Long Term Energy Plan for Korea using MESSAGE for Energy Optimization

DOI : 10.17577/IJERTV6IS080220

Download Full-Text PDF Cite this Publication

Text Only Version

Long Term Energy Plan for Korea using MESSAGE for Energy Optimization

Hee Won Kim

Department of Nuclear Power Plant Engineering KEPCO International Nuclear Graduate School (KINGS) Ulsan 45014, South Korea

Myung Sub Roh

Professor

Department of Nuclear Power Plant Engineering KEPCO International Nuclear Graduate School (KINGS) Ulsan 45014, South Korea

Abstract Energy policy on electricity demand and supply is a key component of the country's sustainable economic development. Recently, the Korean government has decided to cancel the construction plan of new nuclear power plant in the electricity energy policy and decide not to extend the life extension of the nuclear power plant. In addition, it announced that it would minimize the amount of coal power generation for coal power plants in order to reduce carbon and fine dust emissions. In particular, power shortages due to the phase out policy of nuclear and coal power plants are expected to replace renewable energy and gas power generation in the long term.

In order to present a more meaningful and realistic alternative to Korea's long-term energy policy, the Model for Energy Supply Strategy Alternatives and their General Environmental impacts (MESSAGE) code was used. In this study, the long-term policy scenario considered for current energy policy evaluation and new energy policy evaluation in South Korea is three scenarios: ) current existing scenarios, ) response scenarios based on greenhouse gas emissions, and ) strengthening of renewable and gas portion.

As a result, despite the promotion policies of renewable energy and gas power generation in South Korea, the nuclear and coal power generation still plays an important role due to the limitation of power supply by renewable energy and the economics of gas generation as the main power source. Therefore, it is necessary for the Korean government to establish a more economical and realistic long-term power supply plan in order to maintain sustainable economic growth and security from the phase out policy of nuclear and coal power plants.

Keywords Energy, Nuclear, Long Term, Mixture, MESSAGE, South Korea

  1. INTRODUCTION

    1. BACKGROUND

      South Korea is located on the Korean peninsula, surrounded by the sea except the north, where it borders North Korea. Due to the relationship with North Korea, political, social, and economical exchanges are virtually impossible. Due to this geopolitical position, energy exchange with other countries by an overland route is fundamentally blocked. The natural resources that can be used as energy sources are only domestic anthracite. However, the amount of reserves is small and the quality is lower than imported coal. Therefore, South Korea imports most of the raw materials that can be used as power generation sources: uranium, bituminous coal, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), and oil. In order to stabilize electricity supply and demand, the South Korean government has established a fifteen-year plan which is revised every two years

      by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy [1]. So far, the 7th Basic Plan for Supply and Demand of Electricity has been established. According to the plan, the low carbon power mix for greenhouse gas reduction will be strengthened by construction of 6 more nuclear power plants until 2030 instead of coal power reduction [1][6]. However, with the launch of the new government, the 8th power supply and demand basic plan will be planned differently from the 7th. As the new government's phase out policy of nuclear and coal power plants become reality, the plans for the construction of new nuclear power plants as well as the coal power generation plants will be deferred. On the other hand, new gas plants will be added to make up the electricity shortage and renewable energy generation will be increased to 20% of the total electricity production by 2030 [3][4].

      In this study, three scenarios were evaluated. First, the current existing scenario was applied on MESSAGE based on the 7th plan of power supply and demand. Second, the low-carbon power mix policy which is a common direction of the 7th and 8th power supply basic plans was applied. Lastly, it evaluated the renewable energy and gas generation policies to complement the reduction of nuclear and coal power generation [4].

    2. ELECTRICITY GENERATION CAPACITY

      As shown in the Table 1, the interconnected system in Korea has a total installed capacity of 93216 MW shared 20716 MW by nuclear, 26274 MW by coal, 26742 MW by gas, 3850 MW by oil, and 15634 MW by others. As shown in the Table 2, total power generation in 2014 was 521409 GWh, shared 156407 GWh by nuclear power, 203765 GWh by coal, 111705 GWh by gas, 7759 GWh by oil, and 41773 GWh by others.

