A Comparision of the Merits of Nuclear and Geothermal Energy in Indonesia

A Comparision of the Merits of Nuclear and Geothermal Energy in Indonesia Phil Smith Managing Director Hoshin, Data Hoshin, Studio Hoshin Manchester, UK Consultant Director PT Multi-Interdana Jakarta, Indonesia would appear to be an ideal option for Indonesia’s diversification 265 geothermal fields have been surveyed; although some are not close enough to electricity grids to be economical (nearly half of the capacity is located in remote areas of Sumatra) There is a plan to develop 19% of the country’s most suitable capacity, so that nearly 6GW will be available; and then to increase this to 9.5GW by 2025 Abstract—This paper considers the relative merits of nuclear to geothermal power, largely from an economic perspective, but also with references to environmental, social and political issues Both nuclear and geothermal have the potential to produce large amounts of base electricity, necessitating well-developed grids Both have very low operation and maintenance costs But both have very high capital costs, and therefore interest rates have a major impact on their financial viability Pertamina, PLN and private sector investors have been identified for large scale development in Bali, Java, Sulawesi and Sumatra (Bali, and Java share a grid, which connects to the Sumatra grid) The Government and PLN will take a lead in other regions, where small scale development is planned [3] However, even these plans look unambitious when compared with the Philippines where 27% of total energy is derived from geothermal [4] The current feed-in tariffs appear to suggest that investing in either is now attractive, but that the tariffs are so high they are likely to increase the cost of electricity (as they are significantly higher than domestic supply and most industrial tariffs) Although over the long term Indonesia may need to invest in both nuclear and geothermal, to meet its increasing demand for electricity, the model suggests that Indonesia should first focus on its geothermal resources $12bn of investment is required to achieve the initial 6GW of geothermal generation, or $30bn for the full 9.5GW, of which it is anticipated that 70%-80% will come from the private sector The World Bank has pledged a $300mn loan, with the potential for more from its Clean Technology Fund Nevertheless, local opposition to nuclear probably means that geothermal will take precedence, for political rather than, economic reasons Long-term international investment in nuclear and geothermal will require the generous published feed-in tariffs to remain in force, as Indonesian public finances would be stretched to internally fund all of the necessary development For private investors, the tender process is currently that the Government, or Local Government (as it is now their responsibility), conduct a preliminary survey and initial exploration activities to define the field Private companies then conduct advanced exploration, a feasibility study, followed by exploitation and steam production activities The private company that conducts the advanced exploration is expected to then supply the electricity In the past, the company producing the steam and the company producing the electricity were different, creating commercial conflict and production co-ordination issues [5] However, recent legislation makes it mandatory for them to be the same company Nevertheless, the commercial reality is that exploration companies may not develop a field that others would wish to exploit, meaning that the exploration company and producer are not necessarily the same The remoteness and limited electricity network development in much of eastern Indonesia means that despite generous feed-in tariffs, development of large scale generation schemes will be limited to those initiated by Government, curtailing the community and economic development of some of Indonesia’s most deprived communities Keywords—Nuclear Energy, Geothermal Power; Indonesia; International Investors; Market Regulation I INTRODUCTION In 2012 the feed-in tariff for geothermal was increased to between $0.10 and $0.185 [6], depending on the voltage and location These both reflect the difficulty in developing large scale infrastructure in eastern Indonesia and its shortages of electricity, especially low cost non-diesel generated electricity The National Electricity Development Plan [1] forecasts that by 2027 electricity demand will be 813,000GWh, with increases of 7-9% per annum It also outlines plans for an additional 217GW of capacity; meaning that Indonesia needs to invest $4-$5bn per annum in generation plant and transmission infrastructure Indonesia must diversify its energy sources [2] to avoid the ecological impact of investment in coal fired power stations and to avoid a trade debt crisis from imported oil and gas A possible alternative to geothermal would be to develop nuclear energy Like geothermal it supplies base power, produces large quantities of electricity (far greater than the average geothermal field) and therefore requires high