Future Energy Pathways

[John Fedup]

Yes, in NZ being anti nuclear is almost a religion.

I do have some problems with fission nuclear power plants in Indonesia and it's from a geological natural hazards point of view. You have:

• two super volcanoes, Toba and Tambora in Indonesia,
• you are on the intersection of multiple tectonic plates, so you have the full gamut of the geological phenomena present except astrogeology.
• From a natural hazards point of view you are subject to:
  • large earthquakes,
  • tsunami,
  • volcanic eruptions,
  • landslips,
  • inundation, and
  • typhoons.

We all saw what happened as a result of the 2011 Tōhoku Great Quake and Tsunami that struck Japan on 11/3/2011. It caused the Fukushima nuclear reactor incident, with the area still irradiated and off limits 11 years later. Indonesia is as seismically active, if not more than Japan and definitely far more volcanically active than Japan, although from memory Mt Fuji is a super volcano. So if, for arguments sake, you are intent upon building fission nuclear power plants in Indonesia, how certain are you that you can engineer them to survive your environmental hazards without irradiating everyone nearby?

I know that fission nuclear power generation plants would meet NZ's generation requirements, but that's heresy here and I'd be burned at the stake for suggesting it. However I have the same reservations about it here that I do for Indonesia. We are a geological active country with:

• plenty of earthquakes,
• one super volcano (Taupo),
• our largest city (Auckland) built on a volcanic field of 54 volcanoes none of which are extinct, the last erupted 500 years ago, and
• we have one of the fastest growing mountain ranges in the world (Southern Alps).

So there is really nowhere we could place a fission nuclear power plant that it wouldn't be impacted by a geological hazard. Although some of us South Islanders reckon they could build it inside one of the Auckland volcanic cones

In both cases it all comes down to risk assessment and what can be done to mitigate the risk in order to make the project financially viable. This is not just to construct and operate, but also when a natural disaster occurs and things turn to rubbish, because the last thing anyone wants is another Fukushima or Chernobyl sized disaster to clean up.

Surely the geothermal option is the best way for green energy in NZ? Perhaps this is at least partly an option for Indonesia.

 

[swerve]

Fukushima (1) had inadequate tsunami protection & (2) didn't follow the right emergency procedures because the operators were worried about the cost. Like Chernobyl, it was avoidable. Whether it's worth taking the chance of people making the same mistakes elsewhere is certainly a valid argument against putting nuclear plants in seismically active areas, but except in the riskiest locations (e.g. where a volcano might erupt, or on a fault which might move) it should be possible to make them safe. But people do fuck up . . .

 

[Ananda]

have some problems with fission nuclear power plants in Indonesia and it's from a geological natural hazards point of view.

The most geological stable region in Indonesia is Kalimantan/Borneo. That's one of the big reason why present administration wants to relocate administrative capital to Kalimantan.



Borneo/Kalimantan as you can see is the only big island in Indonesia that's not cross by tectonic plate. Also Uranium deposits found in Kalimantan. For that if Indonesia goes nuclear power, then Kalimantan is the area that become priority choice. Other choice is Islands of Bangka-Belitung across Sumatra east coast in Java Sea. It's also consider tectonic stable area, and as it's heavy in Tin deposits, thus also has big mozanite deposits. This make the area potential for Thorium reactor sites.

However just I wrote on previous post, what's the alternative for high volume power generation if we take out Coal and Oil. Technology wise are only Gas and Nuke that can provide adequate alternatives.

ASEAN nations that try to look Nuke alternatives outside Indonesia are Vietnam, Philipines and Thailand (Malaysia as far as I know still shown less attraction). All are countries that will foumd huge increase demand for energy im foreseable future.

Perhaps this is at least partly an option for Indonesia.

Geothermal is not just an option in Indonesia, but already part of Energy Strategy. However with the projected growth on energy demand, it is simply not enough. This from a country that sit in the ring of fire.

