Pros and cons of setting up a nuclear power plant in Indonesia

By Marie

Javanese Muslims oppose nukes

In Indonesia, non-governmental activists are challenging the government’s plans to introduce nuclear energy. While the authorities speak of economically-attractive and climate-neutral options, environmentalists worry about nuclear waste, the danger of accidents and industry’s exemption from liability in the case of damages. All summed up, the debate in Indonesia reflects that in other countries where civil-society bodies demanded more participation in public decision-making when confronted with dangerous technologies.
[ By Edith Koesoemawiria ]
Indonesians are currently discussing the pros and cons of nuclear power. The National Nuclear Power Agency, BATAN, has been promoting the use of this technology for a decade. On its website, it states that “certain parties” have attempted to discourage acceptance of nuclear power by making people believe that Indonesia will build a nuclear plant similar to that in Chernobyl.
For years, the government talked about nuclear options, but did not have any official plans for building facilities. In view of the country’s oil resources, interest in nuclear power was mostly theoretical until 1998. At that time, Indonesia faced a multidimensional crisis, and energy perspectives were re-assessed.
With support from the International Atomic Engergy Agency (IAEA), a national team coordinated by BATAN and the National Technology Agency, BPPT, concluded that nuclear power would become important. Last year the government announced it would invest $ 8 billion in the construction of four 1,000-megawatt reactors by 2016, arguing that otherwise an energy crisis would hit the country’s high-growth regions on the islands of Java, Madura and Bali.
Pelangi, an Indonesian environmental group, does not agree. It expects the islands’ economies to grow at a slower rate than suggested by the government. Moreover, it points out several serious warnings raised by independent experts. These include the costs and risks of nuclear-waste management, which, experts argue, are under-estimated by the government. Nuclear waste remains dangerous for millennia, and even in rich countries like Germany disposal remains an unsolved problem. The environmentalists also stress that Indonesian islands are prone to be hit by earthquakes and tsunamis, which would, of course, affect the safety of nuclear facilities. “Quake in the Java Sea confirms that the area is unsuitable for a nuclear Power Plant,” was thus the headline of a press release by WALHI (Friends of the Earth Indonesia) in August.
Accordingly, the opposition groups are critical of legislation that exempts the nuclear industry from responsibility in cases of damages due to natural or human-made disasters, conflicts or accidents caused by third parties. Again, the exemption of nuclear industries from such liabilities is a phenomenon well known in other countries too.
The government sticks to its stand, insisting that nuclear energy is cheap and would lessen the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels. According to its calculations, up-to-date nuclear plants will generate electric power at $ 0,015 per kilowatt-hour, almost half the cost of fossil energy and only a third of what electricity consumers pay in Indonesia. Moreover, BATAN as the implementing agency stresses that the technology is safe as well as climate-neutral, and that the IAEA will inspect all projects. Moreover, construction permits would depend on strict supervision and regulation. The underlying message is: leave the matter to professional scientists and engineers.
However, there is reason not to trust officialdom’s experts. In case of disasters, relief and compensations for victims typically remain very poor in Indonesia. For instance, people remember a drilling accident on Java. It caused a mudslide that buried several villages. The affected people are still in dire straits long after the event. There recently was an explosion at a conventional power plant, but the authorities did not publish any official report.
Environmentalists are therefore upset about the low safety standards as well as government agencies’ non-transparency. On top of that, they worry about corruption. Bribe-induced mismanagement, after all, is what makes electricity expensive for Indonesian consumers. Environmental organisations under MANI, the society against nuclear power in Indonesia, therefore promote popular participation in decision-making, and do not only raise awareness of the fortes and deficits of particular technologies.
In early September, members of the Nahdatul Ulama, Indonesia’s largest Muslim organisation, convened in Jepara in central Java. Muslim scholars discussed the viability of nuclear power, examining in detail the arguments of the government and the environmentalists. In the end, they agreed that nuclear power has pros and cons, but that the disadvantages of a facility in Java would outweigh the benefits for the people. Assuming other energy sources can be explored, they decided nuclear energy was “haram” (forbidden by the Muslim faith) on Java’s Muria peninsula. That something can be of some use, they said, does not mean it is necessarily a blessing.
Cross-border concerns
Concerns about nuclear power do not only exist in Indonesia. In late September, Indonesia’s Centre for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS, and the Singapore Institute of International Affairs, SIIA, convened the 1st Regional Workshop on Environment, Energy and Nuclear Safety in Jakarta. It was meant to provide an input to the ASEAN meeting in Singapore in November.
The Chairman’s summary statement tackles several nuclear issues. It states, among other things, that governments should aim to promote sufficient, safe and viable energy to improve the welfare of the people in general. For that purpose, it is said, energy policies should prioritise
– increased energy efficiency in the generation and use of energy;
– investment in alternative and renewable energy, including solar, wave and geothermal sources, especially where there are rich potential sources of such energy;
– opening markets to investment for exploring, using and generating energy, for greater efficiencies and new technologies; and
– consider “micro energy” policies and infrastructure to generate and make power accessible to all communities, including those further away from the capital.
The document warns that nuclear plants create many uncertainties in terms of costs, safety, uranium supply and waste management. In view of the risks, this technology should therefore be considered only a last option for energy. The economic viability of the technology is also said to be uncertain, as, for instance, the cost of uranium may yet escalate.
Moreover, the statement speaks of the danger of “weaponisation”. For instance, terrorists could attack nuclear facilities. Once again, the threat of natural disasters is emphasised. ASEAN members are urged to exercise the greatest caution and all possible measures to ensure safety and security.
As for the projects planned in Indonesia, however, the country’s Parliament and the IAEA have already approved first designs for a nuclear power plant. The IAEA has granted $ 1.34 million for technical assistance. Bureaucracy and unforeseen setup-costs, however, may still stand in the way of a nuclear future in Indonesia – and so may civil-society opposition. History of other countries teaches us that the struggle over nuclear energy can go on for many years.

