Long-term energy plan

More review needed on power demand, generation costs

A long-term energy plan that forecasts the nation's power demand and supply and suggests generation programs between now and 2034 was announced last Friday. Drawn up by a civilian advisory body, the draft plan calls for reducing the share of thermal and nuclear power plants from 46.3 percent to 24.8 percent, while increasing that of LNG-fueled and renewable energy stations from 47.4 percent to 71 percent by the target year. The government will finalize its plan based on this, but is likely to face considerable opposition in the process.

The Moon Jae-in administration is going in the right way to try to change the nation's energy mix to a more environment-friendly pattern. At stake, however, is how to strike a balance between “theory” and “reality.” Such a balance should be based on objective criteria concerning costs and benefits. Based on these criteria, critics have questioned the appropriateness of the speed in reducing coal and atomic power plants while expanding LNG and renewable stations. The draft plan, too, requires a careful review from these viewpoints.

For example, the plan forecasts that Korea's power demand will grow 1 percent a year on average, projecting total electricity demand in 2034 at 104.2 gigawatts. Its estimation of the annual growth rate was down 0.3 percentage point from the previous projection of 1.3 percent. Those who regard electricity as infrastructure for industrial production, however, call for greater power supply. The critics say power demand will rise because of the increase in electric cars and the growing power consumption under the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

The government also needs to rethink the expanding pace of LNG and renewable energy plants. The draft plan calls for reducing the number of coal-fired plants from 56 to 26, and nuclear power stations from 26 to 17. In that case, power generation by LNG stations and renewable energy plants will sharply increase, heightening risks on securing energy sources while increasing pressure to raise utility charges. Such analyses are missing in the draft plan, however. All this shows why there should be more neutral and objective discussion to shift to a more reasonable energy policy.