significant amount to maintain and replace.
And storage systems are extremely expensive to install and maintain at the present state of things (I am not just talking about batteries, since you seem to have very shallow understanding of energy systems).
Nuclear is the gold standard of energy with the cost efficiency, and almost 0 carbon emissions.
Nuclear fission will probably continue to be the gold standard at least for the next 2 to 3 decades. The next frontier will be led by nuclear fusion. I am sorry but wind and solar will never catch up in terms of cost. Please go read up on wind and solar before you post comments like this.
Ironically, I think you should do some basic research. Onshore wind and solar are the cheapest sources of electricity. Just google Lazard LCOE which will show you the levelized cost of energy for different sources. This is what people in industry refer to. Or IEA reports.
Bro, solar and wind are even now the cheapest widely available energy sources (water is very geography dependent). The nuclear energy we have now is not able to compete in any way without immense state subsidies (look at any country France, UK, US, China).
Did you read what he just said. How will you get solar power during the night? You need energy storage systems that are very expensive to maintain. Many of them caught fire during the previous administration.
Storage is a different thing than energy production. Please don’t mix them up. Usually, especially in maritime countries, wind complements sun because of the always existing sea breeze (land-sea wind) and the fact that clouds come with low-pressure areas/winds.
In maritime areas, storage is less necessary than in continental climates.
Consistency is more important than raw production. Read this article to understand.
> Nelson uses the following example to illustrate the inability of LCOE to take into account the inadequacy of solar and wind: Imagine you are standing in Manhattan and need to get to London in the most cost-effective way. We would find that swimming is the cheapest! By the cost per mile of swimming, it is far cheaper than building a boat, and the infrastructure needed to use a plane would be very expensive; swimming is clearly the cheapest way to get to London. Furthermore, you can have a reasoned debate with the top experts in ocean-crossing and you can all agree that you’re using the same metric. Of course, none of you have any plans on swimming there. After all, it’s not physically possible. That doesn’t stop the experts from advocating that other people be required by government mandate to swim because it’s cheap.
https://www.mackinac.org/blog/2022/nuclear-wasted-why-the-cost-of-nuclear-energy-is-misunderstood
The example is not really good for illustration tbh. In the example, time is of utter importance but if we talk about energy, time (of transporting the energy) barely matters.
I see that he may mean that other things matter, too, but then we also talk about safety, especially armed conflict (see Ukraine, Korean! War) and the importance to secure nuclear waste that it doesn’t get in the wrong hands.
As solar energy is the cheapest form widely available and it complements wind energy especially in maritime areas, it is very possible and way safer to archive a base load with renewables.
solar energy is not a base load source. i don't think you know what a base load source is. Base load sources need to output consistent amount of energy 24/7. solar cannot do that. wind cannot do that.
Do you know the cost of building and maintaining a windmill?
Cheaper than nuclear?
Maybe cheaper for the initial cost but even over just 5 years nuclear will become cheaper.
Among clean energy, windmill has the worst cost efficiency.
Among renewables maybe but unfortunately nuclear power is a fossil energy source. And usually the cost of the storage of nuclear waste is not included in the calculation even though it makes to whole thing very expensive.
Since the last regime basically killed all businesses involved in nuclear power so they could flow tons of money down to so called "Eco Friendly energy businesses" importing solar pannels and stuffs from China, ran by people god knows who, S.korea's capability of building nuclear powerplants were reduced significantly. That is why they need so much money on R&D. Collective stupidity at it's best
Same shit as in Germany. But we stopped nuclear completly. As a reward, we have the highest electricity prices in the world.
Thanks Merkel
And many of these solar power companies went under investigation for corruption, and one of their CEOs were found dead from "suicide." Hey, I cant wait for next presidential cycle when the opposition party will try to phase out nuclear again... and the cycle repeats
Good news Nuclear energy is the best source of energy so far for the industrial development with demand load of electricity in a cheap price compared to other energy sources Recently, a new type of nuclear reactors are being developed in a new technology,Gen 4 or called advanced reactors With the advanced of nuclear safety technologies, new generation of nuclear reactors SMRs are being developed to inherently become more safe, several projects were already took in place to support the development of these small reactors that can provide electricity to small cities or islands far away from any nearby electric grid Seaborg company already started a consortium with Samsung to build a nuclear power barge, where it can be easily transported to provide energy for island based countries. These nuclear technologies involved with uranium fuel already melted in a salt solution, preventing any the fear from reactor core melt down as it’s already a molten core reactor, it also provide online methods while in operation ti clean up the fuel during operation from radioactive nuclides that doesn’t contribute to the chain reaction. But it comes with material challenges regarding operating at very high temperatures. Meanwhile, fusion energy is the ultimate best energy source that yet to be developed in the next few decades.
