Panel Discussion

On
The Role of Nuclear Electric Power and Public Acceptance
Organized during the Seminar on The Prospects of Nuclear Electric Power in
Indonesia, Jakarta 22 February 2007, by BATAN, JETRO and KADIN
Statement by
Budi Sudarsono
Chairman of Masyarakat Peduli Energi dan Lingkungan
(Energy and Environment Awareness Society)
The introduction of nuclear power in developing countries faces two major obstacles,
namely financing and public acceptance. Financing, because the capital costs of nuclear
power plants are significantly higher than fossil power plants: on a per kilowatt basis
about twice the capital costs of coal-fired power plants and three times the capital costs of
natural gas combined-cycle plants. It is said that capital is scarce in developing countries
and therefore should be used wisely. Public acceptance is necessary, since otherwise
delays caused by protests and demonstrations could easily inflate capital costs due to
possible increases in interest charges and therefore such protests and demonstrations
should be avoided.
In the case of Indonesia, other prerequisites for the introduction of nuclear power into the
Jawa-Madura-Bali system have been met or, even if only partially met could be met
without too much difficulty. The Jamali system installed capacity is nearly 20,000 MW
with an evening peak load of about 15,000 MW. Thus a nuclear unit of 1000 MW can
easily be accommodated within the system even now. A core of experienced engineers
and scientists is already available within PLN and BATAN to undertake the project, not
to mention other experienced personnel in state enterprises and private companies with
the requisite qualifications in the power industry. The demand for power is evident from
PLNs experience in increasing its sales at more than 6 percent per annum. The
constraints in the availability of energy sources is being felt.
The present statement will focus on the role of non-government organizations (NGOs) in
the promotion of nuclear power and in obtaining the public acceptance for the nuclear
power programme. Clearly NGOs have a big responsibility in providing objective
information to the public. If the information is not objective then it becomes public
disinformation and could lead to public deception.
Controversies of public information on nuclear power concerns the following topics.
Safety of nuclear power plant operations.
In the past there have been two notable events involving commercially operated nuclear
power plants: the Three Mile Island II incident in 1979, and the Chernobyl-IV accident in
1986. Both events, traumatic as they were at the time, have been blown up out of
proportion in the past. It is now nearly 21 years after Chernobyl, and perhaps the general
public has largely fogotten. But the true scale needs to be borne in mind. There are at
present 443 nuclear power plants in 31 countries, all providing reliable supply of
electricity safely and cheaply.

Nuclear power economics.

Nuclear generating costs are regarded by many as higher than fossil generation costs.
According to the World Nuclear Association, this is definitely not anymore the case since
December 2005. Prior to that, fossil generation costs are lower in cases where cheap fuel
is available.
Energy prices have never been stable. The international oil price increased two to three
times in 1973-1974, then again in 1979-1980; then it plunged from $30/bbl to $12/bbl in
February 1986. But at present it remains at a high $56-58/bbl, having gone above $70/bbl
recently. No one can say what it could be in 2010 or 2020, but the current belief is that it
would not go below $50/bbl, because of continuing global demand increase and the
perception that world resources may be depleting.
Waste disposal.
Nuclar waste is long-lived and no permanent means of waste disposal has been applied
commercially. However, this does not mean that mankind would face a future catastrophe
from the spread of nuclear waste. The existence of several prehistoric natural reactors at
Oklo in Gabon is sufficient proof that nuclear waste is and should be technologically
containable. True, only a few countries have definite plans for a repository. But the fact is
that nuclear waste disposal in a very long-term undertaking. Even the United States with
its 104 power reactors would operate its repository in 2015 or even later.
Thus NGOs have the obligation to provide the scientific explanations to the general
public about these and many other questions. It is no wonder that now that it is evident
that nuclear power should become part of the solution facing mankinds biggest
challenge, that of the impacts of global warming, such prominent greens as Patrick
Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace) and James Lovelock (see attachment) have become
pro-nuclear.