      TABLE 1. SIZE AND SHARE OF INSTALLED CAPACITY (UNIT: MW)

      Year

      Nuclear

      Coal

      Gas

      Oil

      Other

      Sum

      05

      17716

      17965

      16447

      4710

      5420

      62258

      28.5%

      28.9%

      26.4%

      7.6%

      8.7%

      100%

      14

      20716

      26274

      26742

      3850

      15634

      93216

      22.2%

      28.2%

      28.7%

      4.1%

      16.8%

      100%

      25

      624,950

      105056

      631653

      106644

      26

      640133

      108037

      637953

      107974

      27

      655305

      110886

      644021

      109284

      28

      650159

      110605

      29

      656883

      111929

      Plan*

      2.2

      2.4

      2.1

      2.2

      TABLE 2. AMOUNT AND SHARE OF GENERATION BY TYPE (UNIT: GWH)

      Year

      Nuclear

      Coal

      Gas

      Oil

      Other

      Sum

      05

      146779

      134892

      57962

      16385

      8352

      364370

      40.3%

      37%

      15.9%

      4.5%

      2.3%

      100%

      14

      156407

      203765

      111705

      7759

      41773

      521409

      30%

      39.1%

      21.4%

      1.5%

      8%

      100%

      * Other: Renewable Energy, Pumped-storage, and RCS (Regional Cog eneration System)

    3. ELECTRICITY DEMAND TARGET OUTLOOK

    Recently economic growth rates and utility rates are one of the major factors considered in demand forecast. Forecast has been based n a scientific modelling and the experts in power demand. The main premise for predicting electricity demand are based on the assumption of target demand by reflecting economic growth, electricity rates, population growth rate, and weather forecast.

    Economic growth reflected the growth forecast of South Korea as shown in the Table 3. Electricity rates have reflected recent trends in electricity rates and cost factors. The population reflects the National Statistical Office's future population estimates and the population will continue to increase by 30 years as shown in the Table 4. The temperature reflected the Meteorological Administration's long-term climate change scenarios on the Korean Peninsula.

    As shown in the Table 5, Power consumption is expected to grow at an annual average of 2.1% over the next 15 years from 2015 to 2029, eventually electricity demand target will reach to 656883 GWh in 2029. The maximum installed electricity will be reached at 111929 MW in 2029 with an annual average growth rate of 2.2% over 15 years (from 2015 to 2029).

    TABLE 3. GDP GROWTH RATE OVERLOOK

    Year

    14

    15

    20

    27

    29

    Average

    6th Plan

    4.3

    4.5

    3.5

    2.7

    2.4

    3.48

    7th Plan

    3.1

    3.5

    3.3

    2.5

    2.3

    3.06

    TABLE 4. POPULATION OVERLOOK (UNIT: 1000 PERSONS)

    Year

    11

    15

    20

    27

    29

    7th Plan

    49779

    50617

    51435

    52094

    52154

    Year

    6th Plan [1]

    7th Plan [1]

    Power

    Maximu m Power

    Power

    Maximu m Power

    Consumptio n

    (MW)

    Consumpti on

    (MW)

    (GWh)

    (GWh)

    15

    516156

    82677

    489595

    82478

    16

    532694

    84576

    509754

    84612

    17

    548241

    88218

    532622

    88206

    18

    564256

    91509

    555280

    91795

    19

    578623

    93683

    574506

    94840

    20

    590565

    95316

    588352

    97261

    21

    597064

    97510

    600063

    99792

    22

    602049

    99363

    609822

    101849

    23

    605724

    100807

    617956

    103694

    24

    611734

    102839

    625095

    105200

    TABLE 5. ELECTRICITY DEMAND TARGET OUTLOOK

    *Annual average increase rate

  2. METHODOLOGY

  1. MESSAGE GENERAL DESCRIPTION

    MESSAGE stands for Model for Energy Supply Strategy Alternatives and their General Environmental Impacts. MESSAGE software is used to set up models of energy systems (i.e. energy supplies and utilization) in order to find their optimum expansion path in the medium to long-term period. It was originally developed at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). The IAEA acquired the latest version of MESSAGE, and several enhancements have been made to it, most importantly the addition of a user-interface to facilitate its application. In its general formulation, MESSAGE allows building of dynamic linear programming (LP) models with a mixed integer option. The formulation and evaluation of the optimum capacity addition strategy of alternative technologies based on restrictions or constraints / bounds on new investment limits, fuel availability and trade, environment emissions regulations and market penetration rates for new technologies were made possible by MESSAGE by optimization of an objective function, which is defined as the total discounted energy system costs encompassing investment costs, fix, and variable operation and maintenance cost, cost induced by constraints and any additional penalty costs defined for limits, bounds, and constraints on relations.