 
Up?
0

Asia’s tigers eye nuclear future

By Marie


Below is an except from an Asia Times Online article "Asia’s tigers eye nuclear future" by Geoffrey Gunn.

annotations are typed in italics.

Top down versus bottom up

In 2005 Indonesia, the world’s largest producer of natural gas and long an oil exporter, announced that it was proceeding with the construction of the country’s first nuclear power plant. This is to be sited on the Miura peninsula, actually the slopes of a dormant volcano, on the northeast coast of central Java.

Originally announced in 1995 under the Suharto regime (and the hobby horse of future President then Minister of Technology B J Habibie), but shelved owing to public opposition as much as to the effects of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, the project involves construction of four 1,000 megawatt plants, down from the 12 originally planned. Construction is to begin in 2010 with completion slated for 2017. A site on Madura island has also been identified for a separate reactor. Reportedly, a new constellation of business and political figures are behind the enthusiasm for Madura, including vice president Yusuf Kalla.

Nevertheless, criticism of the project has emerged from legislators, academics, a broad section of public opinion and vocal local residents. Unstable geology and environmental concerns are stated as reasons for objection, while critics also contend that Indonesia is blessed with many alternative untapped sources of power including thermal. Such vocal environmental groups as WALHI, or the Indonesian Forum for Environment, argue that even a small radioactive leak could potentially affect tens of millions of people in one of the most densely populated places in the world. [13] This showed that creating a nuclear power plant had invited much criticism and controversy in the country and the world. All these criticism are based on mainly the negative effects and dangers of a nuclear power plant. These negative effects do not only target Indonesia alone, but also other countries in the world, like for example, a small radioactive leak could pose as a hazard to other densely populated areas. Furthermore, Indonesia need not have to depend on a nuclear power plant for a source of power, as Indonesia ahd other alternative, less hazardous, sources of power. This brought even more criticism from local people and other environmental groups in other countries.

In June 2007, some 4,000 demonstrators against the project rallied at the central Javanese site, including a local chapter of Greenpeace. In October, 100 clerics and scholars from the largest Muslim organization in Indonesia, Nahdatul Ulama, descended on the site and, after deliberations, issued a fatwa declaring the Muria site haram or forbidden, albeit more on pragmatic than strictly religious grounds. [14]

According to a Stockholm International Peace Research Institute SIPRI report, Indonesia has largely succeeded in creating an "indigenous fuel cycle". Although conducted only at the laboratory level, evidence indicates that Indonesia is active in uranium milling, processing and conversion. Its nuclear research program spans five decades. Three research reactors are in operation with a fourth planned. Indonesia hosts at least two uranium mines capable of supplying sufficient yellowcake to service domestic needs for planned reactors. While Indonesia operates under IAEA safeguards, SIPRI’s stated concern is that given the questionable security of the management of nuclear waste, "it is conceivable that terrorist organizations could utilize its spent waste in a radiological device ('dirty bomb')". [15] This paragraph further addresses the problems that a nuclear power plant could bring, like a possible weapon for terrorist organisations.