Timesonline
February 18, 2007

Go nuclear, save the planet

James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, says green opposition to
atomic power, as seen in the High Court last week, is crazy
What an incredible mistake Greenpeace made when it took the government to court in an
attempt to delay the building of new nuclear power stations. By so doing it increases the
burden of carbon dioxide (C02) the Earth has to bear; nuclear is the only large-scale
energy source that is emissions free.
Why dont we wake up and emulate the French, who make almost all their electricity
from nuclear energy? French trains are legendary, especially the TGV. One of these
bound for Marseilles was standing at the Gare de Lyon; it seemed like any other train
except that it was double decked. We climbed aboard and took our seats on the upper tier
and sat back as it travelled from Paris to Marseilles at 200mph.
No wonder the French are building an even faster train track from Paris to Germany. Best
of all, this form of intercity travel is the worlds only wholly carbon-free nonpolluting
way of travelling, because the trains are powered by nuclear electricity. Soon our cars and
trucks will be powered by batteries charged from the electricity supply. What a wonderful
way to avoid C02 emissions, but only if we make nuclear our source of electricity.
I am a green and I have been one for most of my life, but I am also a scientist and my
main contribution has been to show that the planet actively sustains its climate and
chemistry so as to keep itself habitable. We have disabled this wonderful capacity by
taking its natural forests for farmland and by burning fossil fuels.
Doing this has driven the Earth to a state profoundly dangerous to all of us and to our
civilisation. I am deeply concerned that public opinion and consequently the government
listen less to scientists than they do to the green lobbies. I know that these lobbies mean
well, but this time their good intentions are truly the road to a hell of a climate.
They understand people better than they do their world and recommend inappropriate
remedies and action. The outcome is as if the medieval plague had returned in deadly
form and we were earnestly advised to stop it with alternative not scientific medicine.
Now that we have made the planet sick, it will not be cured by green remedies such as
wind turbines and biofuels. This is why I recommend instead the appropriate medicine of
nuclear energy. After all, the whole universe runs on nuclear energy, so why not us?

Today humanity faces its greatest trial. The acceleration of the climate change now under
way will sweep aside the comfortable environment to which we have adapted. Change is
a normal part of geological history. The most recent was the move from the long period
of glaciation to the warmish interglacial period we presently enjoy.
What is unusual about the coming crisis is that we are the cause of it and nothing so
severe has happened since the long hot period at the start of the Eocene epoch 55m years
ago. The planet, when in an interglacial period as it is now, is trapped in a vicious cycle
of positive feedback, and this is what makes global heating so serious and so urgent.
Extra heat from any source, whether from greenhouse gases, the disappearance of Arctic
ice and the changing structure of the ocean, or the destruction of tropical forests, is
amplified.
It is almost as if we had lit a fire to keep warm and failed to notice, as we piled on fuel,
that the fire was out of control and the furniture had ignited. When that happens there is
little time left to put out the fire before it consumes the house itself. Global heating, like a
fire, is accelerating and there is almost no time left to act.
This year, perhaps more thanany other in the two decades since the first alarms were
sounded, marks a shock of recognition: global warming isnt conjecture, alarmism or
partisan overstatement, but rather a clear and very present danger.
I am old enough to notice a marked similarity between attitudes more than 60 years ago
towards the threat of war and those now towards the threat of global heating. Most of us
think that something unpleasant may soon happen, but we are as confused now as we
were in 1938 as to what form it will take and what to do about it.
The Kyoto agreement was uncannily like the Munich pact, with politicians out to show
their eagerness to respond while in reality merely playing for time. Because we are tribal
animals the tribe does not act in unison until a danger is perceived. This has not yet
happened. Consequently we individuals go our separate wayswhile the ineluctable forces
of the Earth marshal against us.
The prospects are grim and even if we act successfully in amelioration there will still be
hard times that will stretch us to the limit. We are tough and it would take more than
climatic catastrophe to eliminate all breeding pairs of humans. What is at risk is
civilisation.
There is a small chance that the sceptics are right, or that we might be saved by an
unexpected event such as a series of volcanic eruptions severe enough to block out
sunlight and so cool the planet. But only losers would bet their lives on such poor odds.
Whatever doubts there may be about future climates, there is no doubt that both
greenhouse gases and temperatures are rising.

