South Korea has announced plans to construct two large nuclear reactors by 2038 as part of its 11th Basic Plan for Electricity Supply and Demand. Climate Minister Kim Sung-whan confirmed that the construction process will begin with site selection, which is expected to take five to six months, followed by a bidding process starting soon. The reactors are targeted for completion between 2037 and 2038.

This initiative aims to address increasing energy demands and reflects significant public support for nuclear power, with recent polls indicating that approximately 80% of respondents believe nuclear energy is necessary and about 60% support the construction plan. The government also plans to deploy South Korea's first commercial small modular reactor (SMR) by 2035.

The decision comes after a period of uncertainty regarding the future of nuclear energy in South Korea, particularly following changes in government policy. Initially, there were calls for public debate on the necessity and safety of new nuclear power plants (NPPs). However, rising electricity needs driven by advancements in artificial intelligence and electric vehicles have led policymakers to reaffirm their commitment to building these facilities.

Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co., Ltd., which is state-run, will initiate a bidding process to identify potential host cities or towns for the reactors by 2027. The ministry expects to secure regulatory approval from the nuclear safety watchdog by 2031. This plan is part of a broader strategy aimed at reducing carbon emissions within the energy sector while ensuring a stable supply of electricity for future demands.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

The article discusses South Korea's plans to construct two large-scale nuclear power plants by 2038, highlighting government policy shifts and public sentiment towards nuclear energy. However, it lacks actionable information for the average reader. There are no clear steps or choices presented that a person can take in response to this news. For instance, while it mentions the construction of new reactors and public support for nuclear energy, it does not provide guidance on how individuals might engage with or influence energy policy.

In terms of educational depth, the article provides some context about changing attitudes towards nuclear energy in South Korea but remains largely superficial. It mentions statistics regarding public opinion but does not delve into why these opinions have shifted or explain the implications of these changes in detail. The absence of deeper analysis means that readers may not fully understand the complexities surrounding nuclear energy and its role in South Korea's electricity supply.

Regarding personal relevance, while the topic is significant on a national level, its direct impact on an individual’s daily life is limited unless they reside near proposed plant sites or work in related industries. The information does not address how these developments might affect citizens' safety or financial decisions directly.

The article lacks a public service function as well; it does not provide warnings or safety guidance related to nuclear power that could help individuals act responsibly. Instead, it primarily recounts government plans without offering context about potential risks or benefits associated with nuclear energy.

There are no practical steps offered within the article for readers to follow. It simply presents facts without giving advice on how to navigate potential changes resulting from new policies.

In terms of long-term impact, while the construction of new reactors may influence future electricity supply and environmental policies, there is little actionable insight provided for readers looking to plan ahead based on this information.

Emotionally and psychologically, the article does not create fear but also fails to offer clarity or constructive thinking regarding what these developments mean for society at large.

Finally, there are elements that could be seen as clickbait; phrases like "large-scale" and "first commercial small modular reactor" may attract attention but do not contribute substantial value beyond initial interest.

To add real value that this article failed to provide: individuals interested in understanding their local energy landscape should consider engaging with community forums discussing energy policy. They can also educate themselves about renewable versus non-renewable sources by researching reliable resources online or attending local town hall meetings where such topics may be discussed. Additionally, staying informed about governmental decisions through reputable news outlets can help citizens understand how such developments might affect their lives over time. Lastly, practicing critical thinking when evaluating different sources of information will enable better decision-making regarding personal energy consumption habits and advocacy efforts related to sustainable practices.

The text uses the phrase "the government will proceed with this construction" which implies a sense of inevitability and authority. This wording can create a feeling that the decision has been made without room for public dissent. It suggests that the government's plans are final, potentially downplaying any opposition or concerns from citizens who may not support nuclear power. This choice of words helps to reinforce the government's control over energy policy.

The statement "approximately 80% of respondents believe nuclear power is necessary" presents a strong majority opinion, which can sway readers to think that supporting nuclear power is widely accepted and logical. However, it does not provide context about who these respondents are or what specific questions were asked in the polls. By focusing on this high percentage, it may lead readers to overlook significant dissenting views or concerns about nuclear energy.