    The underlying principle of a model, built using the MESSAGE, is optimization of an objective function under a set of constraints that define the feasible region containing all possible solutions of the problem [9]. The value of the objective function helps to choose the solution considered best according to the criteria specified. In general categorization, models built using MESSAGE belong to the class of LP models with the option of mixed integer programming as they may contain some integer variables [9].

    The main objective of developing the MESSAGE software, however, was to facilitate the building of an energy system model. An energy model is designed to formulate and evaluate alternative energy supply strategies consonant with the user-defined constraints such as limits on new investment, fuel availability and trade, environmental regulations and market penetration rates for new technologies. Environmental aspects can be analyzed by accounting; and if necessary limiting, the amounts of pollutants emitted by various technologies at various steps in energy supplies. This helps to evaluate the impact of environmental regulations on energy system development.

    As shown in the Fig. 1, MESAGE is designed to develop an optimized model of an energy mix by optimization of the generated matrix. It is also used to present energy supply strategy alternatives, environmental impact models and to set up energy system models to find the optimal path. It provides an optimized predictive model numerically or graphically with finding the optimal route by inputting economic and social data

    that will affect power supply and demand. As mentioned at the introduction, three virtual scenario models for predicting future power supply and demand were predicted and simulated with MESSAGE.

    As shown in the Fig. 2, an energy system is composed of many elements such as oil extraction facilities, imports, exports of energy forms. These elements form energy chains where primary energy is extracted from resources or imported in the form of oil, gas, coal, water, solar, wind. Secondary energy is obtained from these primary forms through conversion (typically a power plant producing electricity) or through a process (typically a refinery producing different types of fuels). The secondary energy forms are typically diesel, kerosene, gas, electricity, coal. Final energy is the energy delivered to the final user. It is obtained from secondary energy through the activities of transmission, transport and distribution [9].

    A current existing scenario was simulated by MESSAGE according to foecasts of power supply from 2014 to 2031 without regulation of nuclear power and coal power generation. In the current existing scenario, the current plant data is entered in MESSAGE as it is, and the new plant planned by 2030 is also entered in MESSAGE. The second scenario was simulated to strengthen the low-carbon power mix. Carbon taxes imposed on carbon emissions under the Paris Climate Convention were applied to coal and oil power plants and over 30 years old coal power plants have been deleted to stop generation without extending their lifetime.

    In the third scenario, nuclear power and coal plants that reached the end of their life time were shut down without life extension and nuclear and coal power plants were not added, according to the government 's policy to phase out nuclear power and coal power plants. Also, renewable energy was introduced up to 20% in 2030[3].

    Fig. 1.Typical input and output using MESSAGE

    Fig. 2. Simple energy system of MESSAGE

  2. BACKGROUND FACTORS FOR MESSAGE MODELING

  1. GDP GROWTH & ELECTRICITY DEMAND GROWTH

    The recent decline in electricity demand is due to the shift away from developed countries in the manufacturing sector, the increase in electricity rates, the expansion of self-generated power such as roof-type solar cells, and efforts to improve energy efficiency. According to the power unit analysis, which reflects the relationship between domestic economic growth and electricity demand, the downward trend of power consumption has recently increased compared to the past. Electricity demand growth was 1.8% in 2013 when GDP growth was 3%, electricity demand growth was only 0.6%, when GDP growth was 3.3% in 2014 as shown in the Table 6.

    It is due to the governments strong energy saving policy. As mentioned earlier in the Electricity Demand Goal Forecast, electricity demand is estimated considering economic growth, electricity rates, population growth, weather forecasts, and etc. Thus, the annual average growth rate of 2.2% predicted by the 7th Plan is reliable data.

    Year

    Power Demand Growth (%)

    GDP Growth (%)

    2002

    7.4

    8

    2003

    2.9

    5.4

    2004

    4.9

    6.3

    2005

    3.9

    6.5

    2006

    5.2

    4.9

    2007

    5.5

    5.7

    2008

    2.8

    4.5

    2009

    0.7

    2.4

    2010

    6.5

    10.1

    2011

    3.7

    4.8

    2012

    2.3

    2.5

    2013

    1.8

    3

    2014

    0.6

    3.3

    TABLE 6. POWER DEMAND & GDP

    Fig. 3. GDP growth & electricity demand growth

  2. FUEL COST & PLANT FACTOR

    According to the Korea Power Exchange, the plant factor of each power generation fuel is shown in the Table 8. The reason for the low plant factor of gas power plants is that Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) purchases power with lower cost. As shown in the Table 7, the fuel cost of the nuclear power plant was 5.09 won per 1kWh, followed by coal 46.35 won and gas

    145.54 won. Electricity production prioritizes a power plant with a low fuel cost, so the gas power plants dont operate by priority unless power is particularly not enough.