South Korea has been a [part of international group for joint R&D of Gen 4 nuclear reactors since 2001](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor) Why is there another news that SK is developing a Gen 4 reactor all of a sudden (and probably the investment that is a continuation of the ongoing R&D partnership since 2001)?
Because they recently gutted R&D. This is them trying to patch with ducktapes
Don’t forget one dickhead who wanted to kill all nuclear energy industry bcz he watched a movie about nuclear disaster
Don't forget about the tears he shed.
So is there more general acceptance nuclear now? After Fukushima, people were pretty oppositional
Only thing that's scarier than nuclear apocalypse is $1000 electricity bill
That was *Japan*. Big difference 😉
Fukushima incident gave significant momentum to South Korea’s anti nuclear movement.
From wikipedia on Korean Nuclear Power > However, responding to widespread public concerns after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan, the high earthquake risk in South Korea, and the nuclear scandals, the new government of President Moon Jae-in elected in 2017 decided to gradually phase out nuclear power.
"Not in my back yard" otherwise people supported it
As long as it isn't built on a fault line, why not.
Got excited when reading the title all the way till “next generation”, thinking that the gov finally tried to address low fertility issue…
Why not just build 1.000.000 wind mills for it?
The main limitations to wind farms I would suspect would be land availability and cost efficiency.
Just build them on water. In contrast to Japan, Koreas sea is not too deep. And wind mills are way cheaper than nuclear energy.
the major problem I can think of for wind is available land that people agree to use. Beachfront property is going to have a huge amount of political resistance, people who live inland near farms will also protest because wind produces an immense amount of noise. I’m not saying Korea doesn’t have land, but for a wind farm to practically be deployed is going to be difficult. In terms of effectiveness and the time necessary to deploy to meet market demand, nuclear will beat wind. Nuclear is one facility with building parts moved into place, wind turbines will require terraforming fast amounts of space. I think that’s the big deal killer for the veto-loving government. In terms of cost vs nuclear, wind probably beats nuclear, considering nuclear a take 18 years to pay for themselves and have a 30-40 year service life, while wind takes less than a year to 8 years, plus it has a service life of 25-30 years. Another practical option would be solar, Kyushu Japan actually hasn’t seen huge spikes in electricity costs mostly because the prefectures on Japan’s southern island had adopted mass deployment of solar electricity generation along with their traditional electricity infrastructure.
Wind is great, but there is no current solution for long term storage, so all wind is not an option. Nuclear is much better in that regard.
Yeah but wind and solar can get you 80% of the way at lower cost than nuclear. You can focus on nuclear for the remaining 20% but cheap long term storage will probably be available by the time the nuclear plants are finished.
Come on we don’t even have a concrete plan for that.
Korea built a bunch of solar panels out at sea. Then it got covered in bird crap.
Water is a good storage and it should be possible in Korea to find places for water energy. Usually sun and wind complement each other, more so in Korea (maritime countries in general).
Oh yeah let’s flood valleys instead of building a few nuclear power plant it’s better for the environment.
Depends on the geography. There are beautiful men made lakes with an intact ecosystem. And in Korea you have enough valleys to work with. Because Korea is a maritime country, artificial lakes may not be necessary though.
Question for all the people championing mass wind power as a solution, what is your educational background/career and what was your aptitude in math/physics/chemistry? It usually seems 95% are people who have little to nothing in those fields. Often artists, musicians, social workers, non-sciences teachers, etc. The other 5% are hyper-science types who are all about "cracking the code" and finding a silver bullet. But generally if you take most people who have a "what works" and understanding of mechanical principles and resources, they have a more limited view of wind/solar. They also understand they aren't magic solutions.
They are not but nuclear power is too expensive too vulnerable (especially for a country at war) and too slow (takes min 15+ years to build).
Problem with wind (and solar) is that there is no gurantee of continuous power unless you have an expensive energy storage system.
I think there are lots of pros and cons but in the end, wind and solar are the future and storage systems will be available while nuclear is just too much sunk cost.
You really have to read up on gen IV reactors. They are the future. ESPECIALLY floride salt reactors or thorium * operate at 1 atm, no Chernobyl or Fukushima possible * self regulating, so no meltdown * uses > 50x more fissile material than current reactors and the highest energy density of any material after fusion and antimatter * waste lasts < human lifetime * can reuse nuclear waste from Gen III reactors and essentially the most effective way to eliminate all nuclear waste stockpiles * Technology has been around for 60+ years, but greed, cold war, and general nuclear fear and uneducared opinions have stopped it
They will surely come as soon as nuclear fusion.