The text mentions that President Lee Jae Myung initially favored renewable energy sources but later acknowledged "that building new facilities from scratch is unrealistic." This framing could be seen as gaslighting because it suggests that his earlier position was naive or impractical without fully explaining why he changed his stance. It shifts responsibility away from him and implies that external factors forced this change rather than acknowledging any internal conflict within his administration regarding energy policy.

When discussing former President Moon Jae-in's phaseout policy, the text states he faced "significant opposition from industry groups." This phrase could imply that Moon's policies were unpopular solely due to external pressures rather than addressing any potential merits or public support for reducing reliance on nuclear energy. The wording minimizes any broader societal debate around nuclear power by suggesting it was merely an issue of industry pushback.

The phrase "recent polls indicate" creates an impression of current relevance and urgency regarding public opinion on nuclear power. However, it does not clarify when these polls were conducted or how representative they are of the entire population's views over time. This lack of detail can mislead readers into believing there is overwhelming support for immediate action without considering changing sentiments or historical context.

The text states South Korea operates 26 nuclear units contributing "over one-third" of its electricity production share in recent years. While this fact highlights reliance on nuclear energy, it lacks discussion about potential risks associated with such dependency or alternative sources being considered. By emphasizing only the contribution rate without addressing safety concerns or environmental impacts, it presents a one-sided view favorable to continuing investment in nuclear infrastructure.

The text conveys a range of emotions surrounding South Korea's plans for nuclear power plant construction. One prominent emotion is optimism, reflected in the government's commitment to proceed with the construction as part of the 11th Basic Plan for Electricity Supply and Demand. This optimism is underscored by Climate Minister Kim Sung-whan’s confirmation of the project, suggesting a forward-looking approach that aims to address energy needs while embracing technological advancements like small modular reactors (SMRs). The strength of this emotion is moderate to strong, as it serves to inspire confidence in the government's ability to manage energy supply effectively.

Conversely, there is an underlying tension or anxiety regarding public opinion and past hesitations about nuclear energy. The mention of previous pauses in construction during President Lee Jae Myung's administration highlights a fear of public backlash and uncertainty about nuclear power's acceptance. This fear is somewhat subdued but still significant, as it reflects the complexities involved in balancing public sentiment with energy policy decisions.

Additionally, there is a sense of urgency conveyed through phrases like "bidding process expected to start soon" and targeted completion dates for the reactors. This urgency suggests that timely action is necessary to meet future energy demands and indicates that delays could have negative consequences. The emotional weight here serves to motivate stakeholders and readers alike towards supporting swift action on nuclear projects.

The text also evokes pride through its acknowledgment of South Korea's existing operational nuclear units contributing over one-third of electricity production. This pride reinforces national capability and technological advancement while framing nuclear power as an integral part of South Korea’s energy landscape.

These emotions collectively guide readers' reactions by fostering sympathy towards government efforts while simultaneously creating concern about potential opposition from citizens who may be wary of nuclear energy due to safety issues or environmental impacts. By presenting polls indicating strong support for nuclear power among respondents—approximately 80% believing it necessary—the text seeks to build trust in governmental decisions based on public consensus.

The writer employs persuasive techniques such as emphasizing statistics from polls and contrasting past administrations’ policies with current initiatives. By highlighting changing attitudes toward nuclear energy, particularly under President Lee’s leadership after his predecessor’s phaseout policy reversal, the narrative creates a sense of evolution in thought that encourages readers to reconsider their views on nuclear power.

Furthermore, emotionally charged language around "necessary" and "unrealistic" choices enhances urgency while framing decisions within a context where immediate action seems imperative for future stability. These tools amplify emotional impact by steering attention towards both progress made and challenges faced within South Korea’s evolving energy strategy, ultimately aiming to persuade readers toward supporting continued investment in nuclear technology as essential for meeting national electricity demands responsibly.