Healthier AND unhealthier aspects of life in South Korea

The government required that coal plants reduce their operative load for December to February to decrease emissions, hopefully mitigating the traditional horrendous air quality of late winter/early spring.
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/coal/112521-south-korea-to-idle-up-to-16-coal-fired-power-plants-for-coming-winter

By doing this, they're hoping to increase reliance on LPG, which is significantly cleaner.
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... 

Bad air today.

A multi pronged approach is best. Every little bit helps. Too many diesel vehicles, including in the public sector. Hopefully we can see a reduction in these, in line with the rest of the developed world.

Yeah, the first time we went to the gas station in my GF's car? I was pretty surprised. Diesel? It's a Chevy Orlando!!

The only cars that came to the diesel pumps in Canada were Volkswagons and Mercedes. ( I worked at a gas station in Barrie so I'm basically a pollster)

The mix coffee drinks here make me sick, I've realized. Don't know why, but bleagh. Definitely unhealthy.

Hallabong oranges are great while they're around. They take my smoothies up to another level.

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... 

All of this. Dump money into green energy options for future development, use nuclear energy to support infrastructures in the meantime.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

Yeah, I remember.  They started loading up on coal and the air quality went to shit.  Add that to what is blowing over from China and it's been awful.  The past couple of years with China's lockdowns have been better here.  I'm all for cleaner energy and air.  Right now with current technology, natural gas (or some variant or it) and nuclear will keep the air clean.  Solar, wind, battery storage has a long way to go before it can power a modern grid.  It almost has to be re invented and improved upon a lot.  Even if more electric cars get on the road, more electricity from dirty resources will be consumed.  Electric cars will need batteries that can last longer and cars will need to drive more kms before a charge.  The best solar panels have 20 per cent efficiency.  If that could triple or more, then it would be a game changer and could take over.  This is more so true as they could be made smaller and generate more power and also if batteries could hold 1000 per cent more charge or more than they do now.  It will be a game changer.  Fund more research and make the patents available to everyone. 

That said we are still years away from that.  AOC and her extremist buddies might want everyone to live with rolling blackouts with very little power in order to save energy and to carbon tax everyone to death into extreme poverty.  But, it's not ideal or practical.  Improve the tech first and then these debates will be a moot point.  Everyone will adopt them including in the developing world where most of the CO2 actually comes from. 

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...

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.

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.

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. 

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.

Well, it's more of a general point for every country. In the case of Korea, which MUST import energy, then yes, it has to have energy security and diversification helps that. There simply isn't the capacity in Korea to domestically produce sufficient energy. It MUST import energy.

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.

The uranium has to be imported. South Korea does not have domestic uranium deposits. Renewables can't hope to supply enough energy.

There isn't always a happy feel-good solution. In the case of South Korea, it needs natural gas, petroleum and coal. ESPECIALLY in these times. On Feb. 24th, 2022, green energy projects became a backburner slow burn project at best. At worst it became a luxury that the country simply cannot afford at the moment. Any energy project must yield considerable amounts of energy and be up and running relatively quickly. Nuclear can do that at the moment, Coal can do that. Renewables and green energy can't.

Bad air today.

Forest fire today. That痴 a contributing factor.

http://m.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20220412000168

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.

Yeah. I think the fact that when they looked at the domestic nuke plants and saw the falsification, that pretty much made it impossible to get the public to trust in its safety. It was a series of unfortunate events. 

The uranium has to be imported. South Korea does not have domestic uranium deposits. ...

True enough. But unlike most other non-renewables, it's ridiculously easy to stockpile fuel for fission. A little goes a loooong way: 1 tonne of U (130,000 USD)* is equivalent to burning 16,000 tonnes of coal (4,848,000 USD)* or 80,000 barrels (7,692,000 USD)* of oil.

*(as of 1st quarter, 2022)

Nuclear can do that at the moment, Coal can do that. Renewables and green energy can't.

Typo?


Anyway, there are seldom simple, easy answers, else we'd all live in a perfect world, right?

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.

Moon's impact is marginal at best. I don't think it would have been much better under a conservative government. Inflation would have still spiked, with covid, and the war. Minimum wage's link to inflation is pretty weak anyways. Under a conservative government it's likely housing would be no better, probably even worse since they believe the free market will take care of things. And the workers at the lower-end will be making less.

Yoon was musing about having people work 52 hours or 120 hours per week. He doesn't get it too, it's not the work hours that matter, it's the productivity. If I were a mid-to-low wage earner Korean I'd dread the next five years under Yoon.

Interesting article:

The number of registered vehicles in South Korea has surpassed 25 million.

https://m-en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20220412009000320?section=news

The 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.

Interesting article:

The number of registered vehicles in South Korea has surpassed 25 million.

https://m-en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20220412009000320?section=news

The 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.

Improve the tech )longer lasting, faster charges) and bring down the price a lot then people will buy them more. 

Ok, you池e talking about electric vehicles, but why are so many Koreans choosing diesel vehicles over gasoline vehicles? To save a few bucks? One way would be to buy less huge SUVs. Saddens me to see unnecessarily large SUVs powered by diesel.

Interesting article:

The number of registered vehicles in South Korea has surpassed 25 million.

https://m-en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20220412009000320?section=news

The 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.

Diesel used to be a lot cheaper than regular gas, and it used to be considered cleaner until maybe the last 10 years.

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.

Also, up until not too long ago, the Korean government subsidized the purchase of diesel vehicles pretty heavily. The idea was that "clean diesel" emitted slightly less CO2 than the average gas powered vehicle. However, after the mass rush to buy diesel engines, it soon came out that not only were those reductions in CO2 somewhat overstated, but that diesel produced substantially more fine particulates, which strongly impacted urban air quality. Combined with a urea shortage (a chemical needed to catalyze a nitrate to nitrogen reaction in a diesel vehicle), diesel was no longer the favourite child, and the gov retracted all the subsidies (which infuriated a lot of people).

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.

It's not that cut-and-dry, unfortunately.
  There have been oodles of studies done on the link between increases in minimum wage and inflation. There is a correlation, yes, but evidence that minimum wage increases cause inflation is tenuous at best (although there is pretty strong evidence that inflation does casue minimum wage increases). It really depends on how competitive various markets are and on price elasticity etc.
Here's a research paper that examines the link between the two: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41445397

Here is a decent article by an economic paper that provides a pretty well balanced look at evidence supporting and not supporting the link: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/personal-finance/minimum-wage-debate/

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.

Have orders fallen? If so, wouldn't that be due more to the pandemic than to anything else? In Seoul last fall, it was hard to find a seat in a cafe. They seemed to be doing alright.

I would like to see some proof of your continued assertions that raising the minimum wage is economically destructive. Its connection to inflation is dubious at best. Gas prices have nothing to do with minimum wage. Corporate profits in the US are at an all-time high and still big companies raise prices, more than making up for the higher wages they are paying workers.

Businesses can't operate without employees. They should correspondingly pay them a decent wage in safe working conditions. They are not slaves.