"If You Can't Turn On the Air Conditioner in This Heat... Halting LNG After Coal Is Impossible"

Carbon Neutrality Committee Proposes a Third Scenario Stronger than Government Plan... 'Zero' Net Emissions Scenario

Nuclear Power Share Down 6.1%
To Fill the Gap from Coal and LNG Plant Closures,
Renewable Energy Share Must Be Raised to 70.8%

Concerns Raised Over Carbon Neutrality Committee’s Scenario
"Power Supply May Become Unstable Due to Renewable Energy Intermittency"

Presenting Cost Burden Is Essential to Gather Public Opinion

[Sejong=Asia Economy Reporters Joo Sang-don and Son Sun-hee] Among the three '2050 Carbon Neutrality Scenarios' announced by the Carbon Neutrality Committee on the 5th, concerns have been raised over the inclusion of a plan that completely halts not only coal power but also liquefied natural gas (LNG) power generation. LNG power currently serves as an intermediate bridge in the Moon Jae-in administration’s energy transition policy, reducing the share of nuclear power while increasing renewable energy. If LNG plants are all shut down, there will be no backup power to compensate for the intermittency of renewable energy, significantly undermining power supply stability.

Professor Jeong Dong-wook of the Department of Energy Systems Engineering at Chung-Ang University said, "The Committee’s third scenario, which shuts down all LNG power plants, is a scenario aimed at reducing carbon emissions from the transition sector to zero." He added, "However, it is impossible to eliminate LNG entirely while phasing out nuclear power." Professor Yoo Seung-hoon of the Department of Energy Policy at Seoul National University of Science and Technology also said, "We must maintain sufficient facilities to respond to increased electricity demand during heatwaves or cold snaps while pursuing carbon neutrality." He warned, "If we dismantle facilities and reduce fossil fuel dependence too much, it could cause hardship for the public."

The Carbon Neutrality Committee unveiled three 2050 carbon neutrality scenarios on the day. They are: △ Scenario 1, which maximizes the use of existing systems and structures while considering technological development and fuel transitions; △ Scenario 2, which reduces fossil fuels further and cuts greenhouse gases through lifestyle changes; and △ Scenario 3, which boldly reduces fossil fuels and switches all hydrogen supply to green hydrogen for drastic reductions.

Scenarios 1 and 2 are similar to the so-called government plans proposed by a technical task force composed of experts recommended by 11 ministries. This is because the net carbon emissions are 18 million tons (Scenario 1) to 25.8 million tons (Scenario 2) in the government plan, and 18.7 million tons (Scenario 2) to 25.4 million tons in the Committee’s plan.

The difference is that the Committee added a stronger third scenario than the government plan. Scenario 3 is a net-zero emissions scenario (total emissions minus offsets equals zero). The core of achieving 'net zero' is to halt both coal and LNG power generation, making carbon emissions from the transition sector zero.

The Committee proposed shutting down coal and LNG power plants on the premise of establishing legal grounds and compensation measures. However, Scenario 1 includes maintaining seven coal power plants in 2050, similar to the government plan, considering the possibility that these premises may not be met.

Scenario 3 envisions reducing the share of nuclear power generation to 6.1% by 2050 and raising the share of renewable energy generation to 70.8% to fill the gap caused by the closure of coal and LNG plants. A Committee official explained, "It is necessary to achieve a virtuous cycle structure that overcomes higher technological constraints such as securing grid stability to overcome intermittency and expanding energy storage systems." He added, "Significant technological innovations, including improvements in solar power efficiency, scaling up wind power, and increasing utilization rates, must be supported before 2050." The Committee also acknowledged that achieving a 70% share of renewable energy is a challenging task.

Professor Jeong commented, "Even if it is possible to raise the renewable energy share to 70% through technological innovation, power supply may become unstable due to the intermittency of renewable energy at such a high share." He pointed out, "In particular, LNG or nuclear power as backup power to compensate for renewable energy intermittency is essential in this case."

There is another problem with completely shutting down LNG power plants. Currently, most heat supply for district heating depends on LNG power generation. Some regions receive heat from waste incinerators or thermal energy, but these shares are minimal. An industry insider said, "If LNG power generation is completely halted, there is currently no means to supply heat." He added, "Ultimately, the heat supply sources and systems for district heating must all be changed."

The Committee also proposed a plan in Scenario 3 to achieve zero carbon emissions from hydrogen by either importing all hydrogen needed by 2050 or producing hydrogen via water electrolysis (power-to-gas). Hydrogen demand is expected to increase up to 29.2 million tons depending on fuel cells, hydrogen turbines, hydrogen-based steelmaking (steel), and fuel switching using hydrogen heat sources (cement). The Committee projected that supply would be possible if more than 80% is imported and the rest produced via electrolysis. The share of electrolysis in Scenario 3 reaches 20%. The Committee identified Australia, the Middle East, Russia, and North Africa as major import sources and expects that import potential can be secured depending on government efforts. However, if global demand surges, imports from these countries cannot be guaranteed, and technological innovation related to electrolysis remains a challenge.

Estimating the cost burden that the public must bear is essential to adopt a final carbon neutrality scenario, but the Committee did not estimate costs for each scenario when presenting them. Professor Yoo said, "For the public to choose the final scenario, they must be fully informed about the costs and future burdens." He added, "If the public says, ‘The cost burden is too high, so we can’t do it,’ then it won’t be possible; it is only possible if they say, ‘We can bear the burden.’"

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.