Of course, if they really wanted to do something about the air quality, they could recertify those nuclear plants that are currently (pun) just sitting around and shut down those coal plants permanently, but...
In uncertain times, if which these qualify, you want diversification of energy sources and also to keep energy costs low. If coal enables that, then you have to for the time being.The economy is far too unstable right now for idealistic projects that can spike energy costs in the short term. You're looking at serious global spikes in energy costs while the economy and supply chains are still recovering from COVID, now you have a major war that is going to lead to rising fuel costs and stagflation around the world. You're about to have a significant humanitarian crisis in Europe, coupled with massive defense spending increases, and followed up by a confused energy policy that could lead to serious contraction.We already have spiking inflation thanks to Moon's dim-witted and short-sighted policy of doubling the minimum wage over his term, not to mention his real estate debacle. Just because policies make you feel good, doesn't mean they actually work. Moon's feel-good policies have clearly failed. No coal made sense in 2019. It doesn't make sense right now. Inflation MUST be brought under control and energy costs reduced.
We already have spiking inflation thanks to Moon's dim-witted and short-sighted policy of doubling the minimum wage over his term, not to mention his real estate debacle. Just because policies make you feel good, doesn't mean they actually work. Moon's feel-good policies have clearly failed.No coal made sense in 2019. It doesn't make sense right now. Inflation MUST be brought under control and energy costs reduced.
They tanked the nuclear program in Korea not because of economic reasons, but because of political ones: public opinion on nuclear energy became exceedingly negative after the Fukushima incident which, coupled with the discovery of forged safety certifications, pretty much slammed the coffin shut on nuclear for the time being.As for energy diversification, I'm not sure if this is the end goal in Korea per se. What a country wants (ideally) is energy *security*. Diversification is usually an intermediary step in moving away from a less than reliable energy source (ie Russian LPG in Europe, for example), but ultimately the end goal is to have a reliable source (or sources) of power, ideally domestically produced.Diversification is also a way of hedging bets, considering that the cost and availability of any one power source can fluctuate significantly over time.Korea is relying almost exclusively on LPG and coal, both fuels internationally sourced (ie neither 100% reliable or secure), and both facing ever increasing sociopolitical costs. Moving away from that towards nuclear and renewables ultimately will benefit South Korea in almost everyway.And while you're right that coal, purely from an economic standpoint, is still one of the cheapest energy sources (especially when one takes into consideration that the local infrastructure for it already exists), it's by an ever-decreasing margin.
Really? You pin-pointing inflation on Moon? It may be true if Korea was the only country facing inflation issues, but it's happening worldwide. Try again...
They tanked the nuclear program in Korea not because of economic reasons, but because of political ones: public opinion on nuclear energy became exceedingly negative after the Fukushima incident which, coupled with the discovery of forged safety certifications, pretty much slammed the coffin shut on nuclear for the time being.
As for energy diversification, I'm not sure if this is the end goal in Korea per se. What a country wants (ideally) is energy *security*. Diversification is usually an intermediary step in moving away from a less than reliable energy source (ie Russian LPG in Europe, for example), but ultimately the end goal is to have a reliable source (or sources) of power, ideally domestically produced.
Korea is relying almost exclusively on LPG and coal, both fuels internationally sourced (ie neither 100% reliable or secure), and both facing ever increasing sociopolitical costs. Moving away from that towards nuclear and renewables ultimately will benefit South Korea in almost everyway.
Bad air today.
That's certainly true, but they should look at changing that under the present circumstances. Also, a decent public education campaign might have mitigated some of that fear.
The uranium has to be imported. South Korea does not have domestic uranium deposits. ...
Nuclear can do that at the moment, Coal can do that. Renewables and green energy can't.
Inflation is not solely down to Moon, however his minimum wage policy certainly exacerbated it. It was a terrible thing to drive up the wages of so many low-wage workers to such a degree in such a short amount of time. Did it solve anything? No. Did it make things even worse in terms of inflation? Yes.
Interesting article: The number of registered vehicles in South Korea has surpassed 25 million.https://m-en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20220412009000320?section=newsThe number of environmentally friendly cars is 1.25 million.覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧What is meant by environmentally friendly, which is 5% of the total? Not electric vehicles, which are a quarter mil- 1% of the total.Not long ago I read roughly half of vehicles in Korea are diesel powered. Why so many? Because diesel is slightly cheaper is not worth it to pollute the air; that痴 a very selfish reason.
Minimum wage's link to inflation is pretty weak anyways.
I'm not so sure. Korea has a lot of small businesses (i.e. restaurants, cafes, markets, pubs, markets, etc.) which rely on low-wage workers. Raising minimum wage over 5 years would double labor costs. As prices rise, orders fall. Whereas before they could sell for cheaper and make up for it in sales volume, that isn't an option any more. The raising of minimum wage flat out solved ZERO problems and it exacerbated others. Yes, inflation still would have been a problem, but the raising of minimum wage made it worse.