How nuclear energy powers a low-carbon future: an interview with Kim Taek-gyu

In an era of rapid energy transition, nuclear power has emerged as one of the most widely debated low-carbon energy sources, offering significant potential to reduce carbon emissions while raising concerns about safety and radioactive waste management. In this interview, researcher Kim Taek-gyu at the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute offered insights to nuclear safety, waste management, public perception, and the future of nuclear power in achieving carbon neutrality.

First, could you please explain what you are currently working on?

At the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, we conduct research on nuclear-related technologies, and within that scope, I am involved in researching and developing methods to enhance nuclear safety.

In your opinion, how does nuclear power contribute to environmental sustainability or carbon neutrality?

Personally, I believe that nuclear power now contributes to environmental sustainability and carbon neutrality. The simplest example is that thermal power plants burn fuels like coal or gas to generate electricity, which produces a lot of carbon dioxide and air pollutants in the process. In contrast, nuclear power plants generate electricity using nuclear fission reactions without burning fuel, so they produce almost no carbon dioxide or air pollutants during the process, which I believe makes them a significant help.

Generally speaking, the renewable energy sources we are familiar with—such as solar and wind power—have inherent variability. By variability, I mean that solar power can only generate electricity when the sun is out, and wind power can only generate electricity when the wind is blowing. As a means to compensate for these limitations, nuclear power—which can safely and consistently produce electricity—is, in my view, a valuable addition to the portfolio of eco-friendly alternatives.

How advanced do you think nuclear power generation has become in Korea, and how does it compare to other countries?

In my personal opinion, South Korea is consistently ranked among the top three globally. Specifically, in terms of power plants, South Korea currently leads in Asia, followed by France in Europe. While other countries like China are also involved in power plant-related work, I believe South Korea possesses significantly superior technology.

Nuclear power seems to pose environmental pollution risks due to radioactive waste disposal. I’m curious to know how you’re addressing this concern.

There’s a concept called the half-life, which refers to the time it takes for the amount of a radioactive substance to decrease by half. However, since that timeframe is incredibly long, storing radioactive waste is a technically very challenging process. That is why many countries are conducting research on this, and most countries are currently proceeding with a method of storing it very deep underground—essentially storing it safely and leaving it undisturbed. Since the technology has become quite advanced, I do not consider it particularly dangerous.

Unlike wind farms or other renewable energy plants, are there any instances of opposition from residents or citizens when attempting to build a nuclear power plant?

In reality, since this technology involves handling hazardous materials, it’s difficult to build power plants in areas where large numbers of people live. Naturally, it’s hard to obtain public consent, and existing regulations already prohibit construction in densely populated areas. So, taking Korea as an example, we’re making efforts to build them safely in areas like the west coast or, for the most part, the east coast—where there aren’t many people—and where the ground is solid and there are no environmental risks. Of course, there is some inconvenience for residents, but we’re putting a lot of effort into alleviating that.

Regarding the public reaction you just mentioned, do you think people need a shift in their perception regarding the safety of nuclear power?

In fact, when I talk with residents living near power plants, since there is no leakage of radioactive material to the outside, they don’t actually harbor strong resistance once operations begin. Also, when a large power plant is established, it brings in supporting industries and technology, which definitely contributes to the local economy. So, residents in the surrounding areas aren’t as resistant as one might think. However, the concern is that, despite this, everyone still views it as a highly dangerous substance, so there is a lot of interest in whether it is being managed properly.

So, are you doing anything special to communicate its safety?

Simply put, I think it’s because it is subject to legal regulations. Generally speaking, wind, solar, or even thermal power plants aren’t regulated by specific laws. There is a certain degree of flexibility in those areas, but in the case of nuclear power, it is regulated by law, and failure to comply is, quite literally, a violation of the law. Therefore, everyone is careful and makes an effort to comply, and since it is managed by law, there are agencies that inspect whether these regulations are actually being followed and implemented.

For example, in our context, there’s the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, which monitors whether nuclear safety is being properly managed, and the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety and Security, which ensures that nuclear materials aren’t being illegally distributed or misused. So, you can consider that it’s being effectively managed by law.

If you don’t think safety concerns are that serious, as you continue to research nuclear power, are there any particular challenges you’re facing right now, or any areas where you hope to see further advancements in the future?

Since our field involves research related to radiation, it’s not easy to avoid the public’s skepticism and negative perceptions. So, the most important thing is to work hard to avoid making mistakes no matter what anyone says. And by doing so, we can effectively communicate that we are providing significant benefits to the lives of many citizens. I believe that promoting these aspects would be very helpful.

To give you a simple example: after undergoing cancer surgery at a hospital, patients receive chemotherapy, right? The substances used in that chemotherapy are actually produced using radiation. Since all of that is produced at small power plants, if we can let people know that using these substances greatly benefits human health, I think that would help improve public perception and be very helpful.

Finally, you mentioned the connection to renewable energy earlier. Compared to renewable energy, what role do you foresee nuclear technology playing in achieving carbon neutrality goals in the future?

When we think about electricity generation, there is always a certain amount of stable, consistent power production, and then there is a sector that covers the fluctuations in electricity demand that occur throughout the day and night. Generally, we view solar and wind power as covering the variability in electricity demand caused by changes in time and season, and we often approach this with the concept of replacing thermal power plants. Thermal power plants are the ones that consistently generate electricity. However, if more nuclear power plants are built, we believe that reducing the number of thermal power plants will greatly help us protect the environment.