No Nukes for North Korea
by Seok Kwang-Hoon

SEOUL — In February 1998, Green Korea United submitted a proposal to the Transition Committee for incoming South Korea President Kim Dae Jung, suggesting major changes to the project to supply North Korea with two nuclear power plants. We suggested that a move away from nuclear power would be beneficial from an economic perspective and would lessen the likelihood of proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Dr. Kim Sang-Kyu from the POSCO Research Institute maintains that North Korean electricity supply problems are mostly related to their serious grid loss of as much as half the energy generated. “We first need to minimize grid loss and improve the efficiency of end users,” Dr. Kim comments. “The North Korean housing pattern is decentralized and very different from that of South Korea. We need to introduce small-capacity and decentralized energy supply systems.”

Dr. Kim Jong-Dal, Professor of Trade and Economics at Kyongbuk University, said, “In this economic situation, we need more efficient and inexpensive powerplants such as liquified natural gas (LNG) cogeneration for ‘combined heat and power’ (CHP). There is not sufficient heating fuel in North Korea, and CHP can help us overcome two problems at the same time. Furthermore, North Korea has high potential for the use of renewable energy, especially wind power, so we should provide these technologies to them. If we assume that South Korea will adopt a binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gases… we can also help the development of renewable energy in North Korea as a joint implementation project.”

Green Korea outlined five reasons for changing the South’s present project to supply nuclear reactors to the North:

1. Korea cannot afford to pay for the reactor given its current financial crisis. There is a need to investigate other, less expensive energy provision options for North Korea.
2. The argument that the reactor is being provided to curtail North Korean nuclear weapons production is flawed. The light water reactor (PWR) that is planned is also capable of producing plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. We will be unable to confirm that North Korea is not developing nuclear weapons.
3. In the Korean Energy Development Organization (KEDO) agreement, there is no plan for waste processing and storage and no information on who must pay for disposal of the waste or how much safe disposal will cost.
4. The Korean Electric Power Company (KEPCO) and the Korean government are promoting the reactor as Korean-made, but this not true. The main components will be supplied by Combustion Engineering, the US branch of ABB.
5. North Korean energy distribution infrastructure is badly in need of repair and improvement.

Some experts estimate that the cost of rehabilitating the North Korean grid to cope with the nuclear reactor-supplied power could add another $1 billion to the project’s cost. In addition, because there are few large regional centers in the North, energy demand is not centralized, and power sent from one location will not be as efficient. Green Korea United believes non-nuclear powerplants on a localized scale are a better solution and suggests the following actions:

1. Conduct further research on North Korea’s electricity needs and assist with repairs to the North Korean grid to alleviate energy losses. This would cost significantly less than constructing a new grid.
2. Provide LNG co-generation powerplants as a more economical alternative to nuclear power.
3. Bring forward plans to connect South and North Korean power grids.
4. Coordinate and fund renewable energy development in North Korea.
5. Persuade North Korea to demonstrate that it has completely renounced its nuclear weapon plans by accepting alternatives to nuclear power-generation.

Green Korea will continue to focus on exposing the huge economic and environmental costs to both the South and the North of building nuclear reactors for electricity generation. We seek to evaluate what role these reactors really play in the peaceful and sustainable reunification of the Korean people.

Breaking the Energy Statemate?
South Korea, Japan and the United States recently recalculated the cost to Korean Energy Development Corporation (KEDO) of building nuclear reactors in North Korea. The new figure of $4.3 billion is significantly lower and was supposed to resolve arguments about how the parties would divide the cost. There is one remaining problem. No one is prepared to make the first payments needed to cover initial construction costs. Unless South Korea is able to persuade the US or Japan to provide the money, the project remains essentially unfunded.

This situation provides some space for reevaluation of the project, and Green Korea United is optimistic that the possibility to alter the project exists. This optimism has been bolstered by changes in South Korea. The collapse of the South Korean economy, together with installation of a new President of the Korea Electric Power Company (KEPCO), will promote some serious rethinking of major energy expenditure.

Three months ago Dr. Chang Young Shik, the newly-elected President of KEPCO, stated that the new energy program should focus on small, more economically efficient coal-fired powerplants rather than on large nuclear reactors. Perhaps even more surprising, the new US Ambassador to Korea, Stephen Bosworth (previous director of KEDO) recently conceded that, if North Korea is willing to accept changes to its nuclear reactor program, it would be possible for the US to change direction.

One of the most promising, but controversial, options is the construction of an electricity grid between North and South. In North Korea, peak energy consumption occurs in winter, when electricity is used for heating. In South Korea, where gas or other fuels are used for winter heating, energy usage peaks during the summer months. By connecting the electricity supply infrastructure, operation of already-existing powerplants could be optimized. This grid connection would supply energy to meet immediate North Korean needs without expending excessive time and resources constructing new power plants. North-South Energy Cooperation.

The future of the KEDO nuclear project is unclear. Even if it is accomplished, North Koreans will be able to use the energy generated only after 2006. In the meantime, Green Korea believes environmental NGOs have an excellent opportunity to introduce alternative energy technology to North Korea.

The US-based Nautilus Institute has already commenced work on a small windpower project. Inspired by this project and recent moves toward increased contact with North Korea, Green Korea is talking with South Korean photovoltaic and wind energy companies about support to build renewable energy facilities in North Korea. Green Korea believes this project will be most useful in areas of the North where electricity supply infrastructure has been damaged due to natural disasters.

If the project is successful, Green Korea plans to cooperate with relevant agencies and institutes in North Korea to research the potential of renewable energy to supply North Korea’s energy needs.

Based firmly on the concept of providing sustainable and long-term energy solutions, this project will be a model for future South-North cooperation.

Seok Kwang-Hoon is with the Energy Division of Green Korea United [10F Garden Tower, 98-78 Woonni-dong, Chongno-gu, Seoul 110-350, South Korea, 82-2-747-8500, fax: 766-4180, environ@chollian.dacom.co.kr, soback.kornet.nm.kr/baedal]