Balancing power consumption with sustainable solutions: an interview with Jeong Woo-ram

Despite the pressing challenges of climate change and the rapidly approaching deadline for the 2035 NDC, Korea is still fraught with the rising demand for power generation. In light of the recent farmers' lawsuit against KEPCO for environmental damages, carbon emissions caused by coal power plants remains as a pressing issue for Korea's journey to net zero.

One major contributor to carbon emissions from power generation is SK Hynix, a company that significantly relies on energy production. Jeong Woo-ram, senior manager at SK Hynix, discussed with us the environmental responsibility showcased by the company, as it strives to balance energy demand with sustainable solutions.

You mentioned that Hynix uses a huge amount of electricity. Compared to other industries, how large is Hynix’s power consumption? And when it comes to stably supplying such a large amount of electricity, what would you say is the biggest challenge?

Well, starting with stable supply — originally, Hynix received all of its electricity directly from KEPCO, and used it in that structure. But since there were cases of blackouts and instability in power supply, the company decided it needed to build some kind of backup system, a dual-supply structure. So, while continuing to receive electricity from KEPCO, we also decided to build our own private power plants, so that we could receive electricity from two sources.

Right now, the main plants are in Icheon and Cheongju, and we built private power plants at both sites. The goal is to cover about half of the total power demand from our own plants and half from KEPCO. Currently, because demand fluctuates, sometimes we even sell some electricity back to KEPCO. The basic structure is that roughly half of the power comes from our plants, and half from KEPCO, with backup from one side if the other side is interrupted. That way we reduce risk.

Ensuring power stability is the top priority. That’s because in semiconductor processes, if just one system shuts down, everything in progress gets ruined, and the losses are enormous. So keeping the plants running continuously is the most important thing.

The hardest part of this has been dealing with local opposition and environmental compliance. We already built the power plants, but since they’re close to residential areas, complaints and regulations became major issues. For example, in Icheon we couldn’t discharge wastewater from the plant into the environment, so we built a zero-discharge facility: all wastewater is treated and reused, and only the residue is disposed of as waste.

In Cheongju, since the plants are even closer to residential areas, managing complaints about emissions like exhaust has been the biggest challenge. Still, we’ve also made some environmental contributions: for example, we installed a small solar generation facility at the plant. It’s not a huge contribution, but it shows some effort toward sustainability.

Looking at the broader system, Korea’s power grid is a mix — coal, nuclear, renewables, LNG, oil, all together. So when we use KEPCO electricity, it has a higher carbon footprint compared to our private natural gas plants. Our own plants run on imported natural gas, which has lower carbon emissions, and because they’re new, they’re also more efficient. So in relative terms, they are environmentally friendlier.

So, even if your own plants are more environmentally friendly, would you say KEPCO electricity is still more stable and sustainable in the long term?

In terms of stability, yes — receiving power from KEPCO is more stable overall. But it’s also more expensive and has higher carbon emissions right now. In the long run, as KEPCO expands renewable energy, its carbon footprint will go down, and they’ll be able to argue that their supply is greener.

For us, we’re not saying we’ll rely on natural gas forever. Right now, it’s about securing stable supply while ensuring that at least our emissions are lower than KEPCO’s. We can’t yet supply all our electricity from renewables because of intermittency and installation limits in Korea, so natural gas is our transitional option, balancing stability and environmental impact.

You mentioned efforts to reduce carbon emissions and use renewable energy. Which effort has been most successful, or which would you like to continue in the future?

Building environmentally friendly plants was already one such effort, within current limits. But in the long term, we’re also preparing for a carbon-free future. Since natural gas is still a fossil fuel, Hynix’s ultimate goal is net zero, whether through RE100, CF100, or other pathways.

One option we’re considering is converting existing gas plants into hydrogen plants. Technically, the equipment can be modified to run on hydrogen, but the challenge is securing the hydrogen itself and building the infrastructure. We’d need green hydrogen, made with renewable electricity, not gray or blue hydrogen. Right now, Korea doesn’t even have hydrogen pipelines, so hydrogen would have to be transported by tanker trucks. That makes it hard to achieve in the short term — more like a 2040 or 2050 target.

Still, when we built the power plants, we already designed them to allow hydrogen mixing and eventual 100% hydrogen conversion, so the technical groundwork is there. It’s the infrastructure and market readiness that are lacking.

On renewable energy more broadly, that’s handled at the corporate level — investments in PPA agreements, equity in renewable projects, and other options are being considered. We’re also monitoring SMRs (small modular reactors), since they don’t emit carbon. But installing them near factories would trigger massive opposition from nearby residents, so for now we’re just keeping them as a potential long-term option.

Do you think within the company there’s a strong sense of responsibility to go green, beyond just business needs? Do people talk seriously about sustainability?

Honestly, I wouldn’t say it’s purely voluntary. For a company, external pressures like RE100, net zero, and CF100 commitments all act as strong drivers. Of course, there’s also the aspect of corporate social responsibility, but at the core, companies need to make a profit. We can’t just pour unlimited money into building green hydrogen infrastructure by ourselves.

So it’s a mix of voluntary commitment, external pressure, and economic reality. We built the gas plants with a 20-year lifespan, and during that time, while ensuring stability, we’re actively exploring alternatives to transition toward carbon-free energy.

Speaking of responsibility, as a business leader you have to balance business needs, environmental concerns, and social responsibilities like dealing with residents’ complaints. What has been the most difficult challenge in that balance?

I think the hardest part is the environmental value. A power plant is still an emission source, whether it’s carbon, NOx, or SOx. We’ve designed facilities to minimize impact and comply with regulations, but meeting government standards doesn’t automatically build trust with residents. Engaging with communities and operating transparently is always a challenge.

Since SK Hynix also emits carbon, has the company been active in the emissions trading scheme?

I can’t speak for everything at the corporate level, but yes, we do participate. Our plants reduce some emissions directly, but for what we can’t reduce, we purchase allowances. Of course, just buying allowances can be seen as “buying your way out,” so we continue looking at other options as well. The allowances aren’t for emitting more, but rather to cover what we can’t reduce internally. That’s how I understand it.