IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i18p5681-d632370.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Study of Power Mixes for Green Growth: How South Korea and Japan See Nuclear Energy Differently

Author

Listed:
  • Eunjung Lim

    (Division of International Studies, Kongju National University, Gongju-si 32588, Korea)

Abstract

South Korea and Japan are two large contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions. In October 2020, President Moon Jae-in and Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide declared that their countries would aim for carbon neutrality by 2050. The Moon administration presented the Korean version of the New Deal that includes its Green New Deal, whereas the Suga administration completed its strategy aiming for green growth. Both countries emphasize the importance of energy transition through the expansion of green energy in power generation. However, they show some significant differences in dealing with nuclear energy. The purpose of this article is to compare the two countries’ energy policies and analyze the rationales and political dynamics behind their different approaches to nuclear energy. The study reveals that the contrast between the two political systems has resulted in differences between their policies. This study depends on comparative methods that use primary sources, such as governmental documents and reports by local news media.

Suggested Citation

  • Eunjung Lim, 2021. "A Comparative Study of Power Mixes for Green Growth: How South Korea and Japan See Nuclear Energy Differently," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-15, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:18:p:5681-:d:632370
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/18/5681/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/18/5681/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Toshiyuki Sueyoshi & Youngbok Ryu & Mika Goto, 2020. "Operational Performance of Electric Power Firms: Comparison between Japan and South Korea by Non-Radial Measures," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-23, August.
    2. Yoon‐Hee Ha & John Byrne, 2019. "The rise and fall of green growth: Korea's energy sector experiment and its lessons for sustainable energy policy," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(4), July.
    3. von Hippel, David & Suzuki, Tatsujiro & Williams, James H. & Savage, Timothy & Hayes, Peter, 2011. "Energy security and sustainability in Northeast Asia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 6719-6730.
    4. Toshi H. Arimura & Kazuyuki Iwata, 2015. "An Evaluation of Japanese Environmental Regulations," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-94-017-9947-8, December.
    5. Arimura, Toshi H. & Kaneko, Shinji & Managi, Shunsuke & Shinkuma, Takayoshi & Yamamoto, Masashi & Yoshida, Yuichiro, 2019. "Political economy of voluntary approaches: A lesson from environmental policies in Japan," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 41-53.
    6. Chung, Ji-Bum & Kim, Eun-Sung, 2018. "Public perception of energy transition in Korea: Nuclear power, climate change, and party preference," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 137-144.
    7. Valentine, Scott Victor & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2010. "The socio-political economy of nuclear power development in Japan and South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(12), pages 7971-7979, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qingchang Li & Seungkook Roh & Jin Won Lee, 2020. "Segmenting the South Korean Public According to Their Preferred Direction for Electricity Mix Reform," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Daphne Ngar-yin Mah & Darren Man-wai Cheung, 2020. "Conceptualizing Niche–Regime Dynamics of Energy Transitions from a Political Economic Perspective: Insights from Community-Led Urban Solar in Seoul," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-28, June.
    3. Lu, Guanyu & Sugino, Makoto & Arimura, Toshi H. & Horie, Tetsuya, 2022. "Success and failure of the voluntary action plan: Disaggregated sector decomposition analysis of energy-related CO2 emissions in Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    4. Kwak, Kiho & Yoon, Hyungseok (David), 2020. "Unpacking transnational industry legitimacy dynamics, windows of opportunity, and latecomers’ catch-up in complex product systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    5. Seungkook Roh & Hae-Gyung Geong, 2021. "Extending the Coverage of the Trust–Acceptability Model: The Negative Effect of Trust in Government on Nuclear Power Acceptance in South Korea under a Nuclear Phase-Out Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-19, June.
    6. Poortinga, Wouter & Aoyagi, Midori & Pidgeon, Nick F., 2013. "Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures before and after the Fukushima accident: A comparison between Britain and Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1204-1211.
    7. Pin Li & Jinsuo Zhang, 2019. "Is China’s Energy Supply Sustainable? New Research Model Based on the Exponential Smoothing and GM(1,1) Methods," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-30, January.
    8. Mortha, Aline & Yajima, Naonari & Arimura, Toshi H., 2024. "Impact of the feed-in-tariff exemption on energy consumption in Japanese industrial plants," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    9. Ismail Abdallah & Hamed Alhosin & Mohamed Belarabi & Sanae Chaouki & Nousseiba Mahmoud & Jad Tayah, 2024. "A Pan-Asian Energy Transition? The New Rationale for Decarbonization Policies in the World’s Largest Energy Exporting Countries: A Case Study of Qatar and Other GCC Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-30, July.
    10. Selvakkumaran, Sujeetha & Limmeechokchai, Bundit, 2013. "Energy security and co-benefits of energy efficiency improvement in three Asian countries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 491-503.
    11. Odysseas Christou, 2021. "Energy Security in Turbulent Times Towards the European Green Deal," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(3), pages 360-369.
    12. Valentine, Scott Victor, 2014. "The socio-political economy of electricity generation in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 416-429.
    13. Aristovnik, Aleksander & Yang, Guo-liang & Song, Yao-yao & Ravšelj, Dejan, 2023. "Industrial performance of the top R&D enterprises in world-leading economies: A metafrontier approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    14. Motz, Alessandra, 2021. "Consumer acceptance of the energy transition in Switzerland: The role of attitudes explained through a hybrid discrete choice model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    15. Moon, Hee Seung & Song, Yong Hyun & Lee, Ji Woo & Hong, Sanghyun & Kim, Eunsung & Kim, Seung Wan, 2024. "Implementation cost of net zero electricity system: Analysis based on Korean national target," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    16. Aleksei Valentinovich Bogoviz & Svetlana Vladislavlevna Lobova & Yulia Vyacheslavovna Ragulina & Alexander Nikolaevich Alekseev, 2017. "A Comprehensive Analysis of Energy Security in the Member States of the Eurasian Economic Union, 2000-2014," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 7(5), pages 93-101.
    17. Yang, Ju-Ying & Dodge, Jennifer, 2024. "Local energy transitions as process: How contract management problems stymie a city's sustainable transition to renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    18. Burgherr, Peter & Hirschberg, Stefan, 2014. "Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in the energy sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(S1), pages 45-56.
    19. Arndt, Christoph, 2023. "Climate change vs energy security? The conditional support for energy sources among Western Europeans," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    20. Thauan Santos & Amaro Olímpio Pereira Júnior & Emilio Lèbre La Rovere, 2017. "Evaluating Energy Policies through the Use of a Hybrid Quantitative Indicator-Based Approach: The Case of Mercosur," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:18:p:5681-:d:632370. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.