Given the global step back from nuclear energy following the Fukushima accident, why is South Korea still pursuing the expansion of its nuclear energy capabilities?
A country like South Korea where natural resource is short, it is not easy to give up the nuclear energy. Even Japan, since Prime Minister Abe came back to the office, their national policy seeks to re-operate halted nuclear power plants. These countries share the same problem of not having sufficient natural resources in their territories. Second, these countries are also industrially advanced countries, thereby requiring massive amount of electricity and energy generated from nuclear power plants to supplement other resources. Third, these countries are mature economies. They need to address the challenges of climate change. They signed up for COP21, and they explicitly stated how much percentage of carbon emission from current level they have to reduce as well. In order to satisfy these challenges, nuclear powers can be regarded as most attractive choice even after the Fukushima accident.
What is Korean public opinion regarding the Korean government’s nuclear energy policy? Is there any backlash against current government policy, as there was in Japan following Fukushima?
​
If you see the public polls regarding the necessity of nuclear power, even after Fukushima, the majority of Korean and Japanese people still feel that the nuclear power is necessary based on reasons mentioned on previous questions. People do have fear and anxiety in regards to nuclear powers' safety, but many recognize the nuclear power as "necessary evil" in countries like South Korea and Japan.
Is it feasible or even possible for the ROK to become the world’s third largest supplier of nuclear technology? If not, what factors could challenge the ROK’s ambition?
Recently, South Korea exported nuclear power reactors to United Arab Emirates (UAE). In the Middle East, South Korean nuclear reactor performed pretty successfully, and, therefore, can be a potential market even in the future.
However, the nuclear reactor market is getting more competitive. Of course, China is a major player. So is Russia. Absolutely, these countries' reactors can have more competitiveness in terms of price. In addition, for Russia, it can supply another attractive service like taking back nuclear spent fuel (NSF). Russia is the only country that legalized this service.
South Korea's nuclear reactor is technologically competitive in my opinion, but I am still little concerned about South Korea's overall competitiveness in terms of price and comprehensive deal.
Can you see South Korea strongly pushing for enrichment and reprocessing rights?
The U.S. policy is strictly nonproliferation-oriented. It is, therefore, difficult for South Korea to push for it. South Korean engineers want to try new technology like pyroprocessing. However, this technology is not feasible at this moment. In addition, from Washington DC policymakers' perspective, pyroprocessing is no different from reprocessing. We are seeing a "tug of war" between South Korean engineers who want to practice pyroprocessing and American nonproliferation policymakers.
The ROK desires reprocessing technology, particularly pyroprocessing, due to the environmental, financial and political impediments of building a large-scale spent nuclear fuel (SNF) repository. Instead of granting the reprocessing technology, the new 123 agreement allows the ROK an option to store or reprocess the SNF in United Kingdom, France and approved 3rd party country. Is the US willing to store the ROK’s SNF? If not the US, then who?
To be honest, I was supportive of Bush administration's plan of accepting SNF of allies or transferring SNF to other reliable countries. Australia is one candidate. South Australian government showed its interest in storing SNF of other countries in newly-built underground repository. Doe to Australia's vast landmass, geologic adequacy and geographical proximity, it can be an attractive partner for South Korea in regards to its SNF problem.
Do you think it is possible for South Korea to develop nuclear weapons due to North Korea’s growing threat?
My answer is no. I don't think so. It is not possible and feasible. It is not desirable thing at all. South Koreans are anxious because North Korea has a certain level of nuclear weapons while we don't even have the U.S. tactical nuclear weapons on the peninsula based on joint-denuclearization declaration of the Korean Peninsula by North and South Korea. That is why some Koreans ask why don't we bring those tactical nuclear weapons back? Or why don't we develop our own nuclear weapons? Those are not likely options. Nuclear armament will put South Korea under intense diplomatic and economic pressures by the U.S. and international community. And I don't think South Korea can be sustainable under the international pressure as a trading economy. Without international trade, South Korea's economy will collapse. That is why I don't think it is likely.