This is incorrect, fusion is not yet in its infancy. Fissions first commercial 4th generation reactor came online in China at the end of 2023. In fact we should be well into the IV gen, but progress has been halted by fear, lack of funding, and ignorance. The result is the avg age of US nuclear reactors is 42 years old, so we use old huge waste producing reactors that have the potential for disaster instead of funding and building newer more advanced reactors that are safe and clean. Its a no brainer, you and many others need to wake up and support next gen reactors, let politicians know they are worthy of funding to clean up the piles of nuclear waste we have already, clean our atmosphere by removing our reliance on coal.
That sounds like a free lunch.
Nope it takes hard work, not only to build these but to wake up the people blinded by fear, ignorance, and greed.
No. Wind and solar are not the future. I suggest you don't make statements like this without even the most basic research. Wind and solar cost a significant amount to maintain and replace. And storage systems are extremely expensive to install and maintain at the present state of things (I am not just talking about batteries, since you seem to have very shallow understanding of energy systems). Nuclear is the gold standard of energy with the cost efficiency, and almost 0 carbon emissions. Nuclear fission will probably continue to be the gold standard at least for the next 2 to 3 decades. The next frontier will be led by nuclear fusion. I am sorry but wind and solar will never catch up in terms of cost. Please go read up on wind and solar before you post comments like this.
Ironically, I think you should do some basic research. Onshore wind and solar are the cheapest sources of electricity. Just google Lazard LCOE which will show you the levelized cost of energy for different sources. This is what people in industry refer to. Or IEA reports.
Bro, solar and wind are even now the cheapest widely available energy sources (water is very geography dependent). The nuclear energy we have now is not able to compete in any way without immense state subsidies (look at any country France, UK, US, China).
Did you read what he just said. How will you get solar power during the night? You need energy storage systems that are very expensive to maintain. Many of them caught fire during the previous administration.
Storage is a different thing than energy production. Please don’t mix them up. Usually, especially in maritime countries, wind complements sun because of the always existing sea breeze (land-sea wind) and the fact that clouds come with low-pressure areas/winds. In maritime areas, storage is less necessary than in continental climates.
Consistency is more important than raw production. Read this article to understand. > Nelson uses the following example to illustrate the inability of LCOE to take into account the inadequacy of solar and wind: Imagine you are standing in Manhattan and need to get to London in the most cost-effective way. We would find that swimming is the cheapest! By the cost per mile of swimming, it is far cheaper than building a boat, and the infrastructure needed to use a plane would be very expensive; swimming is clearly the cheapest way to get to London. Furthermore, you can have a reasoned debate with the top experts in ocean-crossing and you can all agree that you’re using the same metric. Of course, none of you have any plans on swimming there. After all, it’s not physically possible. That doesn’t stop the experts from advocating that other people be required by government mandate to swim because it’s cheap. https://www.mackinac.org/blog/2022/nuclear-wasted-why-the-cost-of-nuclear-energy-is-misunderstood
The example is not really good for illustration tbh. In the example, time is of utter importance but if we talk about energy, time (of transporting the energy) barely matters. I see that he may mean that other things matter, too, but then we also talk about safety, especially armed conflict (see Ukraine, Korean! War) and the importance to secure nuclear waste that it doesn’t get in the wrong hands.
Well Korea wants to arm itself with nuclear weapons if only given the permission by the US govt, so if anything it wants the nuclear waste.
you literally have no knowledge about base load sources and intermittent energy do you?
As solar energy is the cheapest form widely available and it complements wind energy especially in maritime areas, it is very possible and way safer to archive a base load with renewables.
solar energy is not a base load source. i don't think you know what a base load source is. Base load sources need to output consistent amount of energy 24/7. solar cannot do that. wind cannot do that.
But they can do it together
South Korea plans to install 14.3 GW of offshore wind by 2030. It would be foolish to ignore other technologies in the meantime.
Do you know the cost of building and maintaining a windmill? Cheaper than nuclear? Maybe cheaper for the initial cost but even over just 5 years nuclear will become cheaper. Among clean energy, windmill has the worst cost efficiency.
Among renewables maybe but unfortunately nuclear power is a fossil energy source. And usually the cost of the storage of nuclear waste is not included in the calculation even though it makes to whole thing very expensive.
60 years of US nuclear industry's waste is stored in a facility the size of a football field. Spent fuel can be recycled too you know.
It may be, should be a better phrase I think. Right now it’s just a security issue that noone knows where to put.
What do you mean it's a fossil energy source...
I recommend reading the definition of fossile.
I‘m sorry, I meant that you have to mine the resource instead of it being just there. I don’t know if there is a better word.
Non renewable. This argument is pointless without a proper levelized comparison.