Whether it's worth taking the chance of people making the same mistakes elsewhere is certainly a valid argument against putting nuclear plants in seismically active areas,

That's what the arguments coming from Pro Nuclear speakers. The problematic accidents mostly coming from 60's tech reactors. The advancement on Nuclear Tech and Radioactive Waste Mgt already much more advance.

However at least for Indonesia, any nuclear power plant will still located on stable tectonic area, to reduce chances of natural disaster risk.

For me, in the end it's all back what's the alternative in long run that can provide power generating capabilities in term of capacities and economics as alternative from Coal, Oil and eventualy Gas. There are many 'green' alternatives being put, however their power generating capacities just not in league with Gas and Nuke.

 

[ngatimozart]

Surely the geothermal option is the best way for green energy in NZ? Perhaps this is at least partly an option for Indonesia.

In NZ the geothermal areas used for electricity generation are in the Taupo Volcanic Zone and not enough use is made of it. It definitely would be great for supplying electricity to Auckland until Taupo blows its stack, which is not supposed to be for a long time yet. However some of the green mafia believe that geothermal is harmful to the environment or something. It's hard to keep up these days.

 

[Ananda]

Ecological Services | Energy Technologies and Impacts | Geothermal Energy

However some of the green mafia believe that geothermal is harmful to the environment or something. It's hard to keep up these days.

Their arguments seems base on the arguments that drill anything from Earth is bad for environment. Those are coming from same guys that opposed any large hydro power plant.

For those guys seems only two type of power acceptable for them, Solar and Wind. They don't care if those sources can not provide enough energy generating capacities for current global demands. In the head for those 'greennuts', if not enough and human that have to reduce energy usage. So in their mind, we have to go back using bicycles for all our land transportation and wind sails for ships, while we have to ban flights.

They don't care that the negative effect of Geothermal plants can be minimise and localise as the article I put above.

 

[John Fedup]

In NZ the geothermal areas used for electricity generation are in the Taupo Volcanic Zone and not enough use is made of it. It definitely would be great for supplying electricity to Auckland until Taupo blows its stack, which is not supposed to be for a long time yet. However some of the green mafia believe that geothermal is harmful to the environment or something. It's hard to keep up these days.

Geothermal harmful to the environment…..that’s a new one for me. Some of these green types likely only think peddle power for gensets is the way forward.

 

[tonnyc]

As mentioned before, there are places in Indonesia that are pretty safe. Kalimantan is the big one, but when I say big, I mean BIG. The Indonesian part of Borneo is about the same size as France. The northern part of Sumatra and the Riau Islands are also pretty safe. They're right next to Singapore and Singapore's pretty safe, no?

There are two proposals that I know of, one envisions building a nuclear power plants somewhere in Kalimantan, the exact site to be decided later, and since Kalimantan will eventually be united into a single grid (right now I think they're still three separate grids), it doesn't matter whether the power plant is on west, east, or southern Kalimantan. The other one envisions building a nuclear power plant in one of the empty islands near Bangka and connecting it with undersea cable to Sumatra. Neither has been approved since currently the government puts nuclear energy as something to do from 2040 onward. A mistake in my opinion, but that's the current official position.

Indonesia needs a lot of energy. Everything will be used. We'll use hydropower. We'll use geothermal. We'll use wind power. We'll use solar power. We'll use ocean currents, tidal energy, everything. Name it, and we'll use it. We will also use nuclear energy and palm oil and fossil fuel because otherwise it won't be enough. The last part is something even Indonesians have trouble believing, but I've read studies by PLN (State Grid Corp of Indonesia) and BPPT (Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology) and ESDM (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources) and their projected energy demand for 2050-2060 agree that it will be huge. And if we switch to electric vehicles and electric stoves and so on, most of this energy needs will be in the form of electricity.

It's hard for people to envision just how much energy 300 million people (the expected population around 2050) living on a middle-class standard will consume. Projections on how much power capacity we'll need by 2060 varies from 240-300 GigaWatt. Right now our power capacity is about 60 GW, mostly from coal. Where's the rest coming from? What will replace the existing coal and natural gas power plants?

