the adoption of nuclear power to achieve Indonesian electricity target has been
widely debated. Ignasius Jonan, Indonesian Minister for Energy and Mineral
Resources explains that Indonesia will find it difficult to achieve 23% energy
generation target in 2025, as Indonesia only has 6% electric generation in 2015.
In addition, Indonesia has another target to reduce 41% greenhouse gas
emissions since Indonesia signed Paris Agreement in 2016 (as cited in Effendi,
2017). The issue of whether nuclear power should be adopted is an important
issue because it concerns environmental responsibilities and economic
opportunities to prepare Indonesian future energy. This essay will consider
arguments for banning nuclear power and point to some of the weaknesses with
these views. It will then put forward the reason why the government should
adopt this clean, safe, and effective reactor.
(2005), Director of the Institute of sustainable futures at University Sydney,
contends that nuclear power is an ineffective way to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions because the enrichment process of uranium generates a higher amount
of emissions than gas power stations, which will take 10 years to payback.
However, in TEDx Talks, Shellenberger (2016) shows that nuclear power makes
only a small contribution to greenhouse gases because it only produces a tiny
amount of carbon. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also provides data
that nuclear power only produces 12 grams of CO2/KWH compare to coal that
produces 820 grams/KWH and solar panel 48 grams/KWH (as cited in Shellenberger,
2016). Moreover, it is clear that nuclear power does not create methane, sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions (Bishop, 2006).
head of the Climate and Energy Campaign at Greenpeace Indonesia asserts that
implementing nuclear power in Indonesia can be a very dangerous project. He
claims that Indonesia sits in the area which has a lot of possibilities to hit
by natural disasters (as cited in Yap, 2016). However, it is firmed by Cogswell, Siahaan, R, Ramana, and Tanter (2017)
that since 1954 Indonesia has researched in order to find an appropriate
location to develop nuclear power. By 1975, Indonesia had proposed 14 sites
which are safe from natural disasters (Trajano, 2015). Yogyakarta, for example,
although had been affected by earthquake and volcano eruption, still has a
well-operation until now.
argues that implementing nuclear power is ineffective, due to the cost and
preparation of uranium oxide. Greenpeace (2017), claim that renewable energies
are becoming cheaper. They believe that renewable energy is the most effective
source to supply future energy demand. However, in fact, by 2025 renewable
energy will only produce 8% of electricity (Effendi, 2017). It is clear that
although renewable energy is cheap, it will insufficient to supply energy for
all Indonesian’s population in the future. In addition, Mohamad Nasir,
Indonesian minister of research, technology, and high education, states that
one nuclear reactor can produce electricity for about 5,600 MW (as cited in
Astuti, 2017). It will fit with Indonesian electricity need which is estimated
about 505.719 GW (“Kementerian Energi dan”, 2016). In the short calculation,
Indonesia will only need 12 reactors to supply electricity in every part of
Indonesia by 2025.
conclusion, this essay has demonstrated that currently, the implementation of fossil
fuel as the main energy source is improper with Indonesia commitment in Paris
Agreement 2016. In addition, using renewable energy is not a solution to fulfill
Indonesian electricity demand in 2025. Therefore, as Nasir points out, the time
has come to Indonesia to implement the regulation number 79/2014 about
preparing future energy and make a real contribution to combat global warming
by adopting nuclear power (as cited in Astuti, 2017).