The summer has just begun, but many people are dreading the thought of surviving the heat of July and August. In the face of the worst-ever electricity shortages, the government is imposing a nationwide electricity usage reduction regulation. Air-conditioners are turned off while coolbiz clothing is being praised everywhere. 

The painful summer of 2013 is the outcome of the unexpected suspension of operation of several nuclear power generators in Korea because of various untoward reasons. In a country where at least one-third of the national power comes from nuclear generators, disruption of nuclear electricity generation delivers a critical blow to the national economy.

A national “black-out” has become a constant threat this summer. In the country’s long-term scheme for the stable supply of electricity, nuclear power plants play an important role.

Well, according to Greenpeace Korea, this is going in the wrong direction. It says it is high time that the country considered phasing out its reliance on nuclear power. The Rainbow Warrior of Greenpeace is now visiting Korean ports for the first time in an effort to mount a campaign called “Nuclear Emergency,” in which nuclear energy is replaced by other renewable energy such as wind or solar power. Its policy recommendation suggests that Korea shut down all nuclear power plants by 2030.

Given the pleas of manufacturing industries for a more stable supply of electricity to sustain their business activities, any recommendation to move to a new source of energy would only be plausible when this new source is confirmed to be able to meet the demand.

While there has been significant development in the renewable energy sector, it is still an open question whether and when renewable energy can indeed replace the current sources of electricity. While some countries have announced an end to their nuclear energy program (such as Germany in 2011), few of them seem to experience chronic shortages of electricity like Korea.

In response to the difficulty of changing to renewable energy sources, it is being argued that countries with technological capabilities have an obligation to spend more time and resources to develop new types of energy. Greenpeace submits that more research and development support from the government would enable Korea to reach the point where it can ditch the nuclear power option.

While these are all valid points in principle, again it still remains anyone’s guess when such efforts will lead to commercially viable alternatives. Suggestions to spend more time and money by the government are also oblivious to the global legal framework which stringently regulates government-initiated research and development activities.

Several countries’ effort to support renewable energy development has already produced a series of legal disputes on many fronts. The mere suggestion to spend more time and money for this noble cause without being apprised of the full spectrum of implications may not be able to provide a viable solution, although it will certainly raise the level of the global awareness.

The advice and policy suggestions of Greenpeace are both crucial and important for Korea at this juncture. It is also timely considering the growing concern over the long-term safety of nuclear power. But merely recommending the suspension of nuclear energy in the absence of a concrete and reliable alternative will sound hollow to those who have to turn off half of the lights in the office, pull the plug on the air conditioners, and reduce the operating hours of production facilities in summer 2013. 

By Lee Jae-min

Lee Jae-min is a professor of law at the School of Law at Hanyang University. Formerly he practiced law as an associate attorney with Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. ― Ed.