• Journal of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology(JNFCWT)
• /
• v.11 no.3
• /
• pp.207-212
• /
• 2013

Since the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in March 2011, critical views on the increase in operation of nuclear power plants including the safety and the economic feasibility thereof have been expanding across the world. In these circumstances, we are to find out solutions to the controversial questions on whether nuclear power plants are economically more feasible than other energy sources, while the safety thereof is fully maintained. Thereby, nuclear power plants will play a key role as a sustainable energy source in the future as well as at present. To measure the social safety level that Korean people are actually feeling after the Fukushima accident, a method of cost-benefit analysis called the Contingent Valuation Method(CVM) was used, whereby we wanted to estimate the amount of expenses the general public would be willing to pay for the safety based on their acceptance rather than the social safety. As a result of calculating the trade-off value of the economic feasibility versus the safety in nuclear power plants through the survey thereon, it caused the nuclear power generation cost to be increased by 4.75 won/kWh. Reflecting this on the current power generation cost of 39.11 won/kWh would increase the cost to 43.86 won/kWh. It is thought that this potential cost is still more competitive than the coal-fired power generation cost of 67 won/kWh. This result will be available as a basic data for the 2nd Energy Basic Plan to be drawn up this year, presenting policy implications at the same time.

• Environmental and Resource Economics Review
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.147-176
• /
• 2019

This paper uses research on the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) in South Korea to conduct a simulation analysis on the impact of nuclear power dependency and usage rates on the social costs of power generation. We compare the $7^{th}$ basic plan for long-term electricity supply and demand, which was designed to increase nuclear power generation, to the $8^{th}$ basic plan for long-term electricity supply and demand that decreased nuclear power generation and increased renewable energy generation in order to estimate changes in social costs and electricity rates according to the power generation mix. Our environmental generation mix simulation results indicate that social costs may increase by 22% within 10 years while direct generation cost and electricity rates based on generation and other production costs may increase by as much as 22% and 18%, respectively. Thus we confirm that the power generation mix from the $8^{th}$ basic plan for long-term electricity supply and demand compared to the $7^{th}$ plan increases social costs of generation, which include environmental external costs.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.20-29
• /
• 1991

The system analysis for Korean nuclear power reactor option is made on the basis of reliability, cost minimization, finite uranium resource availability and nuclear engineering manpower supply constraints. The reference reactor scenarios are developed considering the future electricity demand, nuclear share, current nuclear power plant standardization program and manufacturing capacity. The levelized power generation cost, uranium requirement and nuclear engineering professionals demand are estimated for each reference reactor scenarios and nuclear fuel cycle options from the year 1990 up to the year 2030. Based on the outcomes of the analysis, uranium resource utilization, reliability and nuclear engineering manpower requirements are sensitive to the nuclear reactor strategy and associated fuel cycle whereas the system cost is not. APWR, CANDU longrightarrow FBR strategy is to be the best option for Korea. However, APWR, CANDU longrightarrow Passive Safe Reactor(PSR）longrightarrowFBR strategy should be also considered as a contingency for growing national concerns on nuclear safety and public acceptance deterioration in the future. FBR development and establishment of related fuel cycle should be started as soon as possible considering the uranium shortage anticipated between 2007 and 2032. It should be noted that the increasing use of nuclear energy to minimize the greenhouse effects in the early 21st century would accelerate the uranium resource depletion. The study also concludes that the current level of nuclear engineering professionals employment is not sufficient until 2010 for the establishment of nuclear infrastructure.