Even with nuclear energy I don't see any way that Indonesia can fully discard fossil fuel. We'll have to use coal and natural gas still and just apply carbon capture to it (or else weasel out of our carbon reduction commitment). But if we don't use nuclear energy, we'll end up using that much more fossil fuel. There just isn't enough renewable energy for our 300 million people.

 

[ngatimozart]

As mentioned before, there are places in Indonesia that are pretty safe. Kalimantan is the big one, but when I say big, I mean BIG. The Indonesian part of Borneo is about the same size as France. The northern part of Sumatra and the Riau Islands are also pretty safe. They're right next to Singapore and Singapore's pretty safe, no?

There are two proposals that I know of, one envisions building a nuclear power plants somewhere in Kalimantan, the exact site to be decided later, and since Kalimantan will eventually be united into a single grid (right now I think they're still three separate grids), it doesn't matter whether the power plant is on west, east, or southern Kalimantan. The other one envisions building a nuclear power plant in one of the empty islands near Bangka and connecting it with undersea cable to Sumatra. Neither has been approved since currently the government puts nuclear energy as something to do from 2040 onward. A mistake in my opinion, but that's the current official position.

Indonesia needs a lot of energy. Everything will be used. We'll use hydropower. We'll use geothermal. We'll use wind power. We'll use solar power. We'll use ocean currents, tidal energy, everything. Name it, and we'll use it. We will also use nuclear energy and palm oil and fossil fuel because otherwise it won't be enough. The last part is something even Indonesians have trouble believing, but I've read studies by PLN (State Grid Corp of Indonesia) and BPPT (Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology) and ESDM (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources) and their projected energy demand for 2050-2060 agree that it will be huge. And if we switch to electric vehicles and electric stoves and so on, most of this energy needs will be in the form of electricity.

It's hard for people to envision just how much energy 300 million people (the expected population around 2050) living on a middle-class standard will consume. Projections on how much power capacity we'll need by 2060 varies from 240-300 GigaWatt. Right now our power capacity is about 60 GW, mostly from coal. Where's the rest coming from? What will replace the existing coal and natural gas power plants?

Even with nuclear energy I don't see any way that Indonesia can fully discard fossil fuel. We'll have to use coal and natural gas still and just apply carbon capture to it (or else weasel out of our carbon reduction commitment). But if we don't use nuclear energy, we'll end up using that much more fossil fuel. There just isn't enough renewable energy for our 300 million people.

There are offshore wind power developments happening such as the East Anglia 1 Offshore Development in the UK which is showing promise. I think that used in conjunction with other generation methods this could be an option. A floating wind turbine in deep water is probably the better option given that Indonesia is in a seismically active region. Being in deep water any tsunami generated will not have impacts upon it apart from a change in ambient water level by a metre or two. They can also handle typhoons which are common in the region. The shore infrastructure would be the weak point but if it was built inland on high ground and engineered to respond to and survive earthquakes it has a good chance of survival. The cables from the offshore collector could be buried in a trench from about the 15 - 20m isobath (depth contour) until they reach the onshore facility. That should protect them from any damage. Of all the wind turbine technologies it's the most expensive, but the one that is guaranteed the most wind.

If you used enough nuclear power plants combined with other alternative energy generation sources you could forgo fossil fuels. How extensive are your geothermal sources? Are they relative easy to access? If they are, then you have a really good source for power generation and we have the technology for that. You encourage the middle and wealthy classes to install and use solar power. It'll pay for itself relatively quickly and they won't have to pay power bills. Secondly, if they generate excess electricity they could sell it back to the power company, which could be a nicer little earner for them over time.

 

[vonnoobie]

In regards to geothermal energy one thing that is actively being looked at is supercritical fluids. These are much deeper wells (as much as 10+ km in depth) that aim to capture temperatures in excess of 374 degrees Celsius and much higher pressure that turns the water supercritical allowing up to 10 times more energy for the same amount of liquid compared to normal geothermal wells.

