Energy Policy Should Be Guided by Reality, Not Emotion

South Korea’s energy policy has repeatedly sown confusion, increasing the burden on the public through instability in electricity supply and rising power rates. The phaseout of nuclear power and coal was pushed as if it were an inevitable course, yet the scientific analysis and demand forecasting needed to support it were lacking. Because energy policy directly affects the nation’s industrial foundation and people’s daily lives, it must now be recalibrated not on ideology, but on reality, technology, and the balance of supply and demand.

First, coal-fired power should not be treated as something that must be eliminated unconditionally. Current technology is different from that of the past. Ultra-supercritical power generation technology and dust removal systems can reduce environmental impact while still producing stable electricity. In particular, during daytime hours when electricity demand surges, coal power still plays an important role. Looking at electricity demand by time of day, nuclear power handles the baseload, while coal fills the intermediate load during the day. Given the reality that renewable energy is intermittent, coal is a technical and economic option that can flexibly meet demand during certain hours.

Nuclear power is an energy source that should be expanded more actively. To achieve carbon neutrality, a stable power source with virtually no carbon emissions is needed, and nuclear power fits that standard well. Moreover, South Korea possesses world-class nuclear technology and has already proven its competitiveness as an export industry. Nuclear power has low generation costs and a high localization rate, making it advantageous from the standpoint of energy security as well. It is also worth noting that many countries around the world have recently begun reversing their nuclear phaseout policies. France, Japan, and the United Kingdom, among others, are once again pursuing nuclear expansion to stabilize energy supply and achieve carbon neutrality.

Ultimately, energy policy should be adjusted from a long-term perspective, taking into account technology, economic feasibility, and supply stability. It is not desirable to idealize or demonize any particular power source. Even when considering the goal of carbon neutrality, the means to achieve it should be chosen in accordance with national conditions. A realistic solution is to sufficiently expand nuclear power as a baseload source, selectively adopt coal depending on technological capabilities and demand, and improve the profitability of renewable energy over the long term.

If the government insists only on energy sources that do not align with reality, it will lose both efficiency and long-term sustainability. Market distortion only undermines the competitiveness of the energy industry. In the end, the burden falls on the public. Nuclear power is an energy source that satisfies both economic and environmental goals through high energy density and low greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the government should provide regulatory easing and investment incentives for nuclear power, while taking a flexible approach to coal-fired power in consideration of technological innovation and market demand. This policy direction would improve the efficiency of the energy market, minimize the burden on the public, and help build a sustainable energy system.

Energy policy must be practically reestablished not on emotional slogans, but on technology, efficiency, and supply stability. What is needed now is not political rhetoric, but sustainable infrastructure. We must correct the distorted direction of energy policy and establish a new policy course based on science, practicality, and market principles.

Sung-no Choi, President of the Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

---

Original title: 에너지 정책, 감성이 아니라 현실이 기준 되어야

Author: Sung-no Choi

Date: 2025-05-14

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=press&idx=27645