Predictions of climate change do not depend only on theoretical models in the form of
computer simulations. There is now a vast array of monitoring activitiessustained
globally. Air and sea temperatures are continuously measured, as are the gases of the
atmosphere, the cloud cover, the floating ice, glaciers and the health of the ecosystems in
the ocean and on the land.
Satellites monitor the Earths ever changing scene. The more subtle instruments aboard
these spacecraft record temperatures at different levels in the atmosphere and the
concentrations of many different gases.
Another important source of information about the cause of climate change is the longterm geological record. We have learnt an immense amount about the history of the
climate and the composition of the atmosphere from the analysis of ice taken from the
depths of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.
In 2004 Jonathan Gregory and his colleagues at Reading University reported that if
global temperatures rise by more than 2.7C the Greenland glacier will no longer be
stable. It will melt and will continue melting until most of it has gone, even if the
temperatures subsequently fall below the threshold temperature.
Because temperature and C02 abundance appear to be closely correlated, the threshold
can be expressed in terms of either of these quantities. Scientists Richard Betts and Peter
Cox at the Met Offices Hadley Centre have concluded that a rise in global temperature of
4C would be enough to destabilise the tropical rainforests and cause them, like the
Greenland ice, to melt away and be replaced by scrub or desert. Once this happens the
Earth will lose another cooling mechanism and the rate of temperature rise will
accelerate.
The floating ice of the Arctic serves as a white reflector of the summer sunlight that falls
upon it and helps to keep the world cool. When that ice melts, as soon it may, the dark sea
that replaces it will absorb the suns heat and as it warms accelerate the melting of the
Greenland ice.
While we cannot go back to the world of 1800, when there were only 1 billion of us, we
may not be incapable of lessening the consequences of global heating. If there is a
threshold and if we pass it, the nations of the world could limit the damage by
stoppingand methane. The temperature rise would then be slower, as would the rise of sea
levels, and it would take longer to reach the final steady hot state than it would if we
continued business as usual. Even so, enormous damage would still have been done.
I am not recommending nuclear fission as the long-term panacea for our ailing planet or
as the answer to all our problems. I merely see it as the only effective medicine we have
now. But we will have to do much more than turn to nuclear energy if we are to avoid a
new Dark Age later in this century. We must follow the good green advice to save energy
and we must all do this whenever we can, but I suspect that, like losing weight, this is
easier said than done.

We have to take global change seriously straightaway and do our best to lessen the
footprint of humans on the planet. Our goal should be the cessation of fossil-fuel
consumption as quickly as possible and there must be no more natural-habitat destruction
anywhere.
When I use the term natural I am not thinking only of primeval forests. I also include
the forests that have grown back after farmland has been abandoned. These reestablished
forests probably perform their services as well as the original forests did, but the vast
open stretches of monoculture farmland are no substitute for natural ecosystems.
We are already farming more than the Earth can afford and if we attempt to farm the
whole planet to feed people it will make us like sailors who burn the timbers of their ship
to keep warm. The natural ecosystems are not there for us to take as farmland; they are
there to sustain the climate and the chemistry of the planet itself.
Astronauts who have had the chance to look at our world from space have seen what a
beautiful planet it is. I ask that we put aside our fears and our obsession with personal and
tribal rights, and be brave enough to see that the real threat comes from the harm we
ourselves do to the living Earth.
The Revenge of Gaia, by James Lovelock, is out in paperback this week. Penguin, 8.99

CURRICULUM VITAE
Name

: Budi Santoso Sudarsono

Place of birth : Jakarta

Date of birth : 5 July 1936
Citizenship

: Indonesian

Mailing address: Jalan Leuser I No. 61

Kebayoran Baru
Jakarta 12120
Indonesia
Education

: 1. Mechanical Sciences Tripos Part I,

University of Cambridge, 1955-1958,
B.A.(1958), M.A.(1962).
2. Nuclear Engineering, M.I.T., 1959-1961,
S.M.(1961).
Experience : Since April 1961 worked with Lembaga
Tenaga Atom (Institute for Atomic Energy), which in
1965 became Badan Tenaga Atom Nasional (National
Atomic Energy Agency) or BATAN.
Served BATAN as Assistant Director General for General
Affairs (1964-1966), Secretary (1967-1972) and as
Deputy Director General (1969-74 and 1986- 88). Also
served as Chairman, Preparatory
Commission for
Nuclear Power Construction, 1972-1977 and 1979-82), a
joint commission set up by BATAN and PLN (State
Electricity
Corporation) and as Member for BATAN,
Technical Committee on Energy Resources, Ministry of
Research, 1976-1978 and Ministry of Mining and Energy,
1979-88. 1981-1986 held the position of head of newly
established regulatory bureau, at the time within BATAN
(Bureau for the Control of Radioactive Substances and
Radiation).
UN Positions : (1) Chief, Energy Resources Section,
Natural Resources Division (from 1994 renamed
Environment and Natural Resources Management

Division), Economic and Social Commission for Asia and

the Pacific (ESCAP), United Nations (16 December 1988
to 31 October 1996);
(2) Secretary of the Commission, Office of the Executive
Secretary, ESCAP (1 November 1996 to 31 July 1997);
(3) Regional Adviser on Energy, Environment and Natural
Resources Management Division (from 1998 renamed
Environment and Natural Resources Development
Division), ESCAP (1 September 1997 to 31 August 1998).
Last Position:

Principal Research Scientist at the Nuclear Energy

Development Centre, National Nuclear Energy Agency
(Badan Tenaga Nuklir Nasional), 1 September 1998 to 31
July 2001.

Affiliations:

Senior Member, Indonesian National Committee, World

Energy Council
Chairman, Masyarakat Peduli Energi dan Lingkungan
(Energy and Environment Awareness Society)