levels of capital investment Both really require well-developed grid systems and are ill-suited to small scale development, meaning Indonesia has the largest geothermal energy capacity in the world (around 38% of the global resource), and therefore, this 978-1-4673-5785-2/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE Visiting Scholar, VEPR Vietnam National University Hanoi, Vietnam phil@hoshin.co.uk 160 Quality in Research 2013 For geothermal the cost data is less contested (although the learning curve and economies of scale are still important); sources include: that Java, Sumatra and Bali are the most obvious areas for their development Indonesia began its nuclear activities in 1954 and had its first test reactor in 1965 It now has test reactors in Bandung, Pasar Jumat and Serpong south of Jakarta, and Yogyakarta [7] Indonesia also has a cadré of nuclear professionals and technicians and well developed programmes for training nuclear professionals [8] Although Permana [9] argues that these professionals may be poached by neighbouring countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam Potential sites for civilian reactors to generate electricity include:  Engineering and Consulting Firms Association, [14];  Geotherm Ex Inc., [15];  PT Castlerock Consulting, [16] [17];  Sanyal, [18];  Sanyal, et al [19];  SKM, [20];  Muria in Jawa Tengah;  Smith, [21]  Kramatwatu-Bojonegara in Banten; The main assumptions are analyzed in a spreadsheet model, these are:  Bangka in Bangka-Beitung;  Banjarmasin in Kalimantan Barat (largely in response to a proposal to develop a reactor in neighboring Sarawak, Malaysia) TABLE I Nuclear At this stage two 1,000MWe reactors are proposed for each site Of these, the least contentious and therefore, the most likely to be built, is Bangka, although the entire program has been thrown into some doubt following the disaster in Fukushima, Japan Feasibility studies will need to be finished on all sites, which are between and years before completion II COST ASSUMPTIONS USED IN SPREADSHEET MODEL ($MN.) MW Capital Costs Annual Operating Costs Decommissioning Costs Costs Low 1400e 2000e 1000e 1400e 2000e 1,000 1,400 2,000 4,000 5,600 8,000 29 40 57 40 56 80 52 73 104 400 560 800 Geothermal METHODOLOGY Costs Low MW In order to compare the relative economic merits I have constructed a discounted internal rate of return model, similar to those that international investors would use when considering investing in large capital projects For the model, cost and revenue data has been taken from a variety of sources For nuclear these include: Capital Costs Annual Operating Costs Decommissioning Costs  Energy Fair, [10]; Costs High 1000e 20 Costs High 50 100 20 50 100 43 61 111 74 102 146 0.4 1.0 2.0 0.6 1.5 3.0 0 0 0 Nuclear overnight costs (or capital costs) are generally expressed in $/kWh (which is another source of cost variability as plants rarely run at full capacity), meaning that there is no apparent reduction for larger reactors This is because the effects of the learning curve are more important than economies of scale Although economies of scale exist; lacking evidence of what this discount should be, I have had to apply a standard rate  International Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, [11];  World Nuclear Association, [12] These have been used because they seem to be a little more independent than some sources The costs of nuclear production is a highly contentious area, vendors claim exceptionally low costs and the vociferous anti-lobby claim much higher lifetime costs, when all issues are considered The great variability in the costs identified in the various studies, is a part of the reason for this; with importance of the learning curve and economies of scale in nuclear energy developments Geothermal fields and plant have a lifespan of around 25 to 30 years that I have applied to the high cost (25 years) and low cost model (30 years) respectively Third plus generation nuclear plants are double these at 50 to 60 years As this is a discounted internal rate of return model I have included discount rates of 12.5% However, nuclear reactors often come with cheap or interest free loans from the vendor countries (as is the case for the Russia reactors proposed in Vietnam [22]) For income I have used the $0.10 and $0.185 per kWh, the current tariffs for geothermal, for both geothermal and nuclear development The First of Kind (FOAKE) costs of developing and building a reactor are always high and know for substantive cost overruns [13] In addition, early nuclear programs never run at anything like capacity with scheduling and transmission being constant problems for these programs Nevertheless, China and Korea are showing that, the large scale development of a single reactor technology can dramatically reduce the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) The low and high costs form the parameters for the model, along with low and high revenues I then look at average costs, which of course over-simplifies the myriad of permutations which exist in the real world The actual