As for offshore wind according to the global wind Atlas even offshore there isn't a massive amount of potential for wind at least efficient wind. With 5m/s wind speed or more being the ideal speed to my knowledge for the most part that leaves the Java sea for 5m/s + wind speeds and in the Indian Ocean along the southern end of Sumatra and northern end of Java.

Also remains a technical capability of 75,000Mw of hydropower according to hydropower.org for Indonesia.

 

[Ananda]

remains a technical capability of 75,000Mw of hydropower according to hydropower.org for Indonesia.

Medco Power Indonesia

What hydropower that being pursue (at least to financial institutions for financing) is what being call Mini Hydropower. Those are generating 5MW -10MW in average. It's usually costing USD 6 mio - USD 12 mio in Investment. Large Hydropower project usualy got much problem from enviromental activist, but the most problem come to relative large investment.

Government also try to entices Banks and Financial Institutions for financing Micro Hydropower, which usually for small rural area that have approximities with small stream. This kind of facility generating 100kw - 500kw with investment in average USD 200K - USD 500K. Usualy it is financing by Bank and Financial Insitutions that specialise in Micro Financing.

Those are the so call green financing that being look at by most Banks in Indonesia, as the State Power company (PLN) has more or less already agreed upon the pricing on hydropower. While the wind power usually Banks still stay away considering the level of Investment did not match the average Pricing that PLN want to take.

How extensive are your geothermal sources? Are they relative easy to access? If they are, then you have a really good source for power generation and we have the technology for that.

Tonnyc perhaps knows better in this. He seems in the circle of Energy communities. While I'm looking more on the green power project that already got appetite from Banks and Financial Institutions.

Despite drives from Government and Regulators for Green Financing (and it happens globally). However Financial Institutions appetite to provide financing from Green Power is varied from each nations. Is all back to how efficients each power generations system toward providing right price of electricities that the Power Company want to take. It is also related on how effcient the power grid infrastructures on that area. The more effcient existing power grid ussualy related to more mature market, thus more efficient cost structures to Power Company.

This is in the end will relate on what type of Green Energy can be take by the market demand. There's incentives by Power Company for individuals to installed solar panels un their houses, to resale back toward power company and then creditted toward their monthly power bills. However the take out is not that high so far yet.

In the end even nearly all population want to installed solar panel in their houses, it's still not going to be enough for existing tech on green energy to compensate the lost of Coal and Oil. That's why Nuclear has to be included in the mix.

 

[tonnyc]

There are offshore wind power developments happening such as the East Anglia 1 Offshore Development in the UK which is showing promise. I think that used in conjunction with other generation methods this could be an option. A floating wind turbine in deep water is probably the better option given that Indonesia is in a seismically active region. Being in deep water any tsunami generated will not have impacts upon it apart from a change in ambient water level by a metre or two. They can also handle typhoons which are common in the region. The shore infrastructure would be the weak point but if it was built inland on high ground and engineered to respond to and survive earthquakes it has a good chance of survival. The cables from the offshore collector could be buried in a trench from about the 15 - 20m isobath (depth contour) until they reach the onshore facility. That should protect them from any damage. Of all the wind turbine technologies it's the most expensive, but the one that is guaranteed the most wind.

If you used enough nuclear power plants combined with other alternative energy generation sources you could forgo fossil fuels. How extensive are your geothermal sources? Are they relative easy to access? If they are, then you have a really good source for power generation and we have the technology for that. You encourage the middle and wealthy classes to install and use solar power. It'll pay for itself relatively quickly and they won't have to pay power bills. Secondly, if they generate excess electricity they could sell it back to the power company, which could be a nicer little earner for them over time.

Most studies I read says that Indonesia's wind power potential is relatively small compared to the size of the country. The coriolis effect is such that the strongest winds are northeast of Moluccas or in the Indian Ocean to our southwest but not much on Indonesia itself. IIRC there is off-shore wind potential about 100 km offshore southwest of Java island but given the way the monsoons work, there are significant periods of dead wind when the season changes and the wind direction flips. I think it's about 1.5 months of doldrums.

