Despite the nuclear energy is not a must, but people should know that Indonesia can no longer hinge on oil which now accounts for 51.66% of energy supply. Indonesia is not the oil-rich country anymore. In the mean time, the usage of non-fossil energy (hydropower and geothermal) constitutes only 5%. If Indonesia can’t shift its energy structure, it will jeopardize its economy due to the unstable supply and price of oil.
After carrying out simulations of supply and demand of energy to get the best combination, the government has planned to decrease oil fuel share in its energy mix, while increase coal, gas and renewable energy including nuclear power. The government envisions national energy mix in 2025 will consist of coal, gas oil, and renewable energy at the level of 33%, 30%, 20% and 17%, respectively. And the presidential decree stipulates that nuclear power plant will provide 2% of Indonesia’s energy demand in 2025.
The policy is reasonable and so does the option of nuclear power. Furthermore, there are 3 (three) candidate sites of nuclear power plant, namely: Muria Peninsula (Central Java), Banten (West Java) and Bangka Belitung. As yet, only the people of Central Java oppose conspicuously the idea. In contrast, Bangka Belitung council supports it.
However, the recent Japan’s nuclear incident has made the nuclear policy look bad. Now more people or institutions clamor against the nuclear energy and ask the government to abandon the nuclear energy policy. The main reason to reject the idea is either Indonesians is not ready with such sophisticated and risky technology or nuclear power plant is too danger given the catastrophes in Chernobyl and Fukushima.
In this case, I am on neutral ground. However, many accounts of the downside of nuclear power plant are exacerbated and in fact, the renewable energy sources are still pipe dreams for mass production.
First, nuclear power plant is not the most dangerous compared to other more common energy source such as coal. The nuclear power plant disasters are rare. The worst nuclear disaster was in Chernobyl claimed “only” 28 lives. Do you know that in China, 2,442 workers were killed in 1,401 coal mining incidents in 2010, while in the United States, 18 coal miners died in 2009?
Somebody may dispute about 6,000 cases of tyroid cancer caused by Chernobyl disaster. Recently the US Environment Protection Agency rules the limit of mercury and other toxins resulted in coal power plant that will prevent 17,000 premature death and 11,000 heart attacks a year.
This brings us to Josef Stalin who said: “Death of one man is a tragedy. Death of a million is a statistic." Statistically, nuclear power plants are safer than coal power plants which have largest share of world’s energy supply at 41%.
Nuclear power has a bad association with atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki which hundreds of thousands of people were dead, not to mention the science fiction of radiation-creates-Godzilla. Surely, the failure of nuclear power plant is possible but the incidence is definitely few.
Second, nuclear power has been inevitable at least for the next decades to satisfy the world’s energy demand. Of course, the renewable energy, particularly biofuel, solar and wind energy make headway, but in real life they won’t be enough.
Finally, Indonesia does need variety of energy to speed up the economic development while reducing the energy cost. And each energy source has its own advantages and disadvantages. Nuclear energy is neither the best nor the worst. Accordingly, the government must put this option on the table along with others.
* * * * *
Source:
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/business/energy-environment/21green.html?_r=1
2. Nuclear Energy Development In Indonesia, Achmad S. Sastratenaya & Ariyanto Sudi, Center for Nuclear Energy Development, BATAN
No comments:
Post a Comment