    TABLE 7. FUEL COST (UNIT: $/KWH)

    Year

    2012

    2013

    2014

    2015

    Nuclear

    0.0037908

    0.0041327

    0.0046315

    0.0043174

    Coal

    0.0555462

    0.0507583

    0.0421747

    0.0413481

    Gas

    0.1326704

    0.1346825

    0.1324295

    0.1036775

    Oil

    0.2346312

    0.2017441

    0.1926206

    0.1535239

    TABLE 8. PLANT FACTOR (UNIT: %)

    Hydro

    Nuclear

    Coal

    Oil

    Gas

    Solar

    Wind

    36.83

    85.24

    87.62

    26.66

    38.68

    14.33

    15.96

  3. POWER COST

In electrical power generation, the distinct ways of generating electricity incur significantly different costs. The cost is typically given per kilowatt-hour. It includes the initial capital, discount rate, as well as the costs of continuous operation, fuel, and maintenance. As shown in the Table 9, it shows the power cost per generation source.

TABLE 9. POWER COST (UNIT: $/KWH)

Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Nuclear

0.03393

0.03690

0.03700

0.04977

0.05349

Coal

0.05822

0.06186

0.05577

0.05926

0.06057

Gas

0.12347

0.15701

0.15245

0.14646

0.10783

Oil

0.19585

0.23634

0.20988

0.20089

0.12786

Hydro

0.14643

0.19975

0.12761

0.15605

0.11327

Renewable

0.09851

0.12708

0.13846

0.11803

0.09248

. RESULTS

  1. CASE 1: CURRENT EXISTING SCENARIO

    This scenario considers the current existing energy policy. In the Fig 4, South Korea has an energy sector that makes coal, gas, and nuclear power generation as major source of power generation.

    During the MEESAGE modeling, all investment and operation cost of the future years will be discounted to the first model year 2014 using the discount rate 6%. For this project, the basic model for estimating future electricity demand was adopted from Gross Domestic Product (GDP). However, the correlation between GDP growth rate and electricity demand is not similar in South Korea. The growth rate in this study was assumed by the annual average growth rate of 2.2% as mentioned in the Introduction C.

    This scenario will be regarded as the current existing scenario and it includes the current existing energy sources and planned energy sources [6]. South Korea comprises seven types of power plants: the coal power plant, oil power plant, gas (LNG) power plant, hydropower plant, nuclear power plant, solar power plant and wind power plant.

    The total installed capacity for the current existing scenario was 111929 MW. Coal power plants accounted for 35% (39099 MW) of total power generation by 2030, nuclear power plants accounted for 27% (30827 MW), and gas power plants accounted for 20% (23019 MW). Other hydropower and renewable power plants accounted for 17% (18985 MW) as shown in the Table 11. Fuel purchase prices vary from time to time, however nuclear power is typically inexpensive relative to coal, and gas (LNG) [4]. Therefore, fuel price competitivenes is the highest for nuclear power and lowest for gas. However, the construction cost of recently constructed nuclear power plants have risen sharply due to safety enhancements. As a result, coal power plants are considered to be more competitive power generation sources than other plants in the current existing scenario and account for the highest percentage. On the other hand, gas power plants accounted for about 20% of power generation due to expensive fuel.

    As a result of calculation, the optimum mixture for long term plan of the case 1 is shown in the Table 10 and the total cost of electricity generation by fuel type for the case 1 is shown in the Table 11.

    Fig. 4. Energy flow of South Korea for a current existing scenario

    TABLE 10. ENERGY SHARE OF THE CURRENT SCENARIO

    Years

    2015-2017

    2018-2021

    Fuel

    MW

    Share

    MW

    Share

    Gas

    4153

    4.71%

    8491

    8.51%

    Nuclear

    30206

    34.24%

    32202

    32.27%

    Coal

    37378

    42.38%

    40516

    40.60%

    Oil

    3480

    3.95%

    5207

    5.22%

    Solar

    4051

    4.59%

    3847

    3.85%

    Wind

    2770

    3.14%

    2953

    2.96%

    Hydro

    6168

    6.99%

    6575

    6.59%

    Total

    88206

    100%

    99792

    100%

    Years

    2022-2025

    2026-2031

    Fuel

    MW

    Share

    MW

    Share

    Gas

    15219

    14.27%

    23019

    20.57%

    Nuclear

    31793

    29.81%

    30827

    27.54%

    Coal

    40323

    37.81%

    39099

    34.93%

    Oil

    5638

    5.29%

    5729

    5.12%

    Solar

    4263

    4.00%

    4134

    3.69%

    Wind

    2916

    2.73%

    2827

    2.53%

    Hydro

    6492

    6.09%

    6295

    5.62%

    Total

    106644

    100%

    111929

    100%

    TABLE 11. GENERATION COST FOR THE CASE 1(UNIT: ONE MILLION $)