Geothermal resources are HARD to access. PLN (State Grid) does this long term planning report and IIRC the amount that is deemed as economically feasible is 3-5 GW. The amount that is deemed technically feasible is higher at around 10 GW. The report doesn't say why so much of them are not feasible, but I posit that it's because they're mostly near volcanoes. If the volcano is still active then it's too risky. Even if the volcano is long dormant, it may be too far away from major population centers that the expense of stringing high voltage cable across the mountain isn't worthwhile compared to the power we can get out of them. There's also the occasional religio-cultural-political issue. There's a geothermal project in Bali that's permanently stalled because the locals objected that their sacred mountain is subjected to sacrilege by a bunch of people in Java who never even visited the site in question. (I suspect the Balinese could be mollified if proper Hindunese rites are observed and sacrifices to the gods made, but this is something the muslim-dominant Javanese can't accede.)

Hydropower has a similarly discouraging number, with only about a third of the potential deemed feasible. The rest runs into other issues, such as indigenous population (do we force them to relocate or respect their traditional land?), protected forests and animals (e.g., Tapanuli orangutan and Batang Toru hydropower dam), and I don't know what else. Heck, even if there's no unusual problem, if there are already a lot of people living along the river, the cost of buying up their land and relocating them can push the hydropower project beyond economic feasibility. The moment people here there's a government project that requires their land they will jack up their land price sky high. And if the government uses eminent domain, well, time to scream "Tyranny!" and there is always scores of opposition politicians willing to capitalize on that.

In regards to geothermal energy one thing that is actively being looked at is supercritical fluids. These are much deeper wells (as much as 10+ km in depth) that aim to capture temperatures in excess of 374 degrees Celsius and much higher pressure that turns the water supercritical allowing up to 10 times more energy for the same amount of liquid compared to normal geothermal wells.

As for offshore wind according to the global wind Atlas even offshore there isn't a massive amount of potential for wind at least efficient wind. With 5m/s wind speed or more being the ideal speed to my knowledge for the most part that leaves the Java sea for 5m/s + wind speeds and in the Indian Ocean along the southern end of Sumatra and northern end of Java.

Also remains a technical capability of 75,000Mw of hydropower according to hydropower.org for Indonesia.

Super deep boreholes, ocean thermal energy conversion, ocean current energy, wind energy kites, and other similar near-future tech are not considered seriously because, well, they aren't something that's ready now. For better or worse our government prefers something that's ready for deployment now. So super deep boreholes will require having someone going to the Energy Ministry and saying "we can bore several km down in this place, extract the geothermal energy there, and sell the power at this price. Oh, and we have the financing lined up too." And then we prevaricate for a decade before agreeing. But until this happens, the planning does not assume that super deep boreholes will be feasible.

Summary: Our planning doesn't assume we can get off fossil fuel anytime soon. We made commitments to go net-zero and we will try, but we will have to use carbon capture and off-sets to get there. There is just insufficient renewable energy resources that's actually practical (as opposed to theoretical). Even with nuclear energy I don't think Indonesia can go without fossil fuel by 2060. The gap between projected demand and the actually available resources is too big. But without nuclear energy the gap will be so much bigger than if we have some nuclear energy to mitigate it.

 

[ngatimozart]

Thanks @tonnyc I can understand the holy mountain concept. We have a similar concept in our Maori culture and they are very important to us. However WRT my own tribe what they call mountains I call hills because I was born and bred in the South Island and we have proper mountains down here. Not those little bumps in the ground in the north of the North Island that they call mountains. I don't mention that to my tribal relatives up north because they don't have a sense of humour about it. The ones down here do though.

 

[tonnyc]

I started a thread specifically covering Indonesia's Net Zero Emission 2060 scenario.