Perhaps of greater concern is the combination of unstable geological conditions and dubious safeguards to control the technology. While Indonesia appears to be committed to the peaceful development of nuclear energy, an indigenous route to power plant construction is not in the cards. In August 2003, Indonesia signed a 10-year nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia, which includes construction of a research reactor and a power reactor. General Electric, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Areva of France and Toshiba are all also lining up as potential contractors. Back in 1994, Japanese consultants conducting a feasibility study cleared the way. Indonesian firm Medco Energi Internasional, with links to Vice President Kalla, has signed a preliminary contract with Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Co Ltd to build the plant. But as Australian journalist Tom Hyland reports, "Details of the deal are secret, adding to unease in a country where corruption remains endemic." He adds that even though power generation has devolved to the province level, nuclear power remains the last of the Suharto-era big projects imposed from above. [16]

Back in 1994 major criticism of the project came from Australian experts in the field (although not the Australian government) owing to concerns of a potential accident, especially as monsoon winds would expose northern Australia to radioactive fallout. On the other hand, it would not be surprising if Indonesia had concerns that Australia would acquire or produce nuclear weapons, especially as successive conservative governments held to that option through until the early 1970s, a debate revisited in recent years. [17]

As Richard Tanter has summarized, "The consequences of Indonesia and Australia pursuing their somewhat non-rational approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle could have very negative consequences for people who are already suspicious of each other." [18] This showed that the writer believes that the nuclear power plant would add on to the conflicts between countries due to suspicions, and thus the building of nuclear power plant should not be encouraged.

From: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/JB15Ae03.html

 
Up?
0

By jiali

New Research (II) - Reasons to construct a nuclear power plant in Java

Apparently, the lack of energy constitutes one of the key problems hampering economic development in Indonesia. There is a growing demand for energy if Indonesia wants to sustain its economic growth. The demand for electricity, is understandable and the need to secure a long-term electricity supply is more pressing in Java. It is known that after 2016, Java and Bali alone will need an additional 1,500 to 2,000MW annually. Indonesia desperately needs new sources of electricity to meet rising demand. It wants to develop a nuclear power plant on Java island despite concerns by environmental groups that country's frequent earthquakes makes nuclear power unsafe.

Motivation
Indonesia has various reasons for wanting to build nuclear reactors:

1. Domestic energy consumption in Indonesia is growing rapidly.

2. Nuclear energy will reduce Indonesia's dependence on its limited resources such as petroleum, a non-renewable resource. Indonesia, an OPEC member and long-time net oil exporter became a net importer of oil at the beginning of 2005. Nuclear energy, like coal, natural gas, and biofuel may allow Indonesia to diversify from petroleum.

3. If domestic energy consumption can be provided through nuclear energy, it may be possible to export more oil, resulting in a rise in economy for Indonesia.

4. Producing other renewable energy from other sources, such as wind power and solar power, are far more
expensive.

5. Japan, like Indonesia, earthquakes frequently occur, has nuclear reactors.

6. The emission of harmful gases can be reduced.

Note: The construction of a nuclear power plant in Java, Indonesia is at a high risk of being a white elephant and one precedent here is the reactor that was built in the Philippines at the cost of 2 billion dollars and has never generated a single watt of useful electricity due to safety concerns over it. Also, Indonesia currently does not have any significant nuclear industry at the moment, except for a small research reactor which does not produce much waste. Thus, it can be said that Indonesia has very little experience with managing waste. They do not have any operating nuclear waste repository so one thing that is certainly an issue in Australia is a possibility that Australia might be asked not only to sell uranium to Indonesia but also to take back the high-level nuclear waste.

Links:
An Interview
Newspaper Article

 
Up?
0
Older Posts | Newer Posts