costs of developments 161 The model shows that for all sizes of power plant geothermal produce a greater return than nuclear (see line labeled Discounted IRR in Table III) In other words Indonesia should focus first on developing its geothermal resource before it’s nuclear Although over the long term it may need to invest in both (certainly in Java and Bali achieving a balance of sources is important in offsetting fluctuations in the relative costs of different generation technologies), but as much as possible, geothermal should be developed prior to nuclear will depend on many things, including the network availability and capacity, current energy mix and availability, the geography and geology of the site and the profile of the demand A detailed feasibility study is required to assess individual investments in either nuclear, or geothermal This paper only attempts to provide a comparison of these two technologies for the purpose of supporting Indonesia’s energy policy and decision making within the context of the policy III RESULTS The average cost model (in Table III) also makes clearer the likely attitude of international investors It would appear to suggest that investors may be interested in building nuclear and geothermal plants in return for future revenues; although this may not really help to solve the electricity shortages in eastern Indonesia, where geothermal fields tend to be much smaller [23], offering lower returns (see line labeled Discounted IRR in Table III), populations are dispersed and grids are less developed Given the $/kWh standard costs for nuclear; it is difficult to directly compare costs and returns to geothermal plants of differing capacity However, all permutations make a profit and therefore have a positive rate of internal return (see line labeled Discounted IRR in Table II) As this is a discounted model, the cost of capital has already been factored in, so any positive return represents a real profit Nevertheless, my model suggests that geothermal appears to produce a higher rate of internal return than nuclear Although of course, in some actual situations, a detailed feasibility may contradict this finding TABLE II Costs Low/Revenue High 1000e 2000e 20 50 100 5,000 58 81 128 Interest 22,400 31,360 44,800 229 319 503 Operations and Maintenance Decommissio -ning Total Costs 1,860 2,604 3,720 14 34 68 226 316 452 0 24,486 34,280 48,972 243 353 571 Revenue 56,655 79,317 113,311 571 1,428 2,955 Discounted IRR 2.27 2.27 2.27 4.84 10.88 14.91 1000e 1400e 2000e 4,000 5,600 8,000 Interest 8,250 11,550 16,500 28,000 39,200 56,000 Operations and Maintenance Decommissio -ning Total Costs 1,720 2,408 3,440 2,000 2,800 4,000 52 73 104 400 560 800 10,022 14,031 20,044 30,400 42,560 60,800 Revenue 82,651 115,711 165,301 30,660 42,924 61,320 Discounted IRR 12.08 12.08 12.08 0.02 0.02 0.02 50 2000e 3,500 2,000 20 1400e 2,500 1,400 MW 1000e Geothermal Capital 1,000 Costs Low/Revenue High MW Nuclear Costs High/Revenue Low Capital Geothermal 1400e MODEL COSTS, REVENUE AND INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN ($MN.) Average Costs and Revenue MODEL COSTS, REVENUE AND INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN ($MN.) Nuclear MW TABLE III IV The model results show that both nuclear and geothermal have the potential to produce large amounts of base electricity Both have very low operation and maintenance costs, largely because neither consumes large quantities of fuel (unlike for example coal, oil and gas fired power stations) Nevertheless, both have very high capital costs, and therefore the cost of capital, or appropriate discount rate, has a major impact on their financial viability Costs High/Revenue Low 100 20 50 100 Capital 43 61 111 74 102 146 Interest 188 266 485 278 383 548 Operations and Maintenance Decommissio -ning Total Costs 12 30 60 15 38 75 0 0 0 200 296 545 293 420 623 Revenue 788 1,969 3,938 355 887 1,971 Discounted IRR 9.82 18.82 20.75 0.85 4.45 8.67 DISCUSSION Prices for uranium are forecast to increase due to limited supply and increasing demand, however, Indonesia’s own resources are sufficient to supply all of its needs [24] Even if it does need to import uranium and costs rise drastically, nuclear plants use so little that this would hardly place an impact on overall costs The issue of energy security is probably more significant, which includes which countries’ technology Indonesia will use and therefore which country it will be dependent on This is true to a lesser extent for geothermal, with drilling and exploration being quite specialized and normally conducted by international oil and gas companies Table II shows great variability in potential costs and revenues; therefore, we cannot be clear about much, in such a broad and simplified model What is perhaps more important is the average costs and average revenue model in Table III 162 Within Indonesia there is a very vocal anti-nuclear lobby; which has not only protested against nuclear power, but also called for a resistance movement For example, Nahdlatul Ulama declared a fatwa on nuclear power which