Obligatory tangentially related energy stuff.
Do you know we are trying to make gasoline from palm oil and have demonstrated it with a car and motorcycle? This isn't impossible. Both gasoline and palm oil are hydrocarbons and chemically you can turn a hydrocarbon into a different hydrocarbon if you are willing to spend a lot of energy doing it. And that's why it's economically not feasible.

But we are doing it because we want to reduce our oil imports while protecting our palm oil industry. Also, they figured out a catalyst that made the process merely expensive rather than ruinous. Still no idea if it will end up feasible economically, but apparently it's worth looking at.

 

[John Fedup]

I started a thread specifically covering Indonesia's Net Zero Emission 2060 scenario.

Obligatory tangentially related energy stuff.
Do you know we are trying to make gasoline from palm oil and have demonstrated it with a car and motorcycle? This isn't impossible. Both gasoline and palm oil are hydrocarbons and chemically you can turn a hydrocarbon into a different hydrocarbon if you are willing to spend a lot of energy doing it. And that's why it's economically not feasible.

But we are doing it because we want to reduce our oil imports while protecting our palm oil industry. Also, they figured out a catalyst that made the process merely expensive rather than ruinous. Still no idea if it will end up feasible economically, but apparently it's worth looking at.

I guess the case could be made that it is a renewable fuel since it is plant based. If the cost is somewhat higher it could be justified assuming vast areas of palm forests are not going to be clear cut.

 

[ASSAIL]

I guess the case could be made that it is a renewable fuel since it is plant based. If the cost is somewhat higher it could be justified assuming vast areas of palm forests are not going to be clear cut.

The problem with palm oil is the plantations.
Millions of acres of jungle habitat have already been cleared in SE Asia/PNG to plant Oil Palms and the environmental damage caused by a huge increase in plantings will be as bad, if not worse for the environment/climate.
Palm oil is not a solution.

 

[cdxbow]

I've recently seen 2 ideas in the energy domain that seem absolutely brilliant. There are a number of problems with pumped hydro, of which energy needs, space requirements and access to water are the most critical. In Oz we have dirt cheap daytime solar so the energy side is taken care of and even space is available (after difficult environmental consideration). Water is the big problem in Oz. This article describes sea based pumped hydro Underwater Tanks Turn Energy Storage Upside-Down It elegantly resolves both the space and water requirements.

The second involves Twiggy Forest's Fortescue Future Industries, which is trialling the direct solar conversion of water to H2 after purchasing shares in Sparc Technologies, a company that's been working to commercialise a new ‘photocatalyst’ technology - see Fortescue buys into Australian low cost hydrogen technology that only needs sunlight and water | RenewEconomy The headline should really read 'only needs sunlight, water and catalyst'.

 

[Ananda]

Millions of acres of jungle habitat have already been cleared in SE Asia/PNG to plant Oil Palms and the environmental damage caused by a huge increase in plantings will be as bad, if not worse for the environment/climate.

Most of land clearing that've been done for Palm Oil (at least in Indonesia), actually already been done not by Palm Plantations, however already done by logging companies decades before.

Those lands being cleared by logging companies are destined for various monoculture plantations. Whether for Pulp (usually in Indonesia using Acacia), Palm Oil, Rubber, or Industrial logging plantations.

What is Palm Oil? Facts About the Palm Oil Industry

As palm oil plantations spread rapidly, deforestation impacts wildlife habitats and human communities. The sustainable production and harvesting of palm oil is imperative.

www.worldwildlife.org

Palm Oil is the most productive sources of vegetables oil. In South America they are clearing forest for Soy Bean plantations. It's much less vegetables oil per hectares compared to Palm Oil, that some of the South American soy beans plantations now thinking to replace them with Palm Oils.

What many environmentalist debating are off course comparing carbon foot print from Virgin Tropical forest compared to Monoculture Plantations. The numbers varied, but seems in average saying Palm Oil plantations for example absorb CO2 only at most half then Virgin Tropical forest per hectares area.