    Year

    2017

    2021

    2025

    2030

    Gas

    7775

    7775

    1393

    2107

    Nuclear

    13720

    14627

    14441

    14002

    Coal

    19226

    20840

    20740

    20111

    Oil

    3778

    5653

    6121

    6220

    Renewable

    5356

    5340

    5638

    5466

    Total

    49856

    54236

    60878

    66879

    Fig. 5. MESSAGE result of the current existing scenario

  2. CASE 2: STRENGTHENING THE LOW CARBON POWER MIX

    The energy flow for this scenario is almost the same as the energy flow of the current existing scenario, however in this case the focus is the coal and oil power plants, as shown in the Fig. 6.

    Under the scenario of strengthening the low-carbon power mix, the carbon tax was imposed on coal and oil power plants. As shown in the Table 13, the total installed capacity was 111929 MW. Coal power plants accounted for 30% (33836 MW) of total power generation by 2030, nuclear power plants accounted for 28% (31470 MW), gas power plants accounted for 30% (32431 MW), and other power plants accounted for

    13% (14192 MW). Despite the high fuel price competitiveness and low investment cost of coal power plants, the amount of power generation was reduced due to the carbon tax, and the power generation of gas power plants absorbed the reduced power generation of coal and oil power plants as shown in the Table 12. As shown in the table 13, the amount of generation cost can be calculated by the power cost and the rate of power generation as follows.

    Fig. 6. Energy flow of South Korea for the scenario 2

    TABLE 12. ENERGY SHARE OF THE STRENGTHENING THE LOW CARBON

    Years

    2015-2017

    2018-2021

    Fuel

    MW

    Share

    MW

    Share

    Gas

    11347

    12.86%

    17453

    17.49%

    Nuclear

    30835

    34.96%

    32874

    32.94%

    Coal

    32765

    37.15%

    35330

    35.40%

    Oil

    0

    0.00%

    0

    0.00%

    Solar

    4135

    4.69%

    4408

    4.42%

    Wind

    2828

    3.21%

    3015

    3.02%

    Hydro

    6296

    7.14%

    6712

    6.73%

    Total

    88206

    100%

    99792

    100%

    Years

    2022-2025

    2026-2031

    Fuel

    MW

    Share

    MW

    Share

    Gas

    25337

    23.76%

    32431

    28.97%

    Nuclear

    32455

    30.43%

    31470

    28.12%

    Coal

    34896

    32.72%

    33836

    30.23%

    Oil

    0

    0.00%

    660

    0.59%

    Solar

    4352

    4.08%

    4220

    3.77%

    Wind

    2977

    2.79%

    2886

    2.58%

    Hydro

    6627

    6.21%

    6426

    5.74%

    Total

    106644

    100%

    111929

    100%

    TABLE 13. GENERATION COST FOR THE CASE 2(UNIT: ONE MILLION $)

    Year

    2017

    2021

    2025

    2030

    Gas

    10390

    15982

    23200

    29697

    Nuclear

    14006

    14932

    14742

    14294

    Coal

    16853

    18172

    17949

    17404

    Oil

    0

    0

    0

    716

    Renewable

    5468

    5829

    4970

    5565

    Total

    46718

    54916

    60863

    67677

    Fig. 7. MESSAGE result of the strengthening the low carbon power mix

  3. CASE 3: EXPANSION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY

In this scenario, renewable energy generation was expanded up to 20% according to the policy of renewable energy expansion by 2030 [4]. The construction of new coal power plants and new nuclear power plants is not considered. Instead, renewable power plants and gas power plants are added as shown in the Fig 8. As a result, the total installed capacity was 111929 MW. Coal power plants accounted for 22% (24638 MW) of total power generation by 2030, 22% (25176 MW) for nuclear power generation, 26% (29469 MW) for gas power generation, 20% (22827 MW) for renewable power generation, and 9% (9920 MW) for other power plants as shown in the Table 14. Despite in no addition of new nuclear power plants and new coal power plants, coal power plants maintained a significant amount of power generation due to fuel and construction costs competitiveness. Nuclear power plants also maintained high power generation without additional construction due to fuel cost competitiveness. As a result of the increase in new gas power plants in accordance with the government's new energy policy, Case 3 showed the most ideal and optimized energy mix. As shown in the table 15, the amount of generation cost can be calculated by the power cost and power generation as follow. The amount of electricity increased by 11% (7221 million dollars) compared to the case 1 and increased to 10% (6423 million dollars) compared to the case 2. The main reason is the increase in gas power plants and renewable power plants which have higher power generation cost.