they have found to be haram (Hindu groups in Bali have a similar objection to geothermal)! Undoubtedly, the powerful coal industry will support and possibly promote such dissent Whilst this opposition may not derail Indonesia’s nuclear program, it will certainly lead to further delays and favor geothermal development It could be argued that the most important economic consideration is that of the financial risk and who mitigates them? The massive variations in the internal rates of return between the low cost/high return and high costs/low return models point to the high level of risk of any endeavor for either the Indonesian Government, or international investors, in developing either nuclear, or geothermal, in Indonesia There are a number of geological and technical factors which feed into this, but the model shows that discount rate (or capital cost) is the most important element of this (see line labeled interest in Tables II and III) It could be argued that, there are too many uncertainties to reliably construct a comparison of nuclear to geothermal Nevertheless, a simple comparison of the issues that I have identified (see Table IV) would appear to suggest that geothermal should be developed prior to the nuclear program So whilst both are relatively cheap, my model suggests that geothermal is cheaper than nuclear, hence I have rated geothermal ‘++’ and nuclear slightly less positively is rated at ‘+’ It is a similar position for energy security, with nuclear relying on overseas vendor technology and comes with greater financial risk, reflecting the greater uncertainties that come with it In part, these uncertainties are due to the unknown decommissioning technologies and costs for nuclear (proving an assessment of ‘-’) Neither nuclear, nor geothermal have a major environmental impact, although by their nature occupy a lot of land, often in environmentally sensitive areas Perhaps, the most significant obstacle to nuclear is the antinuclear lobby in Indonesia, meaning that further geothermal development will occur long before any nuclear development Chevron already has a program of geothermal development in Indonesia and Tata have expressed interest; this proves that international investors are prepared to invest in geothermal exploration and production For nuclear, it is normal for the host country to bear a much higher proportion of the risk involved Indeed, Indonesia, in common with many countries, wants to retain some control over its nuclear program The escalating costs of nuclear mean that, even with access to cheap capital, Indonesia would be taking on a major financial risk, potentially impacting on future economic stability Indeed a consortium of the German companies (E.ON and RWE) have recently pulled out of building three reactors in the UK [25], following escalating costs [26] A major uncertainty for nuclear, is the cost of decommissioning [27] In my model I have assumed fairly high costs for decommissioning (see line labeled decommissioning in Tables I, II and III), notwithstanding the fact that there still is no adequate technical solution for disposal of high level radioactive waste It is likely that the countries supplying the technology will bear some of this risk, but it remains a major area of uncertainty [28] For geothermal whilst there are some decommissioning costs, these are normally less than the scrap value of the plant TABLE IV COMPARISON OF NUCLEAR TO GEOTHERMAL Nuclear Cost per kWh Energy Security Reduced Financial Risk to Indonesia Decommissioning and Safety Environmental Impact Internal Opposition There is the contested issue of safety, particularly in area with high seismic activity, which the recent disaster at Fukushima, in Japan, highlights However, nuclear power has a strong safety record compared with many industries [29] In addition, the third plus generation reactors, that are likely to be built in Indonesia, incorporate a number of safety features Nevertheless, Alan Marshall [30], possibly xenophobically, casts doubt on Indonesia’s ability to manage and maintain such potentially dangerous technology (contrary to the opinion of the International Atomic Energy Agency) V + + + + - Geothermal ++ ++ ++ ++ + + CASE STUDIES Neighboring France and Germany provide an interesting comparison in terms of their overall energy policies and commitments to nuclear power Concerned about energy security France has a longstanding commitment to nuclear power, indeed, France generates over three-quarters of its electricity from 58 nuclear reactors [31] In addition, France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to the very low cost of generation (arising from the economies of scale and effects of the learning curve from investing in so many nuclear power plants) Whilst electricity is not as deregulated as in other EU countries, French consumers and industry enjoy comparatively low prices France also exports nuclear technology and fuel products Geothermal heating systems and heat pumps are widely used in France and there are three geothermal fields in operation in France’s overseas territories