The Nuclear Safety and Security Commission on the 15th again postponed its review of license extensions for the idled Kori No. 3 and No. 4 reactors in Gijang County, Busan. The two reactors shut down in September 2024 and August 2025, respectively, when their design lifespans expired. Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power has applied for continued operation permits, but the commission's review has dragged on. At the latest session, the panel again limited itself to questions and requests for additional documents. Losses from forgone electricity sales at Kori No. 3 and No. 4 and at Hanbit No. 1 and No. 2 in Yeonggwang County, South Jeolla Province, have reached 2 trillion won (about $1.4 billion) and are mounting by 5.1 billion won a day. The commission did approve accident management plans for four reactors at the same meeting.
Nuclear safety comes before everything else. But hesitating over lifespan extensions on grounds that depart from scientific standards carries an enormous social cost. Rigorous safety verification and prompt review are not mutually exclusive. The burden of delayed reviews should not be shifted onto companies and the public. Kori No. 2, which resumed operation in April this year, took three years to restart after its design lifespan expired. Its extension period runs 10 years, but in practice the reactor will generate power for only seven. A perfectly sound reactor sat idle for three years. Kori No. 3 and No. 4 and Hanbit No. 1 and No. 2 must not repeat that pattern. For nurturing future industries, including the government's three mega-projects, a gap in power supply would be devastating. Safety must be verified thoroughly, but licensing reviews should be completed before reactors are taken offline, and the term of a continued operation permit should be extended to 20 years, as in advanced economies. The commission's membership requirements, which keep experts out, also need revising so that independence and expertise in nuclear regulatory administration are balanced.
Construction of new reactors must likewise be accelerated. The public deliberation committee on new nuclear plants said on the 14th that it had settled on "What kind of electricity will we live on in the future?" as its overarching theme. That is a leisurely question at a time of surging power demand. The focus now should be on how to secure the electricity industry needs. Meeting demand from artificial intelligence data centers, semiconductors and other advanced industries requires a realistic power mix with nuclear as the core source. Large reactors take more than 15 years from site selection to completion. Even starting now, a 2040 completion date would be tight. Rather than squandering time on round after round of deliberation, the government should move to execution — selecting sites and winning over local residents. It is time for the government to take political responsibility and decide.