Fig. 8. Energy Flow of South Korea for the scenario 3

TABLE 14. ENERGY SHARE OF THE EXPANSION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY

Years

2015-2017

2018-2021

Fuel

MW

Share

MW

Share

Gas

24482

27.76%

29139

29.20%

Nuclear

24668

27.97%

26299

26.35%

Coal

24142

27.37%

25738

25.79%

Oil

4585

5.20%

4888

4.90%

Hydro

5037

5.71%

5370

5.38%

Renewable

5292

6.00%

8359

8.38%

Total

88206

100%

99792

100%

Years

2022-2025

2026-2031

Fuel

MW

Share

MW

Share

Gas

31204

29.26%

29469

26.33%

Nuclear

25964

24.35%

25176

22.49%

Coal

25410

23.83%

24638

22.01%

Oil

4825

4.52%

4679

4.18%

Hydro

5302

4.97%

5141

4.59%

Renewable

13939

13.07%

22827

20.39%

Total

106644

100%

111929

100%

TABLE 15. GENERATION COST FOR THE CASE 3(UNIT: ONE MILLION $)

Year

2017

2021

2025

2030

Gas

22418

26682

28573

26984

Nuclear

11205

11945

11793

11435

Coal

12417

13238

13070

12673

Oil

4977

5306

5239

5080

Renewable

4156

6564

10946

17927

Total

55175

63738

69623

74100

Fig. 9. MESSAGE result of the expansion of renewable energy

. CONCLUSION

The South Korean government has decided to cease construction of new nuclear and coal power plants in its long term energy policy. Instead, it plans to replace the shortage of power due to the reduction of power generation by renewable energy and gas power generation in the long term. Moreover, it plans shutting down nuclear power plants that have reached their end of lifetime [3][4]. The government also proposed a policy of expanding renewable energy by 20% by 2030 [4].

However, there are many difficulties in expanding ratio of renewable energy and gas power plants. Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power, which are recommended by the government, are limited by geographical conditions and the generation efficiency is less than about 20%. In addition, operation time is limited by climate conditions and life time is shorter than other plants. Therefore, in order to replace nuclear power and coal power, it highly requires not only the time but also the technical development to improve efficiency and life

time etc. Moreover, gas plant also has a lot of disadvantages such as high generation costs, requirement for large volume of fuel handling, and energy security etc. In particular, South Korea, which has no gas resources, must import a huge amount of LNG from foreign countries.

Therefore, nuclear and coal power generation is still an important energy source in Korean economic environment. It is necessary to establish gradually a stable and safe energy policy by mixing various power generation sources such as gas and renewable energy as well as nuclear power and coal power rate. Thus, it is strongly required to establish a sophisticated and realistic energy roadmap that can contribute to the development of Korea's industrial economy in the long term phase.

. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research was supported by the 2017 Research Fund of the KEPCO International Nuclear Graduate School (KINGS), Republic of Korea.

REFERENCES

  1. The 7th Basic Plan for Long-term Electricity Supply and Demand (2015 2029), Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy

  2. Korea Energy Master Plan (outlook & policies to 2035), Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy

  3. Byeongsoo Kim, Kyungmin Kim and Seungwuk Noh, The energy policy issue of new government, Mail Economy, no.1910, May.2017

  4. Sangji Kim, New government's energy and environment policy, Energy Economy, May.2017

  5. Electric Power Statistics Information System (http://epsis.kpx.or.kr/epsisnew/), Korea Power Exchange

  6. Power Plant Status of 2014, Korea Power Exchange, 2015

  7. 2015 Korea Energy Handbook, Korea Energy Agency, 2015, pp: 33-38

  8. Mijin Park, The safety of Korean nuclear power plants is excellent, ScienceTimes, July.2017

  9. Chulhung Jo and Euchaun Jeon, Compatibility assessment of the energy & climate change policies, , pp: 199~230

Leave a Reply