However, geothermal development for electricity production has really not been exploited in France; given the strong policy steer Both nuclear and geothermal energy are believed to have a small environmental impact (ignoring the issues of high grade radioactive waste), with their main environmental impact being in their construction and decommissioning For large nuclear reactors the environmental impact of their construction and the transport of materials for their construction are huge But then this is offset by the fact that nuclear reactors produce a large amount of clean electricity! Both nuclear and geothermal plants tend to be located in remote and often environmentally sensitive locations, requiring full AMDALs as a part of their feasibility stage Again their construction and decommissioning is the main issue here, particularly in terms of disturbing the habitat of endangered plants and animals 163 argued [33] that providing electricity to the remote areas of eastern Indonesia would provide a significant boost to community and economic development towards nuclear and only recently have exploration licenses been granted to exploit its significant potential Germany is home to a significant green lobby including a number of Alliance 90/Green Party politicians Public sentiment was severely tested by the Fukushima disaster, resulting in a commitment to close all of Germany’s nuclear power plants by 2020 Currently four-fifths of Germany’s electricity comes from fossil fuels and nuclear, the Federal Government plans that within 40 years four-fifths will come from renewables [32] Geothermal is being actively promoted within these renewables, but is currently very under-developed Electricity prices are rising sharply to underpin this investment in new generation and transmission systems (smart grids) and consumption per capita is forecast to decline The Federal Government believes that this will put Germany at the forefront of renewable technology, opening opportunities in major export markets and offsetting the decline of high energy consuming industries, such as chemicals In addition, by reducing the reliance on imported fossil fuels, Germany will achieve greater energy security REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Despite very different strategies, both France and Germany show a high level of concern for energy security and are using energy policy to support industrial policy As Indonesia matures, it will also need to consider energy much more strategically; with decisions over nuclear and geothermal taken on more than just cost VI [6] [7] [8] [9] CONCLUSION International investment in nuclear and geothermal will require the generous published feed-in tariffs to remain in place, which almost certainly means increasing the price of electricity [10] [11] The main vendors that are likely to be considered for nuclear include those from Russia, Japan and Korea Other potential vendor countries include the US and France, both of which are likely to charge far more for their technology than Russia, or Korea; although India may also enter the market with highly competitive reactors Over the long term the learning curve and economies of scale would suggest that Indonesia should choose a particular reactor technology and stick with it, but which should it be? [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] The major vendors of geothermal drilling and production facilities are in the US, Australia and Germany; although Tata, of India, is also actively exploring opportunities in Indonesia Whilst strong economies of scale exist, these are not really tied to the technology so it would be possible to use a number of vendors Nevertheless, the issue on choice of vendor country for both nuclear and geothermal is as much an issue of international politics as it is economic! But perhaps the greatest issue Indonesia faces is internal opposition to nuclear; therefore, it is more likely that internal politics will dominate investment decisions, more so than the relative merits of the various technologies available for base electricity generation [17] [18] [19] [20] Finally, despite the generous feed-in tariffs, especially for eastern Indonesia, it is unlikely the much development will occur for domestic consumption, other than those initiated by Government, as a result of the difficulties and uncertainties identified This is an opportunity missed as I have previously [21] 164 Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, The national electricity general plan (RUKN) 2008 ––2027 Jakarta, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, 2008 International Energy Agency, Energy policy review of Indonesia Paris,International Energy Agency, 2008 Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, Master plan development of electricity 2010 -2014 Jakarta, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, 2009 de Wilde, A Accelerating geothermal development in Indonesia 2009 (http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/N/X/E/ NXEWSM4DTZVUQ6I91OC3058JP2KBLF/Enclosure%203.pdf? t=bEZ8bHg4YWU2fDBEAx4pApO6FmeANLHG44qX (accessed 3/1/12) de Wilde, A Accelerating geothermal development in Indonesia 2009 (http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/N/X/E/ NXEWSM4DTZVUQ6I91OC3058JP2KBLF/Enclosure%203.pdf? t=bEZ8bHg4YWU2fDBEAx4pApO6FmeANLHG44qX (accessed 3/1/12) Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resource, Regulation of the No 22 of 2012 (Reg 22/2012), Jakarta, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resource, 2112 International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), Country report: Indonesia Vienna, IAEA, 2011 International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), Country report: Indonesia Vienna, IAEA, 2011 Permana, S Research and development of nuclear science and technology in preparing the nuclear industry in Indonesia Journal of Sustainable Energy and Environment, vol 3, 2012, pp 67-72 Energy Fair, The financial risks of investing in new nuclear power plants, Anglesey, UK, Energy Fair, 2012 International Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, projected costs of generating electricity Paris, OECD, 2010 World Nuclear Association, The new economics of nuclear power, London, World Nuclear Association, 2005 Energy Fair, The financial risks of investing in new nuclear power plants, Anglesey, UK, Energy Fair, 2012 Engineering and Consulting Firms Association, Pre-feasibility study for geothermal power development projects in scattered islands of east Indonesia Tokyo, Engineering and Consulting Firms Association, 2008 GeothermEx, Inc An assessment of geothermal resource risks in Indonesia Richmond, CA, GeothermEx, Inc., 2010 PT Castlerock Consulting, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources Phase report: review and analysis of prevailing geothermal policies, regulations and costs Jakarta, PT Castlerock Consulting, 2010 PT Castlerock Consulting, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources Phase Report: The new geothermal policy framework (draft) Jakarta, PT Castlerock Consulting, 2011 Sanyal, S Cost of geothermal power and factors that affect it Stanford University, Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, 2004 Sanyal, S., Morrow, J., Butler, J and Robertson-Tait, A Cost of electricity from enhanced geothermal systems, Stanford University, Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir, 2007 SKM, Assessment of the current costs of geothermal power generation in New Zealand (2007 basis) Auckland, Sinclair Knight Merz, 2009 Smith, P The Potential for investment in Indonesia's geothermal resource, International Journal of Engineering and Technology April 3, 2012 [28] Marshall, A The case against nuclear power development in Indonesia Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, vol 5, issue 1, 2012, pp 1-5 [29] Asia Pacific Energy Research Centre, Nuclear power generation in the APEC region Tokyo, Asia Pacific Energy Research Centre, 2004 [30] Marshall, A The case against nuclear power development in Indonesia, Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, vol 5, issue 1, 2012, pp 1-5 [31] International Energy Agency, Energy policy of IEA countries: France Paris, International Energy Agency, 2009 [32] Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, Germany’s new energy policy: heading towards 2050 with secure, affordable and environmentally sound energy, Berlin, Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, 2012 [33] Smith, P Sustainable development options for Papua? International Journal of Technology, vol 2, issue 2, 2011, pp 171-178 [22] Smith, P Renewable energy options for Vietnam: an economic and social appraisal, Proceedings of the Forth International Conference on Vietnamese Studies, 26-28, November Hanoi, Vietnam Academy of Social Science, 2012 [23] Engineering and Consulting Firms Association, Pre-feasibility study for geothermal power development projects in scattered islands of east Indonesia Tokyo, Engineering and Consulting Firms Association, 2008 [24] Permana, S Research and development of nuclear science and technology in preparing the nuclear industry in Indonesia Journal of Sustainable Energy and Environment, vol 3, 2012, pp 67-72 [25] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17546420 (accessed 29/3/12) [26] Energy Fair, The financial risks of investing in new nuclear power plants, Anglesey, UK, Energy Fair, 2012 [27] Nuttall, W and Roques, F Certain aspects of the sustainability of nuclear power CESSA Working Paper University of Cambridge, 2008 165 ... Kramatwatu-Bojonegara in Banten; The main assumptions are analyzed in a spreadsheet model, these are:  Bangka in Bangka-Beitung;  Banjarmasin in Kalimantan Barat (largely in response to a proposal... Yogyakarta [7] Indonesia also has a cadré of nuclear professionals and technicians and well developed programmes for training nuclear professionals [8] Although Permana [9] argues that these professionals... AMDALs as a part of their feasibility stage Again their construction and decommissioning is the main issue here, particularly in terms of disturbing the habitat of endangered plants and animals