. (I'm not sure I like it myself though)
Nuclear power might be the solution to our dependence on oil. Therefore , for instance General De Gaulle, the French president in the sixties, launched a program of building nuclear power plants. There are over fifty now in the country. And the rest of the ( rich) world followed suit.
Then came Harrisburg (’79). And Chernobyl (’86). Contrary to what had been told, nuclear power proved to be dangerous. Especially Chernobyl was a huge disaster with gigantic impact on public opinion in Europe. For almost twenty years the theme in many mass demonstrations against the use of nuclear power was: “Nuclear power? No thank you!”. Moreover it has been argued there still was ( and is) no reliable solution to the problem of nuclear waste. As a consequence the industry was not fashionable for some decades.
In recent years the economic and vested interests seemed to have bounced back. All over the world energy is badly needed. At the same time oil wells are drying up and the unstable Middle East has become a very unreliable provider. Moreover a unique selling point of nuclear power is it doesn’t contribute to the problem of global warming because is doesn’t ( or only in a very limited volume) produce CO2. Therefore gradually it became a fashionable topic again.
In my own country the present government after all these years plans to build a second nuclear power plant. And Indonesia, having already three reactors in Banten, Yogyakarta and Bandung wanted to build a new one in Muria. In a survey a clear majority approved of such a plant. Though obviously with the NIMBY philosophy in mind (“It’s okay but “Not in my back yard“”). So actually after strong opposition by local people the plan has been abandoned and now the designated location will be Banka Belitung.
I wonder what is going to happen next.
Fukushima seems to top the Chernobyl disaster. And just like the Japanese plants, nuclear power plants in Indonesia are by definition on or near the “Ring of Fire”- that is they will always be in a hazardous situation. If, or rather when, the unthinkable will happen it might cause an unprecedented catastrophe.
The experiences North East of Tokio don’t seem to change the opinions of those who have an economical, professional or bureaucratic stake in the nuclear power plans though. So let’s hope the real crucial people in charge will wisely reconsider their plans, taking into account what is happening in Fukushima. And let’s hope the people of Banka and neighbouring areas will get straightforward information and the opportunity to speak out for themselves.
i have mixed position regarding nuclear power. I do support nuclear to be used as energy source but i think it must be placed outside ring of fire.
I dont understand why they dont pick kalimantan because it’s safe from quake… Soekarno once proposed to move capital to kalimantan however it was rejected.
Perhaps it’s because kalimantan itself still underdeveloped?
Hi Colson,
Nuclear reactors in Bandung (2 MW) and Yogyakarta (100 Kw) are for research purposes. While the one in Serpong (30 MW) is for multipurpose.
Beside Gunung Muria and Bangka-Belitung, our atomic energy agency (BATAN) proposed two other locations i.e. Kalimantan where uranium has been found and no earthquake history, and Gorontalo (northern Sulawesi).
Actually we can do without nuclear power at least for the next two decades that is if we use our gas and coal for ourselves, thus we stop exporting them.
But this seems to be very difficult to expect i.e. the LNG has been contracted with foreign countries for long term, and coal companies (many controlled by Bakrie) seemed to be reluctant to sell only to local buyers, etc.
If we insist on using nuclear power for electricity, more studies should be carried out, including public’s pro and contra, safety of location, highly skilled and disciplined personnel to maintain the reactor continuously.
Who wants a nuclear power plant in his neighbourhood? Only those people who sincerely answer “Yes!” are trustworthy supporters. I’m not one of them
.
@ Calvin: I’ve to admit Chernobyl scared me. I didn’t and don’t trust the reassuring statements made by the nuclear lobby. They lied once, they lied twice , so why should they be honest now? Nuclear power isn’t cheap ( if environmental problems, i.c. waste and safety issues are taken into account), it isn’t safe (dumping waste in third world countries is a crime, putting it in deserted salt mines etc led to huge contamination of subsoil water and, well, the one in a million years catastrophe did factually occur for the third time in forty years) and isn’t a long term solution (there is only a very limited quantity of uranium on earth).
On the other hand there is a energy problem which has to be solved. So here is kind of a dilemma. So like you I have mixed feeling also. Though while you are leaning to “okay”, I’m still leaning emotionally to “No”. But rationally I can’t see how more nuclear power plants can be avoided in the near future..
@ Harry: I tend to agree with you. There hardly is a viable alternative. Sun, wind and water -till this moment their contribution is small. Too small. So, like you said, provided the decisions will be taken only if careful studies by independent experts, all kinds of safety precautions, transparent public communication, good organization, perfect maintenance and excellent personnel,l will be guaranteed a new power plant should be build.Probably….
I do not agree nuclear plant. Indonesia having many natural resources that can be converted into electricity, such as: water, coal, geothermal. It’s time for human kind researching in technology (other than nuclear) to generate electricity.
@ tikno: Water and especially geothermal solutions, rather than coal, might be promising. After all Iceland is an energy autarchy already
– though a very small one 
.
I absolutely agree with you that’s about hight time new sustainable and safe technology will take over oil and nuke power.
I was young when Chernobyl happened but those images stay in my mind. The tsunami in Japan is a prove that the well built nuclear power plants arenn’t resistant to strong nature power. Weighing the plus and minus about the ‘clean’ nuclear energy, I ought to admit on my charts, I see more minus than plus.
@ Lorraine: Obviously You are much younger than I am
. Chernobyl defined my mindset on nuke power. But the lack of viable and adequate alternatives after all these years has caused some doubts. But building nuclear power plants clearlyl is an extraordinary dangerous gamble.
I met kids who are born years after chernobyl and they are sick.. I dont think having a nuclear power is a good option.. go with geothermal/ solar or wind power please!
@ triesti: Of course I do agree with you. I also definitely would prefer the options you mention – geothermal energy is within reach for Indonesia ( though not over here). Wind-energy is possible in ID as well as NL – but it still will solve a substantial part of the demand.
I really hope nuclear plants can be avoided.
PS. Did you professionally meet those Chernobyl victims?
nope, It was a social visit.. we had picnic together (kids and host families) in terschelling back in 2005. Mind you, Chernobyl wasnt as bad as Japan Sendai… I hate to think the fate for these people..
@ triesti: Quite so. I do share your fears concerning the people of Senday.
[...] hopes that Indonesian authorities would seriously consider the situation in Fukushima, Japan before building a nuclear plant And just like the Japanese plants, nuclear [...]
[...] hopes that Indonesian authorities would seriously consider the situation in Fukushima, Japan before building a nuclear plant And just like the Japanese plants, nuclear [...]
[...] hopes that Indonesian authorities would seriously consider the situation in Fukushima, Japan before building a nuclear plant And just like the Japanese plants, nuclear [...]
[...] and Banka Belitung Google Images RSS Foreach Posted by: Admin No [...]