However expecting countries that have Tropical forest not to convert some of those forest toward other uses is off course impossible. Tropical forest located in developing countries, whether in Africa, South America or Asia. Some of them will be converted, either to mining, industrial complex, or plantations. That's part of development and population expansion.

Back toward energy sources, vegetables oils are part of main substance for Bio Fuels. The choice is to use fossil fuels or replace some of it with Bio Fuels. Thus to expect the most productive sources of vegetables oil not to play into Bio Fuel games is also impossible and raise question this campaign against Palm Oil already become negative campaign from other vegetables oil producers, from Corn, Soy Bean, Canola, etc, which knows well their products can not compete with Palm Oil in the level of Productivity thus in the end prices.

If we go for Solar power as example, then there will be land clearing needed to be done also for Solar Farm. For carbon footprint it's much better clearing land for Monoculture Plantations then Solar Power farm. To gain electricity for EV revolution that many environmentalist champions, you need more nickel and raw earth minings, thus some land clearing will happen.

In short if we want to be fair toward Vegetables Oils global demand, then all other vegetables sources oils Plantations should be changed toward the most productive ones, which's Palm Oils. That's off course will not be supported by the develop nations where the industry located. So why Palm Oil need to be sacrifice ?

Humanity will still need energy. If they can't get it from Fossil fuels, then some other sources need to be gained including bio fuels. Like it or not Palm Oil Plantations provide better carbon footprint then minings or clearing lands for Solar Farm.

 

[tonnyc]

The problem with palm oil is the plantations.
Millions of acres of jungle habitat have already been cleared in SE Asia/PNG to plant Oil Palms and the environmental damage caused by a huge increase in plantings will be as bad, if not worse for the environment/climate.
Palm oil is not a solution.

It is a solution to fuel imports. Look, setting aside what Ananda said, Indonesia has this psychological need to eliminate our fuel imports. Every year or whenever the oil price goes up the newspapers will publish the fact that we import twenty million tonnes of fuel every year and we would collectively gasp in horror. Then we ask each other how the hell did this happen and complain to each other that this is causing the fuel price to go up and the government ought to do something about it. Even when the price is low we'll do this collective gasp when Pertamina or Bureau of Statistics publishes their reports.

Successive Indonesian governments have in their way tried to reduce this fuel import. In the past it's by encouraging exploration in the hope of finding new reserves. After that, there's the substitution drive with natural gas. And now palm oil.

 

[swerve]

Covering roofs (including of such things as car ports) with solar panels can provide a very useful contribution to domestic usage, but will need storage to maximise usefulness. People don't need lights when the sun's shining.

Indonesia should have great geothermal potential. Is it being used at all? And has anyone tried to quantify it? It's not an answer to all needs of course, but it could help.

Anaerobic fermenters can provide some biogas while simultaneously reducing pollution, & the waste from them is good & safe (as long as not contaminated with heavy metals & the like) fertiliser. A modest contribution, but serves more than one purpose, & usable worldwide.

 

[Ananda]

Indonesia's Energy Transition Toward Carbon Neutrality

This was sparked by recent discussion on Future Energy Pathways starting on post #37 about nuclear energy in Indonesia. I've been saying for years that Indonesia needs nuclear energy because there isn't enough renewable energy resources in Indonesia to provide for the 300-320 million people...

www.defencetalk.com

@swerve, tonnyc already put the calculation on Indonesia Geothermal potential, on that thread. Yes in paper it's calculated 37GW. However in my opinion it has two problem:
1. Geothermal is expensive to extract,
2. Even if all potential can be achieved, it will not going to cover the loss power generation from Fossil fuels.

That's the problem on getting rid of Coal and Oil (frankly speaking I don't see the world can get rid of Gas). There's no other potential of Green energy to cover it all (with present tech) asside (in my opinion) Nuclear. Yes in paper there's solar, however talking on solar panel tech potential at this moment, well it's still a dream. I put it as dream as it need a lot off area to be covered to generate enough energy to compensate from the loss of fossil fuel.